FRONTIER , 1788--1803

By

RANDOLPH CHANDLER DOWNES, Ph. D. Assistant Professor of History, University of Pittsburgh; Research Associate of Western Pennsylvania Historical Survey.

Published by

THE OHIO STATE ARCHJEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Columbus, Ohio, 19 3 5 Copyright, 19 3; The Ohio State Archaelogical and Historical Society

PRINTED IN THE OF AMERICA BY THE BROWN PUBLISHING COMPANY BLANCHESTER, OHIO OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS Volume III No.I

,n

JV Other titles in this series: Vol. I. Party Politics in Ohio. 1840,1850. by Edgar Allan Holt, 1930. Vol. Il. Chase and Civil War Politics, by Donnal V. Smith, 1931. Vol. Ill. FTontier Ohio. 1788,1803. by Randolph Chandler Downes, 1935. Vol. N. Robert Hamilton Bishop. by James H. Rodabaugh (in preparation).

'To Marie McKitric'I{ Downes

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

In 1930, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Co-­ operation between the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society and the local historical societies and departments of history in the colleges and universities of the State, a series of publications called Ohio Historical Collections was established. The first volume in this series, Party Politics in Ohio, 1840,1850, by Edgar Allan Holt, was published in 19 31, and the second volume, Chase and Civil War Politics, by Donnal V. Smith, appeared the same year. Due to decreased appropriations it has been impossible, until recently, to issue other volumes, although the material was available and had been accepted by the Editorial Committee. In 1934 the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society authorized the discontinuance of the series known as the Publications and approved a policy of issuing the more lengthy and monographic contributions in the Collection series. This makes possible at once the renewing of this series and Dr. Randolph Chandler Downes" Frontier Ohio, 1788,1803 has been accepted by the Editorial Committee as the third volume. The material presented in Chapters II,VIII of this volume was originally prepared as a doctoral dissertation for the Department of History of the Ohio State Univer, sity, but since has been revised and rewritten by Dr. Downes for this senes. Dr. Downes is a member of the research staff of the Western Pennsylvania Historical Survey and has had unusual opportunities for studying the period covered by this volume. The Editorial Com, mittee supervising this series consists of Professor Carl Wittke, Ohio State University, Professor William T. Utter, Denison University, and the Secretary of the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society.

February 1, 1935'. HARLOW LINDLEY, Secretary.

IX

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface ...... XIII Chapter I The Conquest, 1788--1795 ...... 3 II The People of Frontier Ohio ...... 55 III The Problems of Trade ...... 101 IV The Reign of Winthrop Sargent ...... 127 V Political Reform ...... 14 7 VI The Statehood Contest- Phase ...... 177 VII The Statehood Contest-Chillicothe Phase ...... 201 VIII The Making of the State ...... 226 Bibliography ...... 253 Index ...... 269

:XI MAPS

Map No. Page I Principal Settlements in Frontier Ohio to 1803 ...... IV

Ia The Scene of the Indian Wars, 1790, 1794...... 2

II The Pennsylvania,Virginia,Kentucky Frontier, 1763, 1800 .... 56

III The Symmes Disputes...... 66

IV Division Schemes ...... 16 5

V Voting Places in Hamilton County Elections of 1800 and 1802 ...... 244

m PREFACE

I have sought in these pages to draw upon the available sources dealing with the first fifteen years of the "domestic"" history of Ohio in the hope that a somewhat balanced description of the life of the commonwealth in that period may be presented. For this reason I have sought to avoid a purely political account by making the basis of my work an analysis of the agrarian, religious, and commercial institutions of these frontier people. I have not, however, been able to construct chapters on agriculture, domestic life and culture. Dr. Beverley W. Bond"s Civilization of the Old Northwest and the work in progress by Dr. Solon J. Buck on ~~The Planting of Civilization in Western Pennsylvania"" will help supply these deficiencies.

The central theme throughout is the frontier. All of the early institutions of Ohio were the product of frontier conditions. Its religious life was dominated by schism and the spread of the evangelical denominations. Its commercial life developed a depend, ence on the downstream trade that weakened its relation to the East. In their relation to the soil the people universally insisted on free or cheap lands because of the rigorous frontier conditions to which they were subjected. In their political life they built up a democracy that revealed every '\veakness of the Ordinance of 1787 as an instrument of frontier government. I wish to record my gratitude to my wife for the labor of love performed at every phase of the preparation of this work. Likewise, I feel especially indebted to Dr. Carl Wittke for his minute reading of the manuscript and for his numerous helpful criticisms. I wish, also, to express my thanks to the officials of the various libraries where I have worked-to the staff of the Manuscript Division at the Library of Congress; to Miss Alice Boardman of the Ohio State Library; to the late Charles B. Galbreath of the Ohio State Archaeo, logical and Historical Society, and to his successor, Dr. Harlow Lindley; to Miss Maude Jeffrey and her associates at the Ohio State University Library; to Dr. Wallace H. Cathcart and Miss Eliza S. xm XIV OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Pollack of Western Reserve Historical Society; to Miss Gracie B. Krum of Detroit Public Library; to the late Miss L. Belle Hamlin of the Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio; to Mr. George J. Blazier of Marietta College Library; to the late Georgia L. Os... borne of Illinois State Historical Library; and to Mr. Edwin Gholson of the Cincinnati Law Library Association. I wish that the late David Meade Massie of Chillicothe, grandson of Nathaniel Massie, might have known how helpful to me were his hospitality and encouragement in those days when I began to survey the sources of Ohio history. I feel especially grateful to Dr. Katherine E. Crane for helping me to discover the Indian point of view. I wish to acknowledge the help given me by Dr. Charles H. Ambler and Dr. Eugene H. Roseboom for their reading of the manuscript and their helpful suggestions. The minute and constructive work done on the manuscript by Clarence L. Weaver, editorial assistant of the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, has been immeas ... urably helpful. After this volume was in page proof I received advance copies of Clarence Edwin Carter (ed.), 'The 'Territorial Papers of the United States (Washington, 1934 ... ), Volumes J ... 111. Volumes II and III of this monumental work are the papers of the Northwest Ter., ritory. I have not, of course, used these two volumes in the prepara... tion of my work, although I have sought to find and use the sources that Dr. Carter has reproduced.

RANDOLPH CHANDLER DOWNES FRONTIER OHIO, 1788--1803 Cill fiP1:Wlf.

POTAWATOMI ~ LAttf E'fti E

l✓

.:r: .. , ... in,r... , No.I~ YINCIUIU Ma.r· ~ l{N011) T>td' Sc~n.e of Tkr :i:~Jie>..~ 'Wo..,-4 11so-1"19LI

-G-,~ehvil/; Trea.l'y Linet ,nll> l4 "J C •-ui•h 1't-ofD~i!d 8y Bre.-'1''1' in 11ft CHAPTER I THE CONQUEST, 1788--1795

1 The Treaty of :, 1789.

HE HISTORY of frontier Ohio during the years from 1788 to 1803 must be written against the lurid background of war. T The land that, in these years, was set aside for white settle, ment was acquired by direct conquest in the face of determined Indian opposition. From the Indian standpoint the surveys and settle, ments made on the Ohio, the Muskingum., the Scioto and the Great Miami before 1795 were the most flagrant trespasses and should be dealt with drastically if the white man would not listen to reason. Settlement did not really precede conquest in frontier Ohio. Chron, ologically, it is true, a few small settlements were made, but the fact of Indian possession and of Indian belief in their right of possession, preceded the making of these feeble establishments and almost accomplished their destruction. It must be made emphatically clear at the outset that the Indians in 1788 either actually used most of the lands that became the domain of the · State of Ohio, or else felt the need of using some parts thereof. Although by this year, the towns of the Delawares, Shawnee, and Mingo had been moved from what is now central and southern Ohio to the waters of the Sandusky and Maumee, the scenes of their annual winter hunts, according to one John Brickell, continued to be the upper Muskingum, Scioto, and Great Miami. Moreover the Delawares and Shawnee ·~.,rere beginning to contemplate the transfer of their towns back to these same river valleys. The Wyandot and Miami owners of northwestern Ohio felt crowded and the newcomers therefore began to discover that the f crests and cornfields to the south were beckoning them to return. On February 5, 179 3, the Stockbridge Indian, Captain Hendrick, reported to Colonel Timothy Pickering, ~~They [ the Delawares and Shawnee] are uneasy where they are. They are anxious to get back to the waters running into the Ohio. There the country is better 3 4 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS watered. There are hills bearing berries and nuts and supporting game. The heads of those waters afford the best hunting--grounds. The lands are also good for com. ""1 As for the proprietorship of these lands, there was not the slightest doubt in the Indians" minds as to their absolute right. The lands had been theirs from time immemorial. No conquest had ever wrested them from their grasp. During the Revolution they had successfully defended them against the Americans. No treaty, they claimed, had ever been honorably negotiated in which they consented to give up an inch of their forest domain. The cessions of lands at the treaties of Fort McIntosh and Fort Finney were not recognized as binding. This was the Indian contention in 1788 and continued to be such until 1795, when, deserted by their British friends, they gave it up at the . In 17 88 the Indians were in the process of preparing to uphold these contentions in a treaty with the United States. This was to be kno~,n as the . Taking this incident then as the point of departure, it is necessary, in order to make the Treaty intelligible, to review the developme_nt prior to 1788. The northwestern Indians had wanted a new treaty with the United States ever since the signing on January 21, 178 5 of the Treaty of Fort McIntosh, which in effect embodied the cessions of the Indian lands south of what may be called ~~the Greenville Treaty Line . .,., This latter document was held to be of no binding force by the tribes because it had not been endorsed by the grand confederacy of the Indians of the Northwest. This confederacy had been formed at the council of the Sandusky in September, 1783, under the auspices of Sir John Johnson, British Indian superintendent. Its purpose had been the direct opposite of what had later been ac, complished at Fort McIntosh. It was solemnly agreed that the should be forever the boundary between the red man and the white. The agreement had been given strength by the encourage, ment of the British and the latter"s advice not to bury the tomahawk

lccNarrative of John Brickell's Captivity among the Delaware Indians," in Tiu A.mericcn Pion•n ( Chillicothe, 1842-41 ), II ( 1842 ), 46; Timothy Pickering MSS. ( in Massachusetts Historical Society). FRONTIER OHIO

but to lay it aside so that it could be used in the event of American aggressions.• 2 Hence when the Americans by the clever manipulation of the tribes produced a treaty of land cession at Fort McIntosh the Indians refused to recognize it. The Confederacy met in council at Detroit in December, 1786, and after solemnly renewing the union of 1783 in all its principles, demanded of the United States a treaty of recon, sideration. ""You kindled your council fires where you thought proper,', they said, referring to the American policy of divide and conquer at the treaties of Fort Stanwix, Fort McIntosh and Fort Finney, .. without consulting us, at which you held separate treaties, and have entirely neglected our plan of having a general conference with the different nations of the Confederacy.'' All treaties, they declared, should be with the general voice of the whole Confederacy and carried on in the most open manner, without any restraint on either side. We hold it indispensably necessary that any cession of our lands should be made in the most public manner, and by the united voice of the Confederacy holding all partial treaties as void and of no effect.3 There is no mistaking the Indian position and the fact that it was clearly set forth in their message to Congress. They were op, posed to the settlement of Ohio lands by white men. The Ohio River must be the perpetual boundary between the red men and the white. The United States was, of course, as firmly determined to settle the lands as the Indians were to oppose the settlement. After the Revolution the :financial exigencies of the Federal Government required the immediate sale of lands as part of the funding process by which the Federalists were seeking to stabilize the nation. They, therefore, proceeded on the assumption set down in the Ordinance of October 15, 17 8 3' that the Indians had forfeited all title to their lands by supporting the British cause in the Revolution. It was thus claimed to be an act of generosity for the United States to let the Indians keep any lands at all by permitting them to retain their lands west of the Great Miami and Maumee Rivers. Accordingly the Amer, icans at the Treaty of Fort McIntosh felt that they were showing

2Penmylvania Archives (Harrisburg, 1g;4 ), Ser. 1, Vol. X, s;4_ 3 A~rican State Paper.r (Washington, 1832-61 ), Indian Affairs, I, 8. "humals of the Continental Congress (Library of Congress edition), XXV, 684-693. 6 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS the greatest magnanimity because it allotted the Indians more land than did the Ordinance of 1783 in permitting the Wyandot and Delawares to have lands as far east as the Cuyahoga River. And after Fort McIntosh what objections could there possibly be to the establishment of Fort Harmar and the immediate execution of the survey of the newly ceded territory? The establishment of the authority of the United States in the Ohio country after January 21, 178 5, was slow but irresistible. First there came the construction, in the summer of 1785 by Major John Doughty, of Fort Harmar at the mouth of the Muskingum. This was done for the double purpose of dispersing the squatters and of pro, vi ding a base for the support and protection of the surveyors under Thomas Hutchins who began their work late in September, 1785. Despite opposition from the Indians, the surveys continued through, out the years 1786 and 1787 until seven ranges in all were ready for market. The year 1787, of course, brought the circumstances that resulted in the establishment of formal government in the coun, try by the creation of the Northwest Territory. There followed the sales of land to the Ohio Company and to the Symmes Associates whose efforts to realize on their investments led to the settlement in 1788 of Marietta and Columbia. Thus by January, 1789, the time of the Treaty of Fort Harmar, American occupation of the lands in question v.ras an accomplished fact. Either the surveyors, specu, lators and settlers must give up their claims or the Indians must relinquish their insistence upon the Ohio River boundary. The Indian Confederacy had no intention of relinquishing any, thing. Unfortunately, however, the Indian efforts to preserve a united front were nullified by dissensions that made impossible an effective representation at the Treaty of Fort Harmar. The first rift in Indian union appeared among the Wyandot and Delawares, the Hvictims,., of the cession of Fort McIntosh. Not that these two tribes quarrelled voluntarily with their colleagues; far from it. As the Wyandot, Half King, speaking in behalf of his nation, expressed it to the Surveyor,General"s messenger, Jacob Springer, in September, 1786, ~~I am now just between two fires, for I am afraid of you, and likewise of the back nations ..,., These two tribes had thus FRONTIER OHIO 7 lent their involuntary support to the negotiation of the Treaty of Fort Finney in February, 1786. They had passively permitted the uninterrupted carrying out of Hutchins, surveys, and refused in the council of the Confederacy at Detroit in December, 1786, to resist the Americans if war resulted. They had also repeatedly promised to agree to the validity of the Treaty of Fort McIntosh in spite of the Confederacis stand that the tribes present were merely agents of the united Indians.5 It is probable that the secret of the Delaware and Wyandot vacillation is to be found in the fact that they were border nations and would in the event of a general Indian war, be the first to have their territory invaded and their towns destroyed. Another rift in Indian unity appeared early in 1788 among the Iroquois. The great Mohawk leader, Captain Joseph Brant, was the most active Indian agitator for the preservation of the Confederacy. He found difficulty, however, in bringing over the strongest members of his own Confederacy, that is, the Seneca who were under the leadership of his rival, Cornplanter. Like the Delawares and Wyandot, the Seneca, especially that part living on the upper Allegheny, were a border nation, and thus subject to quick devastation in the event of war. Hence during the years 1786 and 1787 Cornplanter had made determined efforts to get the United States to make such guarantees a? would insure amicable relations with his people. He was successful in getting the promise of the retention of the Seneca hunting,ground, and of the carrying out of measures by Congress for the promotion of trade and for the introduction of white civiliza, tion. The establishment of continental Fort Franklin at the forks of the Allegheny and French Creek in April, 1787, seemed to the Seneca to be tangible evidence of the power and sincerity of their new friends. Hence when Brant at the council of Canadesaga in the spring of 1788 sought to bring the Iroquois league to the sup, port of the Confederacy preparatory to the Treaty of Fort Harmar, he failed utterly and the council broke up in a quarrel.•

5Josi~h Harmar MSS. (in State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Draper Collection), I, 100, 144, 145, 228, 230, 246, 247, 249; Frontier Wars MSS. (in State Historical Society of Wis­ consin, Draper Collection), XXIII, 50; Continental Congress MSS. (in Library of Congress, Manuscript Division), Ser. 56, rp. 251-54, 275-77, 295, 337-39; "Journal of Richard Butler," in The Olden Time (Pittsburgh, 1846-48), II (1847), 487-91. econtinental Congress MSS., Ser. 56, pp. 371, 395-97, 407-10; Pittsburgh Gauttc, August 12, 1786; Harmar MSS., I, 216, 307-09, 337, 379. 8 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

A third schism developed in 1788 when Brant sought to get the tribes of the Wabash and the Maumee Valleys to agree to a plan of confederate action at the coming treaty with the United States. The tribes of the Miami, the Kickapoo and the Shawnee, represented the Confederacy,s extreme left wing that never, until 1795, agreed to the slightest compromise on the Ohio River boundary. Brant, confronted with the difficulty of placating the right wing Seneca, Wyandot and Delawares by offering to give up the land bounded by Pennsylvania, the Ohio, the Muskingum and a line from the headwaters of the Cuyahoga to the mouth of French Creek, thus ran the risk of losing the support of the opposite wing. A council of the Confederacy had been called to meet in the Miami country in October, 1788, to prepare for the grand treaty. Before it met Brant predicted its failure. He said: The Huron [Wyandot], Chippewas, Ottawas, Pottawattomies and Delawares, will join with us in trying lenient steps, and having a boundary line fixed, and rather than enter headlong into a destructive war, will give up a small part of their country. On the other hand, the Shawanese, Miamis, and Kickapoos will of course declare for war, and not be giving up any of their country, which I am afraid, will be the means of our separating. They are, I believe, determined not to attend the treaty with the Americans.7 And so, when the council met, Brant,s prophecy was fulfilled and the Indians separated in anger. What happened was reported by a trader to General Arthur St. Clair who, in tum, passed it on to Secretary of War Henry Knox: I can not learn further than that there had been little unanimity among them; that the Kickapoos and Piquas ( a tribe of the Twightwees [Miami]) particularly would agree to nothing that was proposed and would propose nothing themselves; that the Wyandots presented them with a large string of wampum, taking hold of one end of it and desiring them to hold fast by the other, which they refused to do; that they [ the Wyandot] then laid it on the shoulder of their [the Miami] principal chief, recommending to them to be at peace with the Americans, and to do as the Six Nations and the others did, but without making any answer, he turned himself on one side and let it fall to the ground; that they the W yandots, got up and told them they had been a long time there talking to them and advising them for their good, they would now leave them to talk by themselves, and immediately left the council,house.8 Finally just before the treaty council met at Fort Harmar, circumstances occurred that angered Brant so much that even he,

7William L. Stone, Life of Joseph Brant (Albany, 1864 ), II, 2i8. 8WiHiam Henry Smith, The Life and Public Ser.·ic

who had worked so hard to get the tribes to attend, declined to be present. The reasons for this were twofold. In the first place, the Ame·ricans pitched upon an obscure scuffle at Muskingum Falls (Zanesville), where the treaty was to have been held, as the reason for transferring the place of meeting to Fort Harmar. In this scuffle certain American traders had been killed by unidentified Indians. In the second place, the Americans at the last moment rejected Brant"s offer of November 19 of the compromise boundary line. The Indians replied in anger: Why were we not told when we sent to Congress ... [in 1786] that there was no possibility of making any alterations respecting the Lines-it would have saved us a great deal of trouble and fatigue. . . . If we find there is no other means left but that you must and will have our Country We now tell you we have our feelings and our Spirit, and must leave the event to the will of the Great Spirit, to whom we look up for Justice, and who knows the hearts of all men, and that we are peaceably inclined and nothing is further from our wish than entering into a War.9 These divisions played directly into the hands of the master of ceremonies, St. Clair. The great object of this administrator's life at this time was to make the Old Northwest productive of revenue for the use of the nation. He had entered upon his job in 1788, convinced, as he wrote to Knox, that the progress of the ''proposed Establishments in the Country north[ west of the Ohio] and the furth, er sales of the lands for the discharge [ of the J public Debts depend intirely upon a solid peace with the Indians-to effect that no Pains will be spared on my part.,, He thus saw in the divisions among the tribes an opportunity to accomplish his object without bloodshed and with little expense. He had, indeed, come west looking for such division. "·Any opportunity," he told Knox in the summer of 1788, Hthat may present itself, either to sow the seeds of discord among them, or to cultivate a good understanding with them, will be em, braced if it can be done without committing the United States_,, Upon another occasion he informed Knox, ''Should they be hesitat, ing or divided, then something like a threat at the same time a desire for peace, if declared, may increase the division. ''10 As St. Clair hoped, the Indians that straggled into Fort Har,

9Frontier Wars MSS., XXIII, 69-74. 10Smith, Life 11nd Ser.,ices of St. CLafr, II, 49, 51; Arthur St. Clair to Knox, January 27, 1788, St. Clair MSS. (in Ohio State Library), III (bound), 210. 10 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS mar were hesitating and divided. With the exception of the Wyandot they were unrepresentative fragments of the tribes they were sup, posed to speak for. According to Pickering in 1792, John Hecke, welder could not find among the signatures to the Treaty '~the name of even one Great Chief. .,., Of all the names only 4 are known to Mr. Heckewelder as principal chiefs. Of the Delawares in particular but one tribe of three appears to have been represented-and that the most inconsiderable. Pipe was the only chief-the others there are but counsellors. The Delawares under Buckonga, helas constitute two,thirds of the nation-not one of whom was present. But on~ of the principal Ottawa Chiefs was present. But one of two Puti, watimes principal chiefs. No Shawnees. But one of three principal Chippewa Chiefs.11 As for the Wyandot, who were well represented, there is evi, dence that they were deceived, by faulty interpretation, as to the true nature of what was going on. The British Indian agent, Alex, ander McKee, wrote in 1792 : Duentete, the [Wyandot] Chief who conducted that business, is dead; but he always declared that he, and all the chiefs who were with him there, were imposed upon-imagining that what they signed was a treaty of amity, and not a cession of country; and were not undeceived until they had been some time returned to their respective villages, and had their papers explained to them.12 As for the Seneca they represented but one of the Six Nations, and were, as was pointed out, at deadly variance with the Mohawk leader, Brant. There can be few treaties that show the Indian in a more pathetic light than does the Treaty of Fort Harmar. It is hard to understand how the American dictator of terms, St. Clair, the governor, could have listened to their open,hearted pleas for justice, and at the same time observed their quarrels among themselves with, out having suffered some qualms of conscience. Perhaps it is only fair to him to say that he did, but history does not permit the recognition of what cannot be substantiated, but requires that the public record of the heartless militarist and the cunning diplomat conceal the feelings of the man. Almost, it seems, without encouragement from St. Clair, the Indians began to apologize for their delay and backwardness, to blame Brant, and to quarrel among themselves. On December 14,

llMiscellaneous memorandum, Pickering MSS. 12Stone, Li/e of Brant, II, 3 34. FRONTIER OHIO 11 the second day of the Treaty, the Wyandot presented tlieir apologies for the affair at Muskingum Falls, saying it was perpetrated by ""people that had no Sense.'" The speaker, Duentete, then launched into a denunciation of Brant, in an effort apparently to escape the wrath that they knew St. Clair had for the Mohawk. ""What he has done,,, said Duentete, ""is of no Effect, there is not truth in any, thing he has said, it was his fault that you and I could not meet Sooner, to do the good work, we are at present about.... We think it is the Mohawk alone that is doing all this Contrary Work. ''13 On December 16, the Wyandot continued to denounce Brant, blaming him for keeping the western nations from being present and actually accusing him of organizing these tribes to attack the Americans at once, at Pittsburgh and at Fort Harmar. This latter accusation was a gross exaggeration which the guileless Indians were unable to conceal. They said : They [ Brant and the western nations] held a Council together and Brant told these people that nothing could be done with the United States, that they could be Satisfied with, that now they had the choice of peace and War . . . if they chose to go to war, he would help them, but if they were for peace he would acquiesce; that they all declared for war, and then it was Settled that Brant and his people should Strike about Fort Pitt and the others should Strike at this place. The speaker then admitted that what Brant really proposed 1 was to prevent the pro,American Indians from attending the treaty. ' St. Clair then asked the Wyandot what they would do if Brant did strike. The Wyandot turned upon the Iroquois who were present, and demanded that since all the trouble was caused by their brethren they give the answer. The demand was made in such a way as to irritate greatly Cornplanter and his Seneca because they were accused of upholding Brant and the belligerent cause at the council of the Confederacy. They declared: 'Tis the Six Nations that has caused the business of settling a place to be so backward, and [ they are] also the cause of the Mischief done at the Council fire .... You, Brothers of the Six Nations, you drew your sword and stuck it into the ground for the W eachtenoes [ Ouiatenon] desiring them to strike the United States.15 Greatly angered, Cornplanter, on December 19, replied to the

13Frontier Wars MSS., XXIII, i9. l'Jhid., 91-93. 15Ibid., 9S-97. 12 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS Wyandot, blaming them for giving more encouragement to Brant than the Seneca had. He said that it was the fault of the Wyandot and Brant that the great Confederacy had not met the Americans at Fort Stanwix back in 1784. The western nations had arrived at Niagara at that time but had listened to Brant's advice and had refused to come to Fort Stanwix. Adhering strongly to this Treaty that had been repudiated by the Confederacy, Cornplanter calmly played straight into the hands of the Americans by denouncing the Indians for opposing it. He said: After I had made peace with the 13 fires, you different Nations re, fleeted upon me, and blamed me, and said I had sold your Lands. . . but it never disturbed me in the least. If I had got Angry it would have been hurtful to you all, my Younger Brothers. I took pity on you and I rose up from my Council fire, & went to the Great Council of the 13 fires. What the United States told him about the British ceding all the Indian lands to the United States was true and the Indians should acquiesce. He then drew himself up and, with great dignity, announced, ""I now tell you that I take Brant & set him down in his chair at home and he shall not Stir out of his house but will keep him there fast, he shall no more run About amongst the Nations disturbing them and causing trouble. "'16 Cornplanter had thus completely disarmed himself and all the Indian nations. His only alternative was to throw himself at the feet of the Americans and to appeal to their sense of fair play. And seldom have Indians made that appeal more eloquently. He said: Father, listen to me. I now Call you father Because I have come out of your belly. [Referring to the days when the white men were not numerous and were therefore wea1{.] Father, you have now grown so big and so strong that none can injure you. Father, I hope you look up towards Heaven and return thanks to God for your greatness. Father, you told me that all this land is yours. I hope you will take pity on the Native inhabitants of this Country, as they took pity on you when you first arrived at this Island.... You have Charge of all this land, and I hope you will satisfy the Minds of all that are uneasy, let them know the Boundary line of your land and they will soon acquaint all the Nations with it, in order that they may be Satisfied.17 Being thus given carte blanche, St. Clair thereupon dictated the terms. The treaties, two in number, one with the Iroquois and one with the rest of the tribes, were practically reenactments of the Treaties of Fort Stanwix and Fort McIntosh. The same boundaries 16lbid., 104-06. l.7Jhid., 1 Oi. FRONTIER OHIO 13

for them were named and the same reservations of posts in the lands set aside for the Indians. Additional terms, however, made certain concessions to the Indians, They were allowed to hunt within the ceded territory so long as they .... demeaned themselves peaceably"" and molested no Americans. Strict punishment was declared neces, sary for all horse,thieves both Indian and white. All traders to the Indian country were obliged to get official licenses from the governor of the Northwest Territory. The Indians promised to warn the United States of all hostile movements that they heard about among any tribes and to endeavor to stop their invasion, the United States giving a reciprocal pledge. The Indians likewise acknowledged that their remaining lands should be ceded to no other nation than the United States. And :finally, in addition to the goods distributed at the Treaty, the Six Nations were compensated to the magnificent an1ount of three thousand dollars.18 Money compensation meant practically nothing to the Indians and the other concessions were mostly of the paper variety. It was the same old Treaty and the Indians knew it. Recognizing defeat they turned to their only real friend, the Great Spirit. After the terms had been read, Shendeta, the Wyandot, arose and said, ""We cannot Say any thing farther to day, it is to be hoped the Great Spirit above will teach us the way how to speak and to declare our sentiments to you to,morrow: we hope that it will be for the good of us all, as I v..·ould wish peace and friendship would remain be, t\veen You and us. ""19 Shendeta and his fellow red men must have prayed that night. The Indian leaders, no doubt, stood alone in those dark Muskingum f crest glades and asked the Great Mannitto that the land might still be theirs. The reader will look far for a more pathetic and guileless plea expressed in terms bearing the ring of greater sincerity, than that given by Shendeta, the Wyandot, on December 29. This chief sought to describe to the whites the Indian view of how they had been cheated of their lands by the white man. He had dreamed, he said, of the past. ""I wish now to let you

18 Charles J. Kappler (eel.), Ir.di,.n Affairs: La:t•r and Treaties ('\,Vashington, 1903 ), II, 13-18; Amc.,icnn Stnte Papr .. s, fodi,m .4.ffairs, I, 5-i. wFrontier \V:;.rs .MSS., XXIII, 11 5. 14 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS know how I came :first to this Country, as I dreamed about it some time ago_,, In this dream he saw 44that the Wyandot nation Was the :first man that the Great Spirit Placed upon this Ground.,, The Dela, ware nation was the second. The Wyandot sent the Delawares to the seashore to look out and see when Great beasts should come out of the water. The :first beasts he saw were the French. Then he espied another, it was the British, and they asked to 4 "remain only one night on shore."' Upon the Delawares, applying to the Wyandot the permission was given. Then the British begged for a little ground large enough to make a :fire on, that is 4 "As much as one Cow hide could cover.,, This was granted and when it was done the British gave the Delawares some liquor which made them 44 a little Giddy & foolish, and in the mean time you cut this cowhide into a String that covered a Considerable Quantity of Ground, and that is the way you :first took me in for a piece of land in this Country.", When the Delawares came to their senses they saw what had hap, pened, and said, "'You have Cheated me for once, is this the way you are going to treat me always while you remain in this Countryr' The British denied this, but soon proposed to buy another strip; as much as a man could walk in a day and hired their swiftest runners to deceive the Indians again. Since then the British and the Amer, icans have continued to take land; but the Indians could not explain it. 4 "How you advanced so far this way I cannot tell, as I have not

4 dreamt of it. n 'This, ,, he concluded, "'is the :finishing of the Dream. I am but a foolish man that you see here Standing. ""20 This talk was the preface to Shendeta"s plea for a reconsidera, tion of the terms. As with Cornplanter, his main weapon was merely a plea for justice. Presenting the wampum belts representing former treaties and the establishment of the Ohio River boundary, Shendeta said: \Ve are a poor helpless people, we do not know how to read or write, this our book which we read by [ the wampum]. . . . It is the request of all the Nations here present to you, to have pity & compassion on them & think how hard it would be for them to lose the remaining part of their Country, let the Ohio be the Boundary line as it was concluded upon before, We are poor helpless people.21.

:ll:!Jbid.., 116-19. %J.Jbid., 120-22. FRONTIER OHIO 15

From the day of this plea until January 4, 1789, there were no sessions and no records of what was going on. There was plenty of time for the emotional effect of Shendeta"s appeal to wear off. Some events transpired that made the Indians decide to offer again the land north of the Ohio and east of the Muskingum, instead of insisting upon the Ohio River. Thus on January 4, they returned to the council with the compromise but with stronger language in denouncing the previous treaties with the Americans. They said: We don't understand . . . how you came to get this land from our Father [ the British], as none of us Know any thing about. We cannot find out when it was that we should have given Our Lands to our Father.... We are desirous to Know how our Great father came by the land for when the Great Spirit made the land it was for the Indians and not for the white people. We are very sorry that you did not make enquiry amongst us Indians before You entered into that business to Know whether we had given the right of the land to our Father, as you very well Know that this Country did belong to us Indians. If you had done this at first all this trouble would have been saved, and to our Satisfaction. There was but two Nations appointed by us Chiefs, which were the W yandots & Delawares, to go and hear what our Brothers had to say [at the 'Treaty of Fort McIntosh], as for other nations that happened to fall in with those two nations, they were not sent, but were out hunting at the time. They thereupon made the offer of the Muskingum boundary.n But all this oratory had no effect on the haughty St. Clair. Re.­ plying to them on January 6, he flatly rejected their proposals. "'Truly,"" he said, ""If this is what we have been waiting for, our time has been spent to very little purpose.,., As for their being cheat.­ ed by the British, that was not the fault of the Americans, whom, St. Clair said, the British would not allow to take part in Indian relations. ""If you were cheated . . . it was by them [ the British] you were cheated, not by the American People, who were not allowed to have any thing to do with Indian Affairs."" As for the nature of Indian representation at Fort McIntosh, St. Clair asked, HHow are we to know who comes by accident or who by appoint.­ ment? If you admit them into Council and Speak in their Names must we not conclude that they are all by appointment?'" There was no argument; the Indians must forfeit their lands because they had fought for the British and lost. That was final. There was nothing for the Indians to do but to accept the fact.

~lhia.~ 124-26. 16 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Shendeta asked that the Americans not occupy the land right up to the boundary. He said: We should be very happy if you could remove a little upon this side the line and leave us a Small proportion of Land, as You Know that we Indians are a poor helpless set of people.... I shall never come again as long as this World shall stand to renew this Business.... I hope that you'll comply with our request of removing Your line a little way. Since they were going to have to come under American in.flu, ence they asked for the establishment of a trading system including t egulation of prices, licensing of provisions for traders and the pro, viding of smiths to repair their guns. In their simple language they asked that prices be fixed at ""two Raccoons for one Buck . . . a Buck Skin for a Buck [ and that] a bear Skin should be equal to two Bucks.,,. Cornplanter, however, was anxious to adopt the agricultural economy of the whites. ""We Shall see You,,, he said, ""upon our Lands and they will be planted with Corn & we will be hunting Deer, we shall also plant Com, we Shall want our hoes & other Ar-­ tides mended & for that purpose we would wish to have a Blacksmith Settled amongst us. "~24 Thus the Treaty closed in humiliating defeat for the Indians and in triumphant success for the Americans. And St. Clair sent the redskins back to the forests with words that will never lose their irony. I fervently pray to the Great God that the peace we have Established may be perpetual, that he will be pleased to bless the Good Works we have been about and to extend to your Nations the Glorious light of the Gospel of peace '& the Blessings of Civilization, that they may increase and prosper, that he will Grant us to live in Unity like Brothers, and that our Children may grow up and flourish like the Young tree, and there be none to make them afraid.:is How strangely these words compare with those. in which St. Clair on May 2, 1789, reported the proceedings to George Washing-­ ton, the new President of the United States. The reason why the treaties were made separately with the Six Nations and the Wyandots, and more westerly tribes, was the jealousy that subsisted between them, which I was not willing to lessen, by appearing to consider them as one people. . . . I am persuaded their general confederacy is entirely broken: indeed, it would not be very difficult, if circumstances required it, to set them at deadly variance.:sa

%3Jhid., 138. 24Ihid., 140. 25Ihid., 142. 26Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 113. FRONTIER OHIO 17

2 Indian War: the Defeats of Harmar and St. Clair, 1790, 1791. After the Treaty of Fort Harmar the northwestern Indian Con, federation was in complete dissolution. And it might have continued thus indefinitely if American policy had not provoked a section of the Confederacy into a war that resulted in a defeat of the United States and consequently in a reinvigoration of the movement for Indian unity. The tribes of the Delaware, Wyandot, and Shawnee who were the only ones who used the ceded lands would not have entrusted their grievances to the wager of battle unaided. And the rest of the tribes would not have engaged in war if they had not :first been attacked by the United States. The truth of these state, ments will be borne out by the facts about to be described. The tribes that were to be :first visited with the war that eventual, ly drew in all the tribes were the Miami and Ouiatenon who in, habited the country of the Maumee and upper Wabash Valleys. These people, led by , had ever since the close of the war in 1782, preserved an attitude of suspicion toward the United States. Being served by British traders, they could afford to lend themselves whole,heartedly to the plans for confederation and for the preservation of the Ohio River boundary. They had refused to take part in any of the treaties with the Americans from 1784 to 1786. They had been alarmed by the squatter occupation of Vin, cennes in 1786 and by 's subsequent unjustified and unsuccessful :filibuster which was repudiated by both the govern, ment of Virginia and of the United States. The Miami had refused to deal with General in 1787 at the time of the Continental occupation of Vincennes. The Ouiatenon had attended but the American negotiators tactfully avoided mentioning the basic issue of the Ohio River boundary. And in 1788 they had remained loyal to the Indian ideal by refusing to follow Brant who offered to compromise with the Americans preparatory to the Treaty of Fort Harmar.27 During 1787 Continental policy on the Wabash had been con,

27Harmar MSS., I, 282, 290, 303, 326; George Rogers Clark MSS. (in State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Draper Collection), LIII, ;9-61, 63; Smith, Life and Ser.:ice.r of St. Clair, II, 28, 33. 18 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS ciliatory because it was felt that the Indians were justified in resent, ing the over aggressive activity of the Kentuckians. But a change set in early in 1788 that eventually led to Harmar"s vvarlike invasion of their country. It was expected that the establishment in 1787 of the Continental post at the Falls of the Ohio (Louisville) and of Fort Knox at Vincennes would stop Kentucky aggressions and thus prevent Indian retaliation. Such a stoppage, however, was not forth, coming. Straggling bands of Mingo, Shawnee, Cherokee, Ouiatenon and Miami continued to make Kentucky and the emigrant boats on the Ohio the objects of their warlike vengeance. None of these nations were officially responsible for these acts of individuals but it was apparent to Continental officials that the nations would do nothing to stop these attacks. This type of warfare would no doubt have subsided eventually if American national power could have been more effective on the Wabash, especially in making possible a satisfactory trade similar to what the British were carrying on. But the strength of the United States in this country was extremely artificial, consisting merely of a feeble · garrison at Fort Knox precariously provisioned from the remote base at the Falls of the Ohio. American troops could not as proposed on May 21, 1788, by Major John F. Hamtramck, com, mandant at Fort Knox, attack any Indian tribe without the certainty of being entirely massacred. The result was that Kentuckians during 1788 became quite disgusted with American impotence, espe, cially in view of the fact that between May and September four detachments passing between the Falls of the Ohio and Fort Knox were attacked by the Indians. This led to a renewal of Kentucky :filibusters in August, 1788, when one Patrick Brown and sixty embattled Kentuckians appeared at Vincennes, dt.fi.ed Hamtramck"s orders to desist, and attacked some friendly Piankashaw nearby killing nine of them. 28 This so enraged the Wabash,Maumee Indians that the spring of 1789 brought more bitter attacks than ever on Kentucky and the Ohio River. ""Every thing,"" lamented Hamtramck on April 11, 1789, ""draws a picture of hostility in this quarter.'' Both he and Major John P. Wyllys at the Falls of the Ohio feared for the safety

28H:i.rmar MSS., I, 418-23, 442, 445-55, 462; Smith, Life and Servicer of St. Clair, II, 89. FRONTIER OHIO 19 of Fort Knox. Consequently the season following the summer har, vests again brought its Kentucky filibusters as Colonel John Hardin in August led between two and three hundred Kentuckians against the Ouiatenon villages on the upper Wabash. By October there were reports of three more :filibusters in preparation from Kentucky, one under Colonel Robert C. Patterson, another under Hardin, and one under Colonel Richard C. Anderson.29 The assumption by the Federal Government of the burden of military aggression could thus be only a matter of time. Hamtramck urged it as early as May, 1788. It only remained for the eastern authorities to be convinced that the war would be a local one. This had been one of the objects in the mind of the secretary of \var, Knox, in pushing the negotiation of the Treaty of Fort Harmar. ••1 really flatter myself/" he wrote in December, 1788, ·~that the Governor [ St. Clair] may be able to effect a solid peace with the northern tribes. If so, it would be more easy to punish the Wabash and more westerly Indians, if they should persist in their predatory incursio:ns and murders."'30 Thus during the year 1789 there is to be observed a desire on the part of the Federal Government to establish itself in strength among the Miami. But at the same time there is evident a conscious, ness that the lack of ability to do this made it necessary to attempt more conciliatory measures. Thus when Knox suggested the feasi, bility of establishing a garrison on the Maumee, Harmar replied on June 16: It will be in vain with our small force to think of taking a position at the Miami Village unless the whole of the small force could be collected. It appears to me that it is absolutely necessary that it &hould not be under, taken with less than 300 or 400 rank and file, and with a certainty of being regularly supplied with provisions. Thus Hamtramck occupied his time during the summer of 1789 in negotiating with the Ouiatenon and Miami, with some degree of success. He reported to Knox on July 29, that as a result of his messages a number of Ouiatenon had come to Vincennes. ••They spoke to me,"' he wrote, ••with a submission rarely to be seen with Indians; they gave me thousands of protestations of their repentance, and they went back assuring me that all their parties at war would be

29Hannar MSS., I, 482; II, 2S, 89, 93-9S, 114. 30Jbid., I, 394, 486. 20 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS called in.•• But whatever progress these protestations represented was undone by the Hardin filibuster of August.31

It was no use. The Federal Government might as well endorse the Kentucky filibusters if it could not stop them. There was some, thing that might be more inconvenient than an Indian war. That was a hostile Kentucky. This nascent commonwealth had reached a degree of strength and self,confidence that made it unwise to add more grievances than were already felt in regard to the control of New Orleans. Kentucky expected federal help against the Indians. As Colonel George Clendenin of Kentucky wrote to Governor Beverly Randolph of Virginia in December, 1788: .... The next year will put an end to Indian Hostilities, as the General Government will take the business up, and the settlements west of the Ohio will be greatly strengthened."" Or, as Colonel John Anderson of Chuck River said in May, 1789: .... I am surprized to think we guard"d our frontiers in the time of the Late war when we were attacked on both sides and now can get no help. I am Doubtful Government has false Repre, sentations of our situation, or else none at all. ""32 And so the infiltration of Kentucky influence into federal Indian policy made rapid progress in 1789. After Hamtramck, the next federal agent to succumb was Harmar, commander of the American armies. In October, 1789, he wrote to Knox: Will you be pleased to give me particulars and especial directions how to act with the inhabitants of Kentucky? Perhaps they may be secretly auth, orized to form these expeditions. It certainly places Major Hamtramck in a most disagreeable situation: and when Head Quarters are properly fixed opposite Licking River [}, frequent applications will most assuredly be made to me, for at least hints for the few Federal troops to countenance and aid them in their operations; if we do not, numberfass censures will be cast upon us. Thus by the end of 1789 the commander of the American west, em armies was willing to endorse the Kentucky Indian policy. He merely awaited the signal from the President of the United States. As he wrote to Captain Joseph Ashton at the Falls of the Ohio on Novem, her 9, .... If the word March! is given by proper authority, a speedy

BlJbul., II, 68, 69, 73. The federal forces in the Northwest in 1789 numbered about six hundred and fifty. :CWilliam P. Palmer (ed.), Calendar of Virginia State Paper~ (Richmond, 1884 ), IV, S34, 542, 618. FRONTIER OHIO 21 movement shall be made against the savages; but in our present scattered state, miracles cannot be worked. ,c The word ""March,, was soon to be given. Early in 1790 author, ities in the East began to give way. Down to the time of his :first annual message to Congress on January 9, 1790, Washington had shown strong disapproval of Kentucky's Indian policy. But the flood of demands from the Kentuckians that the Federal Government assume the burden formerly carried by Virginia, of sustaining the scouts called out by county commanders was so great, that in March and April, Knox gave the orders necessary to satisfy the frontiers. In April and May Harmar gave his approval to Colonel James Wilkinson of Kentucky to lead a militia expedition against a nest of Indian bandits at the mouth of the Scioto. This expedition was carried out but was unsuccessful. In June, after a convoy of federal boats under Ensign Asa Hartshorne had been severely handled by Indians from this same source, Knox gave orders to Harmar to take one hundred Federals and three hundred Kentucky militia at national expense to extirpate these trouble makers." But the signal for Harmar to march against the Wabash,Maumee tribes came, not directly from Knox, but from St. Clair, governor of the Northwest Territory, upon whose shoulders rests the blame for the outbreak of more general hostilities. This gentleman appeared at the Falls of the Ohio early in January, 1790, on a new mission and with new instructions. His mission was to visit the western tribes that had not been present the year before at Fort Harmar and to get them .to endorse that Treaty and to get their promises to put a stop to the attacks on the frontiersmen of Kentucky. If the Indians' response to these two requests was unsatisfactory to St. Clair, he was authorized to raise :fifteen hundred militia from the surrounding country and to chastise the refractory tribes. It was not expected, however, that this discretion to use force would have to be exercised because the instructions assumed that much of the Indian unrest was due to the Kentucky :filibusters. Therefore, it was for St. Clair to bring the Indians adequate assurances that there would be no more

83Hannar MSS., II, 116, 120. 34Jhid., 148-50, 187-90, 200, 268-73; James D. Richardson (ed.), Meuages and Papers of tJu Presid11nts (Washington, 1898), I, 6S; American State Parers, Indian Affairs, I, 85, 91, 92, ]07, 108; Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 146, 147. 22 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS filibustering, if the Indians behaved themselves. Thus the instructions read, ~''In the exercise of the present indiscriminate hostilities it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to say that a war without further measures would be just on the part of the United States.''35 St. Clair"s actions do not seem to have been tempered \vith the even,handed justice that his instructions called for. He seems to have had a delusion. His experience with the Indians down to the summer of 1790 led him to believe that by the use of a little force he could acquire the whole northern Ohio Valley from the Indians at one stroke. St. Clair wrote to a member of the executive department of the Federal Government on October 9: Let the northern boundary begin at the place where the present Bound ... ary meets with the Branch of the Miami River that Falls into it where the Pique Town [Piqua] stood, and running from thence to the nearest part of the River au Glaize; thence down that River to where it falls into the Miami of the Lake [Fort Defiance]; thence up that River to the Miami Village [Fort Wayne]; thence to the nearest part of the Ouabash [Wabash J, and with that River to the mouth of the Vermillion Jaune; thence to the nearest part of the Vermilion that runs into the Illinois River. St. Clair also believed early in 1790 that war was a foregone conclusion. He wrote to Knox on January 26, 1790, -~The Miami and the renegade Shawanese, Delawares, and Cherokees ... I fear are irredeemable by gentle means. The experiment, however is worth the making; and at any rate, I do not think we are yet prepared to chastise them. .,., St. Clair entrusted the negotiations to Hamtramck at Fort Knox. Hamtramck took St. Clair"s messages, had them translated into French and sent Captain Pierre Gamelin of Vincennes to de-­ liver them to the tribes. But the Indians were evasive. The Ouiatenon referred him to the Miami and the Miami referred him to the Con-­ federacy and the British. ~~we must,"' the Miami said, ""send your speeches to all our neighbors and to the Lake nations; we cannot give a definitive answer without consulting the commandant of Detroit."" They denied the validity of the Treaty of Fort Harmar because it did not receive the approval of the Confederacy. Le Gris, the Miami said: They are not chiefs, neither delegates, who made that Treaty; they are only young men, who without authority and instruction from their chiefs. have concluded that Treaty, which will not be approved. They went to that

35A.merican State Paper.r, Indian A.flairs, I, 96; Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 12S. FRONTIER OHIO 23

Treaty clandestinely and they intend to make mention of it in the next council to be held.38 St. Clair thought he was being played with and that the Indians were stalling. He did not take seriously the suggestion for another treaty with the Confederacy. He received news of Gamelin"s mission at Kaskaskia early in June, and set out on June 11 to join Harmar at Fort Washington to concert plans for a campaign. At the same time he wrote to Knox: It appeared to me, that there was not the smallest probability of an accommodation with the Indians of that river [Wabash]. and of the Miami. and that from the manner in which the proposal of an accommodation had been received by them, and their subsequent conduct, it would not be proper for me to go to Fort Vincennes ... [but] to return to headquarters in order to concert with General Harmar upon the means of carrying into effect the alternative contained in my instructions from the President, that of punishing them.~7 St. Clair acted with unusual speed. He arrived at Fort Washing, ton on July 13. On the :fifteenth, after consulting with Harmar, he sent circular letters to nine Virginia and four Pennsylvania counties calling upon each for its quota in the :fifteen hundred men to be sup-­ plied for the campaign. On the same day Harmar issued orders for the setting in motion of the federal troops. Harmar was to lead most of the federal and militia troops from Fort Washington on October 1 against the Miami villages by way of the Great Miami River. At the same time Hamtramck at Fort Knox with his federal troops, three hundred Kentucky militia, and a few French from Vincennes, was to ascend the Wabash against the Ouiatenon, and if possible, to effect a junction with Harmar in the Miami country.as The troops left Fort Washington on September 26. They num, bered 1453 in all, 1133 militia and 320 regulars. The advance was slow, averaging about eight miles a day, because most of the men were without horses and because of the necessity of not getting too far in advance of the meat supply which accompanied the troops on the hoof. The Indians thus had ample warning so that when Harmar arrived in the Miami country the towns were deserted. This did not prevent the army from utterly destroying by fire on October 18, 19 and 20 the :five Miami towns on the 11aumee near modern

36Jbul., 132, 155-60; American State Paparsa Indian A.fj4i,-s, I, 93, 94; St. Clair MSS., Box 8. See Map no. IV. 37Smith, Life and Sen•ices of St. Clair, II, 1 S9. 38A.merican State Papers, Indian A.flairs, I, 94, 102; Harmar MSS., II, 285. 24 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Fort Wayne. On the twenty,first they started on their return to Fort Washington.• It was necessary, of course, to destroy some Indians, because new Indian towns, like mushrooms, could quickly replace those that had disappeared. Harmar made three attempts to come to grips with the Indians, each of which ended in failure and the total casualties of which made the expedition a disastrous one. All of these failures were caused mainly by the cowardice of the militia. On October 18, while the main army was destroying Indian villages, a detachment of three hundred militia and regulars was sent out to discover the loca, tion of the main body of Indian warriors. They met and killed two Indians and returned the same day without accomplishing their object. Hardin, in command of the militia, was so displeased at their failure, that, with Harmar,s permission, he set out on October 19, to accomplish what the others had failed to do. The militia, however, according to Ebenezer Denny, were reluctant to go. HI saw that the men moved off with reluctance,", he noted in l.ris Journal, ~~and am satisfied that when three miles from camp, he [Hardin] had not more than two,thirds of his command, they dropped out of the ranks and returned to camp.,, The rest proceeded on down the Maumee ten miles, where they were ambushed by the body of Indians they were looking for, and according to Denny were

H entirely defeated.,., Most of the militia fled without £.ring a shot, leaving the regulars to be cut to pieces. After the slaughter forty militia and twenty regulars were missing.40 But the greatest disaster came on October 21, the day after the return to Fort Washington began. Harmar conceived the brilliant idea of sending back to the armed villages a detachment of four hun, dred to surprise the returning Indians and kill as many as they could. The detachment, consisting mostly of militia with regulars occupying the center, stole back to the Miami villages in the darkness of the early morning hours of October 21. They caught the Indians by surprise, but the impetuous militia, completely out of the control of the commander, Wyllys, pursued a body of Indians who retreated up the St. Joseph River, leaving the regulars unsupported. The re,

3$"Military Journal of Major Ebenezer Denny," in Historical Society of Pennsylvania Pu.hlications {Philadelphia, 1855-), VII, (1860), 345-49. 40Ibid, 349-50. FRONTIER OHIO 25'

maining Indians fell upon the latter, cutting them down with great slaughter, Wyllys himself being killed. The losses of the whites in this engagement were 183 killed and thirty,one wounded."' In the meantime Hamtramck at Fort Knox was attempting to sustain his part of the campaign. This part, however, resulted in a failure of a different sort. Having 3 30 men at his command he set out from Fort Knox on September 30 without enough supplies, ex, pecting more to arrive while he was on his way. When he discovered that these were not to be forthcoming he appealed to the men to proceed to the Ouiatenon towns on half rations. They refused, and the whole force returned to Fort Knox without having seen an Indian town. 42 Harmar tried to make out the expedition a success. He reported to Knox, HThe substance of the work is this; our loss was heavy, but the headquarters of iniquity were broken up."" The Indian raids of the spring of 1791 were to show that the Miami were not silenced. Even before this the seamy side of the affair leaked out. As Pennsyl, vania Senator William Maclay, commented, ""The ill,fortune of the affair breaks through all the coloring that was given to it.,, The re, ports of the expedition, he said, ""look finely on paper, but were we to view the green bones and scattered fragments of our defeat on the actual :field, it would leave very different ideas on our minds. This is a vile business, and must be much viler_,, Harmar was smartly rebuked by Knox on January 31, 1791, and was requested to ask for a court of inquiry. This was held and Harmar was entirely vindicated. The fault lay, not in his leadership, but mainly in the circumstance that untrained militia formed the backbone of his force. This was because of a misunderstanding that existed between the frontiersmen and the eastern authorities. The latter expected, as Denny put it, that since the war was in the interest of the frontiers they would furnish ""active riflemen, such as is supposed to inhabit the frontiers_,, The frontiersmen, on the other hand, thought that the National Government had at last sent a grand force to the West and that the militia were sin1ply to help. ""Their whole object,,., Denny said, ""seemed to be nothing more than to see the country, without render,

41American State Papers, Indian A.flairs, I, 106; American State Papers, Military A.flairs, I, 26, 28; "Journal of Ebenezer Denny," loc. cit., 351-52. '2Harmar MSS., II, 246, 361-69. 26 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS ing any service whatever."" They had the idea that the Federal Govern, ment had made ample provisions to supply them. They brought neither camp,kettles nor axes, and found that Harmar had none for them. When they were asked what induced them to think that their guns could be repaired in such great numbers at Fort Washington, they answered that "'they were told in Kentucky that all repairs would be made at Fort Washington. ""a There was a peculiar thing about Harmar"s defeat. It was enough of an Indian victory to hearten the tribesmen while it was not enough of a defeat to discourage the Americans from making a second trial or to stimulate, as St. Clair"s defeat did, a movement toward compromise. Thus on the one hand, the Indians, according to Brigadier--General Rufus Putman, ""were much elated with their success and threatened there should not remain a Smoak on the Ohio by the time the Leaves put out."" Congress, on the other hand, stimulated by the Big Bottom massacre of January 2, 1791, enacted legislation for an expedition of twice the strength of Harmar"s. The appropriation for the War Department was almost tripled and over three hundred thousand dollars was appropriated for the new cam-­ paign. St. Clair was made commander of the armies and was given the right to call three thousand men to the colors. Precautions were taken to assure a large nucleus of regulars and to place less reliance on the militia.« The motions of peace were again to be gone through early in 1791. They were clearly destined to be mere motions because, after Harm.ar"s defeat, the Indians were not in a mood to give up the Ohio River boundary, while the United States was not sufficiently chastened even to offer to give up the Fort Harmar boundary line. The plans were to send out early in March two sets of peace emis, saries, one to the Miami and Ouiatenon, and one to the Iroquois. If by May 10 they had failed to secure assurances of peace, St. Clair was to call out the three thousand men authorized by Congress and

4.3American State Papers, Ir.dian Affairs, I, 104, 106; American State Papers, Military Affairs, I, 20, 24; Harmar MSS., II, 342, 394-96; Edgar S. Maclay (ed.), Journal of William Maclay (New York, 1890), 350, 395. "Rowena Buell (ed.), The Memoirs of Rufus Putnam (Boston and New York, 1903), 113; Richard Peters (ed.), Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America (Boston, 1848 ), I, 222-24; American State Papers, Indian Affairs, I, 121; Samuel P. Hildreth, Pionan­ History (Cincinnati, 1848), 275; The American Pioneer, II (1843), 148; James McBride, Pioneer Biograph7 (Cincinnati, 1869), I, 87. FRONTIER OHIO 27 to make rapid preparations to strike the Wabash,Maumee tribes and to establish a strong . post and garrison in the Miami country with a chain of supporting posts between it and Fort Washington. While St. Clair was getting ready, Kentucky militia under Brigadier, General Charles Scott were to proceed by horse to the Ouiatenon towns on the Wabash so as to prevent attack by these Indians on the frontiers. If necessary this sort of preliminary expedition was to be repeated once or even twice until St. Clair was ready to move.~ The peace attempts failed signally, but not promptly enough, as events were to prove, to give St. Clair adequate time to prepare his army effectively. Colonel Thomas Proctor was the emissary sent to the Miami and the Ouiatenon. He was ""to impress the said Miami and Wabash Indians with the candor and justice of the General Government.,., and to tell them ""that the United States require only that they would demean themselves peaceably."" Upon these assurances they were to come to Fort Washington to negotiate a treaty ""full of justice, moderation, and humanity. .,., The United States was even willing to civilize these_ benighted ""savages,"" to teach them how to farm, how to be more provident, and in general how to escape ""the calamities belonging to a savage life."" It was clear that no relinquish, ment of the Fort Harmar line was to be expected. If the tribes did not come to the Treaty at Fort Washington, ""they will be liable for the evil which will fall upon and crush them.,., ""Recollect,.,., they were told, ""that this is the last offer that can be made; that if you do not embrace it now your doom must be sealed for ever.".,411 Proctor did not get beyond the Iroquois country. However, he went first to the town of the friendly Cornplanter on the Allegheny where that Seneca chief promised to guide him and speak to the Miami for the Iroquois in his behalf if such action was approved by a council of the Iroquois. A council was held at Buffalo Creek in May, 1791. At :first the Iroquois put Proctor off on the grounds that a purely Indian delegation to the western tribes would be more likely to get a friendly hearing. But this was nothing compared to the reasons that appeared while the Iroquois were negotiating with Proctor. One of these was the arrival of an invitation from another

'5American State Papers, Indian Affairs, I, 129, 171-74, 197; Smith, Li/11 and Servic11s of St. Clair, II, 181, 192. 4'JAmeric.m State Papers, Indian A.fj11irr, I, 146. 28 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

American emissary, Pickering, asking the Iroquois to come to a separate treaty with the United States at Painted Post at what is now Newton, New York. They interpreted this as an attempt to keep the Indians from speaking in unity, and therefore as a blow aimed at the Confederacy. And to crown it all another message came from St. Clair actually urging the Iroquois to take arms against their brother Indians to the west. The Indian point of view was expressed in a speech made by the Seneca, Cow Killer, in council with the British on May 24. As we were preparing to go with Colonel Proctor we received a message from Colonel Pickering . . . inviting us to attend a Council at the Painted Post, near Tioga, being surprised at receiving such different messages from People in authority from General Washington, we were still more astonished at receiving a third message from Governor St. Clair on the Ohio, desiring us to join him in the war against the Western Indians our Bretheren. . . . These contradictory proceedings of the Americans greatly surprised us; Colo, nel Proctor at this time appearing very eager to hurry us off with him, whose intention we now thought was to involve us in a war with our Breth, em that we immediately declined having anything more to do with him.47 The trouble with the Indians., accusations is that they were true. Enough has been said of St. Clair to show what he was about. As for Pickering and the council of Painted Post, Knox, the secretary of war, said of it in reporting to Washington: Measures were taken in the month of April, to draw the Six Nations to a conference, at a distance from the theatre of war, in order not only to prevent their joining therein, but also, if necessary to obtain some of their young men to join our army, in case of hostilities being inevitable.48 Thus Proctor returned home and the Iroquois trailed off to Painted Post to pledge neutrality while St. Clair prepared to smash the Wabash,Maumee tribes. In accordance with the plans Scott, late in May, led about seven hundred Kentucky militia to the Ouia, tenon towns on the Upper Wabash where he destroyed four or five villages, killed thirty,two warriors and brought back as captives fifty, eight non,combatants. Early in August, since St. Clair was still preparing to march, Lieutenant,Colonel James Wilkinson led five hundred more Kentucky militia to the same region, but was less successful, losing himself in the bogs and morasses of the upper Wabash country.~

' 111,id., 147, 164; Pioneer Society of Michigan Collections (Lansing, 1877-), XXIV, 23S, 256; Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 204. The text of St. Clair's message has not been discovered. 48.A.merican State Papers, Indian A.flairs, I, 139. 4911,id., 131-33. FRONTIER OHIO 29

On October 4 St. Clair.,s main army started its forward move, ment from Fort Hamilton, moving deliberately. Posts were established at Fort Jefferson (Greenville) and at Fort St. Clair. On the evening of November 3 the army encamped by a small creek that they thought to be a branch of the Maumee River, but that was really a branch of the Wabash in what is now Mercer County, Ohio, near the Indiana line. The next morning the army had been paraded and dis, missed, when suddenly, just as the sun rose, the woods in front rang with yells and shots, and the three hundred militia who were encamped a few hundred yards in advance, were seen rushing pellmell for the shelter of the camp. In a few minutes the camp was entirely surround, ed, and the Indians, who proceeded with deliberation, wrought terrific execution. The Americans, who were at a complete strategic dis, advantage and were in general confusion, were unable to make any effective counter,attack. According to Denny, ~~The artillery and musketry made a tremendous noise, but did little execution ..,., The wounded were dragged to the center where the cowardly militia and others were huddled in utter panic. The Indians soon captured the artillery after killing all the officers but one. As they closed in on the Americans they centered their fire and made the field a veritable slaughter,pen. The point was soon reached when a few minutes more would have made retreat impossible. A dash to the rear through the enemy.,s lines was necessary, and, led by the officers, it was soon accomplished. The Indians fell owed for about four or :five miles, but anxious to take part in the plunder, especially of the four hundred horses, returned to camp. The retreating Americans were completely disarmed and were at the mercy of a single armed Indian if he had chosen to follow. On the fifth the army was back at Fort Jefferson, twenty,nine miles from the scene of action and on the seventh they were at Fort Hamilton (Hamilton, Ohio) . They had left thirty, seven officers, including Major,General Richard Butler, and five hundred and ninety,three privates dead on the field. They brought back thirty,one officers and two hundred and :6.fty,two privates wounded. The Indian losses were about one hundred and fifty killed. Seldom has an army been more utterly defeated.50

GOccJournal of Ebenezer Denny,» Zoe. cit., 368-75; Smith, Life and Services of St. Clar, II, 262-67; American Stat6 Papa-rs, Indian Affasrs, I, 137; McBride, Pion&er Biograph,, I, 16S; "Memoranda of Benjamin Van Cleve," in The Americ~n Pioneer, II (1843), 150-S3. 30 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

What caused this terrible disaster? One reason was the delay that kept St. Clair from moving forward until October 4. This delay was caused by a misunderstanding between Knox, St. Clair, and Butler, the second in command. Knox, unknown to St. Clair, had or, dered Butler, who was assembling troops at Pittsburgh, to use them in such a way as to permit the disbanding of the local militia that was being supported by the Federal Government. Knox"s orders were sub, ject to correction by St. Clair, but the latter was in Kentucky when they were issued and he did not have the opportunity to revise them before Butler acted on them in such a way as to delay for a month his movement of troops down the Ohio. The delay was lengthened by the failure of the Government to have boats ready to move the troops and supplies expeditiously down the river. The result of the delay was to give the Indians a chance to recover from the blows of Scott and Wilkinson, thus neutralizing to a certain degree the effect of these movements. Furthermore it caused the army to move in the season when the early autumn frosts had killed the forage for the horses and cattle. This produced the strange situation of an army, advancing into a wilderness, obliged to exert its whole main power to protect and provide for the live stock. By obliging the army to delay its march in the morning for the round,up and by causing early stops in the afternoon, the forage difficulty made the advance extremely slow.01 But the administration of the quartermaster, Samuel Hodgdon, surpassed all the other departments in inefficiency. Not a single horse supplied by Hodgdon was available for the campaign. The horses were entrusted to men who had not the slightest knowledge of the care of the animals and who left them unbelled, and fed in such a way that they kicked and fought each other. The total number of axes supplied for St. Clair"s army of twenty,five hundred was fifty. The tents were made of sheeting that let in the rain. Regular cavalry saddles for large horses were supplied instead of small pack,saddles for pack, horses. All the splints sent from Philadelphia were useless. The powder for the firearms was rendered unfit for efficient use by the quality of the tents. 52

SJ.American State Papers, Indian Affairs, I, 186, 187; Arthur St. Clair, A Narrative of the Manner in Which the Campaign again.rt the Indians in 1791 Was Conducted (Phila­ delphia) 7-9, 13, 65, 90-100, 147, 200; "Journal of Ebenezer Denny," loc. cit., 362. 52St. Clair, Narrative, 12, 21, 42, 72, 87, 147, 151, 163, 199, 201, 207, 213. FRONTIER OHIO 31

Another important factor in accounting for the defeat was the complete ignorance of St. Clair as to the numbers and where, abouts of the Indians. As Denny said, HOne most important object was wanting . . . this was, a 'l{nowledge of the collected force and situation of the enemy, of this we were perfectly ignorant." For St. Clair to plead impotence was quite groundless. That spies could not be sent to Indian camps was no excuse. Wayne used the device of capturing Indian scouts and extracting information from them. Furthermore an unpardonable ignorance of Indian movements in the darkness of the night of November 3,4, can be proved beyond the shadow of doubt. On the evening of November 3 one Captain Jacob Slough was sent by Butler, outside the camp, to endeavor to capture Indians who might seek to steal some of the army horses. While in hiding along an Indian path about a mile from camp, Slough and his party observed three large bands of Indians at different times moving in different directions. The captain was so alarmed at the number of the Indians that he fled back to camp for fear of being dis, covered and attacked. He immediately reported to Colonel William Oldham of the militia and the two concluded Hthat the camp would be attacked in the morning. General Butler was thereupon, informed. At the close of his conference with Butler, Slough offered to carry the news to St. Clair. According to Slough, ""he [Butler] stood some time, and after a pause, thanked me for my attention and vigilance, and said, as I must be fatigued I had better go and lie down."" ""I went from him,.,., said Slough, ""and lay down, and never awakened till the firing began. . . . I had taken off none of my clothes, expecting what happened."" St. Clair was never informed of this matter. St. Clair in his report to Knox of November 9 added a postscript that caused much controversy, ""Some very material intelligence was communicated by Captain Slough to General Butler, in the course of the night before the action, which was never imparted to me, nor did I hear of it until after my arrival here.""53 Butler, who was to die on the field of battle a few hours later, must, therefore, bear a large part of the blame for the complete ignorance of the coming attack on the morn-­ ing of November 4.

53"Journal of Ebenezer Denny," Zoe. cit., 106; St. Clair, Nan-ative, l 06, 213-18; Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 266; American Stc1te Papers, Indian Affairs, I, 138. 32 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

The effect on army morale of all these inefficiencies, and of others not mentioned, was depressing. It produced a disposition to desert that gave rise to another incident of vital importance in explaining the defeat. On October 31 about one hundred Kentucky militia among whom there had been mutterings of discontent for several days, refused to advance farther. They started back toward the Ohio, declaring, according to St. Clair, that they would plunder the first convoy of provisions that they met in order to reach Kentucky in safety. St. Clair, concerned for the safety of his supplies and afraid lest more of the militia and perhaps some of the others would follow suit, decided to deal with the defection with an iron hand. He there, fore dispatched Hamtramck and the first regiment of regulars, the best regiment in the American army, to march twenty miles south, or until it overtook the deserters and met convoy. The wording of these orders by St. Clair was unfortunate. He meant for them to tum back after twenty miles if the deserters and the convoy were not met with. The result was that on November 4, the army was minus its most effective and cool,headed regiment. 5'

3 'The Years of Peace Mil{ing, 1792,1793. The effects of the defeat of St. Clair were f ar,reaching. It fired the Indians with a tremendous zeal and did more than anything else to give great confidence to the now reunited Indians in defending their civilization against the whites. For the Indians had forgotten their disagreements in the months of 1 791 when Scott, Wilkinson and St. Clair had advanced against them. On the battlefield at St. Clair"s defeat all the tribes of the Old Northwest were present­ even the Delawares and Wyandot, who had long deserted the Con, federacy. The Indians exaggerated the victory far beyond the right proportions. As Putnam said, ~~The Indians began to believe them Selves invinsible, and they truly had great cause of triumph."" A movement at once got under way to revive officially the old Confed.­ eracy-a movement that culminated in the council at the junction of the Au Glaize and the Maumee (Defiance, Ohio) in the spring and summer of 1792. As McKee reported to Johnson on December

54St. Clair, Narrati:1e, 27, 68, 223, 26S; ''Journal of Ebenezer Denny," lac. cit., 366. FRONTIER OHIO 33

5, 1791, ""The astonishing success of a few Indians, not more than 1040, who have opposed and destroyed the whole American force will probably cause a more numerous collection of Indians . . . than was ever before known in this part of the Country.,,z The Indians were greatly encouraged in this by the British whose support is most emphatically responsible for the Indians going too far in dealing with the Americans. So exaggerated a notion of their strength did the Indians get that when the United States in 1793 abandoned their insistence on the Fort Harmar line and offered a compromise, the Confederacy foolishly refused. It was really an unfortunate thing for the Indians-this British support. At bottom, of course, the British interest was based on a desire to preserve the fur trade.56 This interest entangled them in a web of Indian politics from which it was impossible to be extricated. The Indians were dependent upon the British in victory as well as in defeat. Indians and fur trade politics had required the retention of the posts after their cession to the United States in 1783. After the treaty of Fort Harmar a movement of the Miami down the Maumee River began that made it the new center of that nation at the mouth of the Au Glaize. After Harmar,s defeat this movement attained the proportions of a real migration. Throughout it all they looked to England for supplies and England gave them. In doing so, the Eng, lish agent, McKee, was f creed, late in 1790, to apologize because such unexpected demands caught them short on supplies. McKee 5 promised them more, however, in the near future. ' The psycho.­ logical effect of this on the Indians was to lead them to believe the English would support them through thick and thin. In 1791 the Indians were again shown that the British were for them. The fur trading interest, through the mouthpiece of Johnson and McKee, desired a revision of the Treaty of 1783 by the establish.­ ment of a neutral Indian barrier state north of the Ohio. Upon making their wishes known to Lord Dorchester, governor of Quebec, his

55John F. Meguiness, Biography of Frances Slocum (Williamsport, Pennsylvania, 1891 ), 67; Buell, Memoirs of Ru.fur Putnam, 116; Pioneer Society of Michigan Collections, XXIV, 336, Ernest A. Cruikshank (ed.), The Correspondence of Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simco• (Toronto, 1931 ), I, 157. 56Pioneer Society of Michigan Collections, XXIV, 144, 162-64, 306, 312, 338-42, 366; Samuel Flagg Bemis, Jay's Treaty: A Study in Comm::rcd and Diplomacy (New York, 1923), 113; Cruikshank, Co,..,.espondence of Simcoe, I, 21. :;7Pioneer Society <'f Michigan c,,llections, XII, 11; XXIV, 103, 107, 137. 34 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Lordship instructed Johnson to sound the Indians in such a way as to get them to declare their grievances and suggest terms so that such terms could be used in the diplomatic manoeuvres that were going forward between the Americans and British governments. McKee thereupon assembled the Indians at the Rapids of the Maumee, in July, 1791, and got them to make a statement of the insecurity of their position and of their desire of some kind of a guarantee as to the Ohio River boundary. They showed their willingness, however, to permit the Marietta settlements to continue on the north side of the Ohio. These terms were presented to Dorchester in August and by him sent to the British Cabinet. The Cabinet took them, a pp roved of them, and used them as the basis of their instructions to George Hammond, the minister to the United States, to form a neutral Indian barrier state with boundaries of exactly the same nature as those laid down by the Indians in July. Such solicitude for Indian welfare could hardly have failed to make a strong impression on the lndians.58 Entering the year 1 792 on the crest of the wave of their own victory and sustained by a confidence in English support, the Indians assumed an attitude of superiority that led them to withdraw their former offer to compromise on the Ohio River boundary. They were encouraged in this not only by the British but by the multiplicity of American emissaries that sought to make an entry into the Indian country in 1792 and by the impunity with which some of these mes, sengers were killed. First there were the secret official agents, Captain Peter Pond and William Steedman, sent out by Knox in January, who got no further t_lian Niagara where they were arrested by the British for not having passports. The next was Captain Alexander Trueman who was instructed in April to go from Fort Washington direct to the hostile tribes to invite them to a treaty at Philadelphia. He was to offer to compensate the Miami for their interest in the ceded lands. Trueman started, but he never delivered his message. Somewhere in the wilderness north of Fort Washington he and his companions were killed by Indians. A similar fate met Hardin who was sent out shortly after Trueman on a similar mission. Still another

'S:,Jbt.d .• xxr~·, 163, 1n, 200, 2n~ 226, 22s, 237, 243, 246, 262, 2s1, 309-13, 318-21; Cruikshank, Correspondence of Simcoe, I, 36; Bemis, Jay's Treaty, 117-19. FRONTIER OHIO 35 case was that of Putnam, who, since the Indians would not come to white settlements to treat, was sent late in May, to Vincennes to negotiate a treaty. The Miami did not attend, indeed they sought to kill Putnam at Fort Jefferson. Only a few tribesmen of the Ouia, tenon and Piankashaw nations on the Wabash attended and the Treaty negotiated on September 27 was little more than a pact of good,will and friendship. It was not recognized by the Indian Con, federacy and was later repudiated by the United States Senate.151 The Confederacy was not interested in Putnam"s Treaty nor in any other negotiation that did not include a recognition of the Ohio River boundary. At the very moment that Putnam was pre, paring the American treaty, the Confederacy, encouraged by the British was assembling its constituent tribes at the mouth of the Au Glaize to reassert the claim of the Ohio River boundary and to prepare an official and united reply to American peace manoeuvres. The council which met in September, 1792, was not only provisioned by the British, but was used by them for another diplomatic purpose. The neutral Indians" barrier state having been rejected by the United States, the British Indian agents were under instructions from Lieutenant,Governor Alured Clark of Quebec and John Graves Simcoe, governor of the new province of Upper Canada, to get the Indians to request British intervention between the United States and the Indians. This was supposed to be a clever move com, ing as it did in the time of America "s disadvantage. As Simcoe in, structed McKee on August 30: Impress the Indians now meeting ... of themselves to solicit the King·s good Offices. . . . This solicitation should be the result of their own spon, taneous Reflections .... All the Indian Tribes ... should concur ... not only as so numerous a Confederacy would present to the Americans an increased accumulation of Hostile Force; but also as a consol[id}ation of the Indian Territorial Claims and Rights is requisite to the formation of so extensive a Barrier, as we have in contemplation.80 This was a dangerous device. Its effectiveness as a diplomatic manoeuvre against the United States was doubtful, but its effective, ness in augmenting Indian conceit was certain. It occasioned the flat rejection of the attempts of a :fifth American emissary, the Stock,

59.4.merican State Papers, Indian A.flairs, I, 227, 229, 230, 233-36, 238, 243, 283-90, 293-95, 321-24, 338; Mann Butler, History of Kentucky (Louisville, 1834 ), 220; Buell, Memoirs of Rufus Putnam, 268, 270, 2i5, 279, 293, 296, 297, 299-307, 320, 327, 335-66, 368, 370, 376. eocruikshank, Correspondence of Simcoe, I, 177, 188, 190, 201, 207. 36 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS bridge Indian, Hendrick Aupaumut, to get the Au Glaize council to ad joum in order to reassemble at Fort Jefferson to meet Putnam. It presented, furthermore, an ultimatum to the United States de, manding British intervention and the meeting in the spring of 179 3 on the Sandusky of a grand council to be composed of the Con, f ederacy, and representatives of the English, and of the United States. With the protection of the British, the Indians looked for, ward to a fair deal and to the reestablishment of the Ohio River boundary. As the council said in the appeal to the British: We hope on this great occasion that he [Simcoe} will exert himself to see justice done to us, as it must be through his power and mediation that we can expect an end to our troubles, and not being in a situation to keep or procure any writings that may be necessary to assert our just claims ... we rely on your friendship to produce those made at the settlement of the Boundary between us & the King. They wanted all the documents relating to the Indians" rights. ""We expect,.,., they said, "" . . . that all Records of purchasers of Lands, Treaties and Documents, Maps and etc., since the :first arrival of the white people among us, will be brought. ""61. Truly the grand council of the Sandusky of 1793 was, in the Indians" minds, to be a :fitting conclusion of the victory over St. Clair, the :final settlement of the status of the relations to exist for, ever in this region of North America between the red man and the white. But it was not to be. Success and British encouragement went to the Indians" heads and resulted in an uncompromising attitude on the part of the Indians that led to the resumption of war. For the Americans were more than willing to compromise in 1793. The commissioners appointed to treat with the Confederacy on the Sandusky were instructed by Knox to agree, if necessary, to give back to the Indian all lands not sold to the Ohio Company or to the Symmes Associates. The words that contain this astonishing concession read : The space between the tracts of land granted to the particular com, panies and the Indian boundary, established by the Treaty of Fort Harmar, will render it extremely difficult, if not impracticable, to relinquish any lands in the said space, without establishing a cause of perpetual discussions and hostilities between the whites and Indians. But, if the relinquishment of any lands, in the said space, should be an ultimatum with the said Indians, and

81Captain Hendrick to Timothy Pickering, December 11, 1792, Pickering MSS.; Ameriun State Paperr, Indian Affair;, I, 324, 337; Cruikshank, Correrponderice of Simcoe, I, 227, 229, 259. FRONTIER OHIO 37

a line could be agreed upon which would be free from dispute, you may, in order to effect a peace, make such relinquishment. The Indians were even to be told that the United States con, fessed that the line drawn in the Treaty of Fort Harmar was ""ex, travagant." The Stockbridge Indian, Aupaumut, \vas sent west by the commissioner, Pickering, with the following confession, ""It is true the commissioners, at some former treaties, set up ex, travagant claims, but perhaps the present commissioners may confine themselves to moderate limits. "c But the rash Indians would have none of it. The obsequiousness of the Americans as shown by their coming to the Indian country to treat and by the compromises they were willing to make seemed to go to the Indians~ heads. The Indians seemed to have gotten quite beyond British control. The British agent, McKee, who, with Brant, '\vas working for a compromise on the Ohio River boundary, reported his failure to Simcoe on August 22: All my endeavors were directed to accomplish a union on that point; and I did not expect it would be difficult, as they had heretofore agreed to make peace on these Terms. But whether from a jealousy of the Six Nations. who are supposed by the others to be attached to the United States, or from a conviction that it would be wrong to make such an offer before the Com, missioners agreed to the Ohio generally as the boundary, I did not know; they however persisted in demanding that River as the Boundary without any Limitation~ And when on August 9, 1793, this fatal decision was made by the Indian council at the Maumee Rapids, the Delaware chief, Buckongahelas, arose and pointing to this same McKee, said, ""That is the Person who advises us to insist on the Ohio River for the line." There was no inconsistency in these two strange statements. No hypocrisy, no duplicity was being practised by McKee. He was too true a friend of the Indians, too loyal a defender of the British fur,trading interests, to dissent from an Indian decision after it had been made. 63 The great council of the Sandusky never met. The Americans \"Vere ready to compromise but not to give up everything they strove for. They received the Indians~ final ultimation on August 16 at Detroit and at once prepared to return announcing:

82American State Papers, Indian Affairs, I, 340-42, 346. 63Cruikshank, Correspondence of Simcoe, II, 16, 34. 38 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

The negotiation is at an end. We sincerely regret that peace is not the result; but, knowing the upright and liberal views of the United States. which as far as you gave us an opportunity we have explained to you, we trust that impartial judge will not attribute the continuance of the war to them." 4 British Support of the Indians; the , 1794. A resumption of war with the Indian was now inevitable. The tribesmen contemplated the event with ever,increasing confidence because the British made no effort to disillusion them. Indeed the two Canadian governors, Dorchester and Simcoe, were responsible for two most astonishing statements to the tribes that led the Indians to face the advance of General without the slight, est doubt of their ability to defeat him. These two British adminis, trators were responsible for informing the Indians that the peace negotiations between John Jay and the English diplomats were sure to fail and that war between England and the United States was probable. It was believed by these gentlemen that the outbreak of war between England and France would draw the United States in on the side of their French allies. On February 10, 1794, Dorchester, upon the formal delivery to him by the Seven Nations of Canada, of the proceedings of the Confederacy in defying the Americans, delivered to them a speech designed to reassure the Indians that they need not fear the con, sequences of the war with the United States because the tn"besmen would soon have active allies in the British. Dorchester completely justified the Indian claim for the Ohio River boundary. He said:

From the manner in which the People of the States push on, and act, and talk . . . and from what I learn of their conduct towards the Sea, I shall not be surprised if we are at war with them in the course of the present year. . . . I shall acknowledge no lands to be theirs which have been incroached on by them since the year 1783; they then broke the Peace, and as they kept it not on their part; it doth not bind on ours. . . . They then destroyed their Right of preemption, therefore all their approaches toward us since that time; and all the Purchases made by them, I consider as an in, fringement on the Kints Rights, and when a Line is drawn between us, be it in peace or War. they must lose all their Improvements and Houses on out side of it. . . . We have acted in the most peaceable manner, and . . . with Patience; but I believe our Patience is almost exhausted.0

84AmeriCdn State Papers, Indian Affairs, I, 3S7. §Cruikshank, Correspondence of Simcoe, II, 149. FRONTIER OHIO

Simcoe though more discreet and less spectacular in his method of expressing himself on his expectancy of a war with the United States, was, nevertheless, a firmer believer in one. "'If I know any, thing of the States,"" Simcoe wrote McKee on July 10, 1794, ""they so highly overrate their own importance that Mr. Jays Embassy will be fruitless and I conceive War inevitable ..,.,. Dorchester was quick to show to the Indians that he meant to follow up his talk with action. On February 17, 1794, a week after his speech to the Seven Nations, he wrote to Simcoe that Wayne"s pending advance warranted the reestablishment of the old British fort at the Rapids of the Maumee-a step that Alexander McKee had been urging ever since 1791. He wrote: Self defence requires we should prevent similar Evils from extending further, and that for our own security at the Detroit we should occupy nearly the same Posts on the Miamis [Maumee] River which we demolished after the Peace. . . . You will there£ ore order such Force from Detroit to the Miamis River as You may judge sufficient for that Service.117 Simcoe lost no time in taking full advantage of the order in stimulating the Indians. He decided to go west to support the work on Fort Miami and to council with the tribesmen. For this latter purpose he armed himself with Dorchester"s speech. On his way he stopped at Brant"s village on Grand River. This chieftain thus re, ported to Joseph Chew on March 2 5: His Excellency Governor Simcoe has just now left my House on His Way to Detroit with Lord Dorchester's Speech to the Seven Nation.st and have Every reason to believe when it is delivered that Matters will take an immediate Change to the Westward as it will undoubtedly give those Natioos high spirits, and Enable them by a Perfect Union to Check General Wayne if he advances any further, which appears to me will be the case as affairs now stand.68 On April 14, 1794, Simcoe met the delegates of the Miami, Shawnee, Delawares, Mingo, and Wabash tribes at the Au Glaize, and read to the united Indians of the Northwest Dorchester"s speech. To the unfortunate Indians this rash act of Simcoe was the formal pledge of support, and the prior establishment of Fort Miami showed that the English were putting their pledge into actual opera, tion. It was all they needed, and they immediately prepared to set forth to battle. They replied to Simcoe:

86Jhid., I, 338-44, 411; V, 97. 67Jhid., II, 2, 39, 68, 79-83, 104, 105, 122, 154. 88JhuJ.., II, 194. 40 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

We salute you, & thank you for your speech you have sent us, which was delivered by our Father at Quebec to the Seven Nations. . . . You have set our hearts right, and we are now happy to see you standing on your feet in our Country, for we have long wished and expected you, to send some of your Warriors among us. . . . Be you strong also Father in giving your good advice to your children upon the Lakes and they may speedily join us .... We are now on our feet, and if the Powtawatamies, W yandots & others. do not join us by Tomorrow, we shall ourselves advance against the Big Knives, and endeavour to stop their progress.69 Guided by McKee, the Indians at the Au Glaize on May 7 sent out a call to the Lake Indians that the time to assemble was at hand. On May 24, they likewise called upon the English again to fulfill at once Dorchester"s and Simcoe"s promises. ""When you filled the Pipe of the three Nations [Miami, Delawares, and Shawnee on April 14] .,., they said, ""you told them you would rise and go along with us; make haste then & go along with us & bring your children along with you, as we expect they [ the Americans] are all now collected at Greenville ..,., In response to these urgings, the British commandant at Detroit, Colonel Richard G. England, issued orders that every means should be used to forward all Indians to the Au Glaize. In the meantime Fort Miami was garrisoned and a blockhouse and storehouse built on Turtle Island on the mouth of the Maumee River.70 The electrifying effect of the actions of the British, led by Dor, chester and Simcoe, is clear. Brant, whose loyalty to the Confed, eracy had been lagging ever since the failure of peace in August, 1793, renewed his enthusiasm and called upon all the tribes to rush to the support of the tribes of the Maumee, construing the erection of Fort Miami and Dorchester"s speech to mean ""a certainty of Great Britain being engaged in Hostilities with the United States." By the middle of June, 1794, one of the largest Indian armies ever assembled had gathered at the rendezvous at Fallen Timbers, near Fort Miami. All accounts agree that the number of warriors was almost two thousand. They expected to smash Wayne"s army as they had St. Clair"s over two and a half years before. If properly directed they could have done so. They fully expected not only proper direction but military support from the British whose agents

69Pioneer Society of Michigan Collections, XXIV, 656. 7'lCruikshank, Correspcndence of Simcoe, II, 232, 247, 250, 252, 253, 259, 262, 26;, 278, 294. FRONTIER OHIO 41 worked indefatigably, during these spnng months of 1794, to as, semble and provision the tribes. 71 The tragedy of it all becomes the more poignantly apparent when the reader observes that at the very moment when the Indians were being pushed headlong into war by Dorchester, Simcoe and McKee, the British Cabinet was ordering these same officials to pursue an opposite course. On July I 0, as was pointed out, Simcoe wrote to McKee that Jay's Treaty would be fruitless and that war was inevitable. A member of the British Cabinet wrote on July 4 to Simcoe that Jay's Treaty would probably be successful, and that the posts would be evacuated. ""It is to be hoped,,, wrote Henry Dundas, ""that the presence of Mr. Jay, who is now here, may lead to a :final termination of all disputes and a perfect good understanding between this Country and the United States of America_.,., He there, fore stated that although Simcoe might continue with the occupation of Fort Miami he must be prepared to abandon it, along with Detroit. ""The Posts," he wrote, ""on the American side of the Treaty Line can only be considered as Temporary Objects; a final arrangement with the United States of America, in all probability, leading to their evacuation. "'72 Oblivious to the doom that was a waiting them the Indians pre, pared for Wayne. Having attained their maximum force by the middle of June, and knowing that such numbers could not stay long in the :field, they prepared for immediate action. At the moment of advance, lacking white leadership in the form of British troops, they drafted all white traders among them. These men, of course, could not do other than acquiesce. Thus according to the diary of an un, known British officer, an Indian council of war was held at the Au Glaize on June 16 at which the Indian Traders were present. Here it was resolved, . . . that every white man either French or English residing among or getting their livelihood bv the Indian Trade or otherwise now within the limits of their Country shall immediately join the Indian Army to defend the territory in which their mutual interest is so greatly concerned. That their Fathers [ the English] had always told them to defend their Country, and were happy to see us [the British traders] at this critical period in order

'rlJbi:i., 285; V, 86, 92, 9;_ '.:!Jbia., II, ,tlU. 42 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS to have our advice; consequently were unanimously of op1ruon that they could not dispense with our presence at a juncture when probably the event would determine their future happiness-Resolved therefore that we shall join the Army now in readiness to march.ff With this motley array of pick-up leadership, the Indians, two thousand strong, advanced in two divisions against the Americans. Unkind, indeed, was the fate that decreed that the destiny of the Indians should be entrusted to such a force. They had a different task before them in 1794 from that which they had in 1790 and 1791 against Harmar and St. Clair. The main part of Wayne"s army was safely in the protection of Fort Greenville. Until the be, ginning of a forward movement ( which did not take place until late in July), no encounter such as took place on the previous oc, casions was possible. The only effective thing to do, granting that the Indians could not conduct a siege and had to return quickly because of the lack of provisions, was to capture sufficient American provisions en route and to deliver such a paralyzing stroke or series of strokes to the supplies that Wayne could not support his large army and would be forced to retreat. According to McKee the Indians had actually planned to do this..... Everything had been settled,,., he wrote Colonel England on July 5, .... prior to their leav, ing the Fallen Timbers, and it had been agreed upon to confine themselves to marking convoys and attacking at a distance from the Forts, if they should have the address to entice their Escort out.,,,., But the impetuosity of the Indians frustrated more effective action. They blasted every hope of success by throwing themselves in a futile attack on Fort Recovery on June 30 and July 1 with the only effect of capturing or killing about three hundred horses and some cattle. The British officer quoted above admirably f orecasted the outcome when on the night of June 28 the Indians changed their plan. He said: Cutting off the Communication between the Forts and the Ohio is the only object by which we could promise success but as the Northern Indians take the lead we are forced to comply to change our Course to, morrow for Fort Recovery where nothing effectual can be done but on the contrary the means perhaps of discovering our Force and put the enemy on their guard. It was precisely so. Colonel England reported, ''It has all the

'73Jbid., HO; V, 90. 7"I'1id., II, 306 FRONTIER OHIO 43 ili consequences of a defeat, without materially weakening the Amer, icans."'"' HI must observe with grief,"'" lamented the unknown officer, ""that the Indians had never it in their power to do more-and have done so little. ""75 The attack on Fort Recovery was the beginning of the end. Wayne was at once on his guard and there was no chance for a surprise. Above all, the Indians had no means of staying together having captured no eatables. The army at once broke up, never again to assemble in such force. The Confederacy had failed. The issue of Fallen Timbers and the Treaty of Greenville had been decided. As the Indian army broke up the impotence of the English be, came at once apparent. They could not supply the Indians, to say nothing of reinforcing them with an army of their own. McKee could do absolutely nothing to keep the Chippewa, Wyandot, and Potawatomi warriors from going home. ""Both the Mackinac and the Lake Indians,"" he wrote on July 5', ""seem ... resolved on going home again, having completed the belts they carried, with scalps and prisoners and having no provisions there [ at Fallen Timbers] to subsist upon . .,., ""The want of provisions and ammunition,"' he wrote later to Colonel England, ""must necessarily occasion so large a body of Indians as was collected, to separate in a short time.,., Moreover the Indians were disgusted that Colonel England did not take part in the actual :fighting, knowing that the English would benefit by the defeat of the United States. ""I conceive,"" wrote McKee to Colonel England, ""there would have been little difficulty in stopping all the Indians here, Provided I had been authorized for that pur, pose, but we must in that case have taken an active share in the contest and become at least auxiliaries in the War. •n'ls Nevertheless, McKee struggled valiantly to hold the Indians to, gether on the Maumee, reporting to Simcoe on July 26 that the dispersion was checked. To do this he was compelled to be far more lavish in supplying food than ever before. But the Fort Recovery campaign had made the Indians apprehensive about the possibility of British military aid. As Wayne advanced the tribes demanded a showdown, and as usual, got vague promises that they interpreted

75Jbid., 314; V, 93, 94. 76Jbid., II, 306, 315 44 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

as pledges. Thus the Miami chief, Little Turtle, visited Colonel England in the latter part of July. Colonel England reported to Simcoe on July 22: The object of his visit was clearly to discover what assistance he and the other Indians were to expect from us, he expressed fully their dislike to continue the War longer on the terms they had been lately engaged in, and said much on that subject, asked for twenty men and two pieces of Cannon to go to attack Fort Recovery, and declared if not assisted by the English they would be obliged to desist in their plan of attempting to stop the progress of the American Army. I of course talked him over for two or three days, and dismissed him seemingly contented.'j'l' The Wyand-~! were even more peremptory. On August '5 a delegation led by the Crane presented their demands to Colonel England Hfor assistance in the Field from their Fathers and seemed discontented at its being so long delayed."" The Wyandot said they could not understand why the English stood for so much insult from the United States. They said: You daily hear how they [ the Americans] talk of you . . . Can any Nation upon earth put up with such abuse? Certainly not. You are a warrior. . . . We request you to be strong and not to neglect us; rise upon your feet along with your warriors and help us. If you do not, we cannot go to war any more. . . . There is the Hatchet you gave us [ during the Revolution] which was buried under the leaves and which we now return to you to sharpen for you and us. . . . Be expeditious in rubbing off the rust, as no time is to be lost. If you delay doing this, we shall be undone. In reply Colonel England was vague enough to satisfy his superior, and also to satisfy the Indians by misleading them. ~~& I am very sensible,,., he said, ""that your Father [ the English] in no one instance ever intended to deceive you, I am certain he will not withdraw from you the protection you say he promised you at the different Councils you allude to.,., He promised to send the request to Simcoe by express and in the meantime to give McKee special orders to feed and protect them. Nevertheless he stated, ~"It is not in my power to march with his [Simcoe's] Warriors to war without his orders."' It is apparent, however, that Colonel England expected war and that the Indians knew it. As the Colonel reported to Simcoe, ""I was as cautious as possible in my reply, but suppose the ti;me not far distant when I shall be able to speak out." Nor were the Indians' spirits depressed when on August 9, Colonel England sent fifty more troops and more artillery from Detroit to Fort

77Jhir1., 3 34, 344. FRONTIER OHIO 45'

Miami. In the meantime Simcoe stormed about, writing to Dorches, ter and Dundas for more troops and supplies.78 The English were thus able to keep thirteen hundred warriors assembled at Fallen Timbers to wait for Wayne. But fate decreed that even that number was not available for action when Wayne,s forces attacked on August 20. There were only eight hundred In, dians engaged against Wayne,s forces in the two,hour battle. The reason for this was that the Indians had been waiting for the Amer, ican army for three days without food. An American had been cap, tured on August 17, who said that Wayne would attack on the next day. The Indians, fasting, as was their custom before battle, waited for him throughout the days of August 18 and 19. The twentieth was stormy and the Indians, unable to resist longer the pangs of hunger, went off in large parties to get food at Fort Miami, four miles down the river. In their absence \Vayne attacked, and the tribesmen were crushed by superior strength before the warriors below could arrive to help. Wayne knew that the Indians were at Fallen Timbers and it is probable that he deliberately de, layed to attack so as to create the situation that actually occurred. Colonel England was quite disgusted with the Indians, stating that they did not offer the Americans adequate resistance. ""The Indians,,, he wrote to Simcoe, ""on this occasion have forfeited every pre, tension to a Warlike or Gallant Character. ,,m The Battle of Fallen Timbers in itself was not an overwhelming or crushing defeat. No more than fifty Indians seem to have been killed. It was by no means final. According to McKee, the Indians, on the afternoon of August 20, after the battle, Hwere still in spirits and determined to give them [ the Americans] another brush.,, But it assumed more of the aspect of finality when it became ap, parent that the guns of Fort Miami were to be silent and that war was not to take place between the United States and England. On August 21 and 22 Wayne laid waste all crops and property for several miles down the river. He even approached within pistol,shot

78Jbid., 253, 357, 359, 360, 362, 368, 374, 382. 79Jbid., 395; III, 7-11, 21, 75, 99, 180; Isaac Weld, Travels through the States of North America and the Provinces of Upper and Lower Carwda during the Years, 1i95, 1796 and 179 7 (London, 1 i99 ), II, 210-15; "William Clark's Journal of General "1·ayne's Campaign," in Mississippi Valley Historical Review (Cedar Rapids, 1914-), I (1914), 427-31; Lieutenant Boyer, A Journal of Wayne's Campaign (Cincinnati, 1866), 7-9. 46 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS of the British fort. But although he and the British commandant, Major William Campbell, exchanged insults on paper and each demanded that the other surrender, not a shot was fired. It was then that the spirits of the Indians began to fall.80 Still the optimistic Simcoe expected war. On August 19, he wrote to Colonel England, 4,4,1 fear from French intrigue that there is little hopes of peace, and in that case I cannot but suppose that this Country will be reinforced and not left to its fate."" Upon receiving the news of Fallen Timbers, he at once decided that his presence was necessary at Detroit to reassure the Indians. 4,4,1 should hope,"" he wrote to Colonel England on August 26, 4,4,that when the :first impressions [ of Fallen Timbers] shall be worn away that means may be used to restore them [the Indians] to their wonted resolu, tion. It is on this belief principally that I think it expedient to pro, ceed in person to Detroit."" To bring about greater effectiveness he :finally prevailed on Brant to accompany him to the West with over a hundred warriors. On August 23, Simcoe reported to Dorchester, 4,4,Brant, with every man he can muster, is determined to join the 81 W estem Indians. n Simcoe could not, however, inspire the Indians merely with his own optimism. Something more essential was necessary, now that disillusionment was creeping in. The Indians to the number of over two thousand were huddled together at the mouth of Swan Creek on the Maumee, about six miles below Fort Miami and were being fed by McKee with British supplies. Rumors were circulating that a general exodus of the tribes beyond the Mississippi was impending. Simcoe, however, had little to offer hut more promises, and the Indians had had enough of these. On October 10 at the Wyandot village of Brownstown near Detroit he met the Indians who demand, ed the fulfillment of Dorchester"s promise of support. According to the diary of Lieutenant William Wayne, Brant, 4,4,in the name of all the western tribes demanded that assistance which this later spring had been promised them by Lord Dorchester from their allies, the British."" But the best thing that Simcoe could offer was a fierce denunciation of the Americans, a promise to tell Dorchester, and

80Cruikshank, Correspond~nce of Simcoe, II, 396; Bemis, Jay's Treaty, 180. 11Cruikshank, Correspondence of Simcoe, II, 393, 411; III, 5, 25, 40, 85. FRONTIER OHIO 47 the statement that if the Americans ever insulted the English again there would be trouble. ""The Officer in command there [ at Fort Mia.mi],.... Simcoe wrote, ""has orders to permit no further insults, but to fire on all parties who shall approach it."" A council was to take place in the spring of 1795 at Brownstown when Dorchester"s decision was to be made known. But Brant and the Indians in gen, eral were greatly discouraged. On his return to Niagara from Brownstown Brant wrote to Chew: I am just returned from the Miamis and Detroit and am very sorry to say the Indians in that quarter are in much Confusion--owing to their late bad Success and in bad Temper by not receiving any assistance from the English. I really believe if I had not gone up most of them would have dispersed and went to the Mississippi. . . . I am sorry to find everything in a discouraging situation.82 The council at Brownstown, scheduled for the spring of 1795, never took place. Before it could convene, the terms of Jay"s Treaty, ratified January 22, 1795, by which the posts were surrendered by the British, had been circulated among the tribes by Wayne and his emissaries. Simcoe complained as late as May 20, 1795, that the In, dians had not been told a thing about the Treaty by the British. Instead of going to council at Brownstown, tribe after tribe went ""sneaking off"" to Greenville, as Brant"s relative, Sarah Ainse, aptly put it. And after having found that Wayne would make peace on the terms of ·the boundary of the Treaty of Fort Harmar; that he has money for them; and that he also had a program to preserve their trade, they were willing to make peace. The advice given to the Miami by the French trader, Antoine Lasselle, and to the Wyan, dot by Isaac Williams to accept Wayne"s terms gradually had effect. For what ha:d the English to offer? The Indians were ready to accept Lasselle"s advice to his brother on January 31, ""Explain to them [the Miami] what lies McKee tells them."" They were ready to heed the half ,breed Williams" more moderate exhortations to listen to Wayne who promised to protect the Indians in their hunting. Said Williams: I shall daily deliver up my prayers to the great Spirit above, to tum the Chiefs minds to good works that we may live in happiness once more. . . . See the Distress we are in, the White people is oblidged to Cloath us & feed now, it is a disgrace to us all. We ought never to suffer Ourselves to be conducted in this manner. God has given hands & understanding 82Jbid., III, i8, 96, 98, 124, 131, 140, Ht. 48 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS to walk by & Lands to hunt upon-it was by this manner of bad manage, ment that Our forefathers lost so much land. A new influence, was, temporarily, dominant among the In, dians. McKee"s was gone and he hurried off to Quebec to confer with Dorchester as to ways and means of handling the tribesmen in the approaching new scheme of things. As Brant said in February, 1795, with more than ordinary acumen, ~~It is a pity Colonel McKee should have lost his influence with the Indians or that he ever inter, f ered in their councils. ""83

j The 'Treaty of Greenville, 1795.

Wayne"s main effort after the Battle of Fallen Timbers was to convince the Indians that they had nothing to expect from the British. Every message to the tribes stressed this point. Wayne was himself convinced that McKee was the ~~principal stimulator"" of Indian hostility and took great pains to destroy utterly every vestige of his properties on the Maumee. The :first nation to negotiate with Wayne after the battle was the Wyandot. In reply Wayne pointed out how completely they had been deserted by the British. He said on November 4: I hope and trust that your eyes are now opened, and you will no longer suffer yourselves to be imposed on by the bad advice of those inter, ested men, who have so often deceived you, and betrayed you into error, by fair and pla-usible, but false promises, of assisting you to fight against the Fifteen Fires of the United States. I have already told you that those people had neither the power or inclination to protect you; the truth of which you have dearly experienced. The reply of the Sandusky Wyandot on December 4, was encouraging: I hope that the Great Spirit above will incline our hearts to that way of thinking.... Next spring you may depend upon us; we shall settle all matters to the satisfaction of all parties. Our father [ the British] will, or has promised to settle this for us. You must not think that this will be managed as it was with the last council at the Miami river; that time, when you sent your commissioners, it was our father that disappointed us both; that f this l time we are not to be blamed for it. Wayne"s subordinate at Vincennes, Hamtramck, through Lasselle, spread among the Miami the advice Hnot to pay any atten, tion to what McKee, Elliott, and many other bad people said to

'S3Jhid., III, 183, 281, 287, 310; IV, 14. FRONTIER OHIO 49 them; that they alone were the cause of the misfortunes which had happened_.,.,~ The predicament of the Indians as Wayne sowed these seeds of distrust was a difficult one. They were conscious of being deserted by the British. They were also conscious of the danger of dealing with the Americans on any treaty ground. But there was little else to do but to take at their face value Wayne.,s offers of peace and of magnanimous treatment. The dilemma was well described on September 2 5' by a Wyandot who had just returned to Sandusky from Detroit: We are now arrived at a period which demands justice, and tells us to 1ook around and see the most distressing appearance. What an object it is for us to contemplate on. How unhappy I am to see you all in this state; to· think that we are so near abandoning our lands. What will become of us? Surely we will be in the greatest distress imaginable. The only plan I can see for our future happiness, is to demand a hearing from the United States once more . . . you must not advise [with} your father [ the British] any more, for he has deceived us too often.85 Another influence that turned the Indians away from the British was that of the French, principally at Detroit. They, as in the time of Clark, rejoiced at the American victories and secretly \vished for the removal of the British. And these French, of course, as in the time of Clark, still had a strong hold on the Indians., loyalty. So great was the disaffection among the French militia at Detroit early in 1794, that its suppression was one of the objects of Simcoe.,s visit of that year to Detroit. By February 15, 1795', Simcoe confessed to Dorchester, ""I do not at present see any steps I can take to prevent the dangerous communication between the Traders of Detroit and Mr. Wayne_.,., One of these was Lasselle who had been captured by Wayne during the campaign, court--martialed as a spy, convicted, but released apparently because he could be useful. He seems to have been indefatigable thereafter in circulating Wayne.,s messages among the tribes. On October 23, 1794, he was reported as busily engaged among the Miami and Delawares on the Maumee seeking to get Little Turtle and Buckongahelas to confer with Wayne. On January 24, 1795', he was reported to have read a speech from Wayne to some Indians (probably Potawatomi) on

8'A.merican State Papers, Indian Affairr, I, 491, 494, 495, 528, 549; Cruikshank:, Corre!pondence of Simcoe, III, 181, 287. 8:jAmirrican State Papers, Indian Affairs, I, 550. ;o OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS the road from Detroit to St. Joseph, and to have accompanied them to Greenville. In February he was back again among the Miami.• The situation of the Indians was summed up by Brickell who, from 1791 to 1795, lived in the family of the Delaware warrior, Big Cat. He said: The starving condition of the Indians together with the prospect of losing all their cows and dogs, made the Indians very impatient, and they became exasperated at the British. They said they had been deceived by them, for they had not fulfilled one promise. It was concluded among them to send a Flag to Fort Defiance in order to make a treaty with the Americans.87 Eventually the tribes began to assemble at Greenville on June 16, 1795. They came expecting the establishment of the line of the Treaty at Fort Harmar, and with some hopes for the putting of trade relations on a more stable basis. As to the former point, it will be recalled that the Indians had long denied the validity of that Treaty. But it was the penalty of defeat that they must now acquiesce. On this matter Wayne was :firm. ~•That Treaty,', he told the Wyandot on November 4, 1794, Happeared to be founded on principles of justice and equity, and to have been clearly and fairly understood, and satisfactory to all parties at that period. . . . I, there, fore, propose it as a preliminary or foundation, upon which a per, manent and lasting peace shall be established.,, The statement was, of course, untrue, but it \Vas nevertheless the basis for action. As for trade, Wayne had merely gotten to the stage of making recom, mendations to Knox. He believed that in order permanently to win their allegiance from the British it was necessary to erect trading, houses at protected points. He reported to Knox on December 23, 1794: The British agents have greatly the advantage in this business at present . . . which will always make the savages dependent upon them, until the United States establish trading,houses in their country, from which they can be supplied with equal facility, and at as reasonable rates. . . . Could I, with truth and propriety, pledge myself to the hostile tribes, that this measure would be adopted, and that they would, with certainty, be supplied in this way, in the course of the ensuing spring, as well as in future, I am confident we should draw them over to our interest, notwithstanding every effort of the British to prevent it.• But the Treaty of Greenville was carried out, not in the spirit of

86Cruikshank, Correspondence of Simcoe, III, 148, 272, 298; Y, 11 i; Henry Howe, Historical Collections of Ohio (Cincinnati, 1848), 327. 87"Narrative of John Brickell's Captivity among the Delaware Indians,» loc. ci!., 5 >. SSAmerican State Papers, Indian Affairs, I, 528, 548. FRONTIER OHIO 51 justice, but by the use of the ever effective policy of divide and conquer. Wayne himself, during the negotiations preceding the meeting at Greenville, informed Knox, ""I have, however, succeeded in dividing and distracting the counsels of the hostile Indians, and hope, through that means, eventually to bring about a general peace.,,. True to his promise Wayne brought about peace by that very method. The leader of the opposition to the acceptance of the Fort Harmar line was the Miami, Little Turtle, and it was comparatively easy to tum the other tribes against him. Early in the negotiations Little Turtle made it plain that he regarded the Treaty of Fort Harmar as an act of seduction. ""That Treaty,'' he said on July 18, Hwas effected altogether by the Six Nations, who seduced some of our young men to attend it together with a few of the Chippewa, Wyandots, Ottawas, Delawares, and Pattawatamies.... I am en, tirely ignorant of what was done at that Treaty.,, A Potawatomi and a Chippewa likewise declared ignorance of the Treaty, but omitted to mention seduction. Whereupon Wayne, rising to reply, assumed the attitude of seeking naively to impart to them information concerning the Treaty. But instead of giving it himself he called upon other tribes to do it. Masass, a Chippewa, who had been at the Treaty of Fort Harmar, thereupon arose to the situation to pro, fess his loyalty to that Treaty. This gave Wayne the opportunity ostentatiously to congratulate and reward Masass and his Chippewa. ""The open and generous manner,"" he said, ""in which you have acknowledged being present at, and acquainted with, the Treaty at Muskingum [Fort Harmar], displays an honest, open, and manly heart.'' He called Masass brother and openly gave him and his people lavishly of food and drink." On July 20 Wayne formally read and explained to all the tribes the terms of the Treaty of Fort Harmar. This was followed by endorsements of, or what may have been timid acquiescence in, Wayne"s statements by Delaware, Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Wyandot spokesmen. The fact that each emphasized that they had not received enough payment for the lands seems to indicate that they would be satisfied with a larger share of compensation. But

~!'Jhid., 54~~- 1"-'J/,iJ., 567. 56~. 52 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

not Little Turtle and his Miami. The voice of this nation still spoke for the Confederacy that was now but a memory. Pointing out that the Miami possessions extended west to the Scioto and south to the Ohio, Little Turtle turned upon the other tribes in chagrin, saying: I was much surprised to find that my other brothers differed so much from me on this subject; for their conduct would lead one to suppose that the Great Spirit, and their fore fathers, had not given them the same charge that was give(n] to me, but, on the contrary, had directed them to any white man who wore a hat, as soon as he should ask it of them. . . . I expected in this council that our minds would have been made up, and that we should speak with one voice; I am sorry to observe that you are rather unsettled and hasty in your conduct.111 Wayne did not answer to this until all the other tribes, in, eluding the Shawnee and Ottawa, had again shown their willingness to agree to his terms. Then on July 24, he delivered a speech that showed the Indians that further talk was futile. By combining the terms of Jay'1s Treaty with the Treaty with England of 1783 and with his own proceedings, he sought to show all the Indians that there was no hope whatsoever for them in British support. Introduc, ing the Jay document at a dramatic moment, he apparently made the Indians feel that the British evacuation of the posts pledged therein was an act of the utmost perfidy. He blamed the English for ceding the Indian lands to the United States, and for preventing the Americans from doing justice to the Indians by refusing to give up the posts. ""I will now inform you,,, declared Wayne, ""who it was who gave us these lands, in the first instance; it was your fathers, the British, who did not discover that care for your interest which you ought to have experienced_,, He then laid the Treaty of 1783 with England before them. ""Here, H he declared, ""you perceive that all the country, south of the great lakes, has been given up to America.,, This, of course, was a doctrine which the United States had formally abandoned in 1793. Its reassertion, however, was now tempered with an attempt to show the magnanimity of the American people who did not wish to take advantage of the Indians but chose to permit them to retain their lands for their own use. ""I told you some days ago/, said Wayne, ""that the treaties should ever be sacredly fulfilled by those who make them; but the British, on their part, did not find it convenient to relinquish those posts as soon as they should

91 Ibid., 5 71. FRONTIER OHIO 53

have done; however, they now find it so. 'l'I He then read the terms of Jay'ls Treaty relating to the posts. After allowing .the significance of this announcement to sink in for a few days, he reassembled the Indians in their next session on July 2 7 and read to them the treaty he proposed for them to accept. He pointed out especially the reser, vations of lands in the Indian country to the United States. These, he said, were for the protection of the tribes and the encouragement of trade as well as for the purpose of protection of the whites . .. Trading posts, 'I, he said, ""will be established at them, to the end that you may be furnished with goods in exchange for your skins and furs, at a reasonable rate. "'1112 Little Turtle made one more last effort to consolidate Indian opposition. After the Wyandot, Crane, had spoken in a conciliatory vein, the Miami chief arose and said : Listen you, chiefs and warriors . . . I expected to have heard him [Wayne] deliver those words ever since we have been here, for which reason I observed that you were precipitate on your part. This is a business of the greatest consequence to us all; it is an affair to which no one among us can give an answer. Therefore, I hope we will take time to consider the subject, that we will unite in opinion, and express it unanimously.93 But it was a forlorn hope, if, by it, Little Turtle expected to get better terms from Wayne. For the united voice of the Confed, eracy had spoken for the last time. The Indians could not agree. The Miami still insisted on a revision of the boundary, asking that that part of the line west of the Scioto, that took in the ""best part,, of their hunting,ground, be dra\vn farther to the south. The other tribes merely desired the United States to define the bounds between the various nations, a request based on their abject submission to the American rights over their soil. Both requests were denied, the Miami being told that they ought to be content with the $1000 a year they were to receive and with the regulations respecting trade. They were told that they might continue to hunt on the ceded lands 1,1,so long as they demean themselves peaceably.'I" This concession meant little, however, because white settlements v..rould soon disperse and destroy the game." Thus on August 3, 179 5, was signed by all the tribes of the Northwest, the Treaty of Greenville. By this the boundary line of

92Jbul., S73, 574. fl3Jbid., 574. SHJ/,id., 575-76, 578. 54 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS the Treaty of Fort Harmar was finally acknowledged by the tribes. Sixteen reservations at strategic points for trading and other purposes were also ceded and the right of way for several roads to Detroit, Chicago, Vincennes, Clarksville, Fort Massac and elsewhere were acknowledged as not belonging to the Indians. Goods to the amount of twenty thousand dollars were distributed directly to all the nations at Greenville. Annuities to the amount of one thousand dollars each were promised to the Wyandot, Delawares, Shawnee, Miami, Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawatomi, while the Kickapoo, Ouiatenon, Eel River Miami, Piankashaw, and Kaskaskia were promised :five hundred dollars each. The provision was added that if any of these tribes ever desired a part of their annuity in ""domestic animals, imple, ments of husbandry, and other utensils convenient for them, and in compensation to useful artificers, who may reside with, or near them/" that they would be accommodated accordingly. The United States was acknowledged to have the :first right to buy the remaining lands and promised in return to protect the red men from white intruders. Squatters on Indian la..Tlds might be driven off by the tribesmen or treated as they saw :fit. Trade was declared ""opened"" and the United States was to supervise it strictly in order to protect the Indians from rapacious traders. 93 Frontier Ohio had been made safe for the white man.

95Kappler, Indian Afjai.rs: Laws 11nd Treatus, II, 30-34; Amerie4n St•t• P,perr, [,sdun A.ffai.rs, I, >62-63. CHAPTER II THE PEOPLE OF FRONTIER OHIO

1 'The Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentuc'l{y Frontier.

A s THE discovery, settlement, and expansion of America, to _n use Charles A. and Mary R. Beard"s phrase, form ""merely one phase of the long and restless movement of mankind on the surface of the earth,,, so, the beginnings of Ohio are but an incident in the great west\"\rard course of the American people. Thus the first permanent white settlements established in 1788 in the Northwest Territory were merely extensions further west, at various points, of the frontier of white settlement already existing in Pennsylvania and Virginia. It is, therefore, misleading to stress unduly the fact that Rufus Putnam and his associates at Marietta were New Englanders and that John Cleves Symmes and his asso, ciates were from New Jersey. It is, of course, true that the majority of the very :first settlers were from New England and New Jersey, but this statement should not be interpreted to imply that these easterners_ determined the point on the frontier which they wished to settle without any reference to the frontier communities already existing in Pennsylvania and Kentucky. In so far as men can deter, mine the course of history, the frontiersmen of Pennsylvania and Virginia really chose the sites for the newcomers. They did this in two ways. In the :first place, Pennsylvania and Virgmia frontiersmen paved the way for further settlement by bringing the frontier, at several places, to the left bank of the Ohio River. Secondly, their frontier towns acted as clearing,stations where the thousands of ~ransients were received, harbored for awhile, equipped with the settlers" necessities, and sent on to provide the bone and sinew of every frontier settlement in Ohio. Both of these services merit further analysis. Since the middle of the eighteenth century, intrepid frontiers, men had been approaching the Ohio River by means of its many 55 VI °'

(Wt•llh,f) ~.!.!JU!...... W•!!.l:!J,,,-r.t • W~'"i 0 ::i: 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 • r A11• Ho ;;-=- ---·••" ,c( ltll,~h"r. "' (11>" •J ~ ( o,,T (G, ~ t"'4 .,f'( " tt1 --~( Q \"W~A 1 '-" ..• •W ~ ~~• )I IMt\,~t,r ...... *L ... J - 0 ~II L z (Fl ky. Mcip No.JI -H- The Penn.sy lv~n iOJ-Virs;n·,C\.- ~enTIA

-'PrirlOif'a.( seJTlemG>,,T~, /"188 - Jt.300. Tenn, JI.XI\?,-; nc i ,_,~( Yi>V.IC.-.S or TY"cl ,. Cl nd. mig ... a.Tiol'\ To Th& Oh',o \lo.H~y bo,\\ot"c,, J8oo. FRONTIER OHIO 57

tributaries.1 In the upper Ohio Valley, following either the Forbes Road across the mountains from the Susquehanna, or Braddock~s Road from the Potomac, the settlers gradually attained the head, waters of the Youghiogheny and Monongahela, and, before the close of the century, southwestern Pennsylvania and northwestern Virginia were filled with new settlements. One of the chief sources of wealth to these towns came from supplying the needs of the emigrants: furnishing temporary housing facilities and providing them with boats, provisions and other necessities. Before the close of the Revolu, tionary War there were thriving towns on the Ohio at Pittsburgh and Wheeling; on the western road leading from the Potomac to Wheel, ing were Beesons~ Town (Uniontown), Redstone (Brownsville), and Bassetville (Washington), and farther up the Monongahela was the settlement at Morgantown. By the close of the century further settle, ments in this region of the Ohio Valley made it a community with an economic, if not a political, life with some degree of unity. On the Youghiogheny had appeared the towns of Greensburg and Con, nelsville; on the Monongahela, Clarksburg, Greensboro, New Geneva, Freeport, McKeesport and Elizabeth; on the Ohio were Beaver, Charlestown (Wellsburg), West Liberty, Elizabeth (Moundsville), Williamstown, Neal"s Station (Parkersburg), and Belleville; and on the Great Kanawha, Charleston was a young but promising village. 1 Further down the Ohio Valley the pioneers who came over the Wilderness Road to the waters of the Kentucky were laying the foundations for the commonwealth which in 1792 became the State of Kentucky. By the close of the Revolution there were vigorous communities at Logan ~s Fort and Harrodstown on Salt River, Boones, borough on the Kentucky, Lexington on the Elkhorn branch of the Kentucky, and at Fort Nelson (Louisville) on the Ohio. By 1788, not only had Kentucky attained a high degree of economic and political unity, but its enterprising pioneers had pushed the frontier of settlement to the very threshold of what is now the State of Ohio, at Limestone and on the Licking River across from the site of the future Cincinnati.

1For a graphic illustration of the Pennsylvania-Virginia frontier in 1788, see Map no. II. 2For the progress of settlement in western Pennsylvania and northwestern Virginia, the following have been used: William H. Egle, Butor, of tJu Commomoulth of Pmns7lv11nM (Philadelphia, 1883), and James Morton Callahan, Semi-centennial History of W•.tt Virflnui ( Charleston, West Virginia, 19 I 3 ). 58 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

The increasing use of the Ohio River as a route of immigration into Kentucky made the Limestone,Lexington Road a much traveled highway. Ever since the :first wagon had been taken over this road in 1783, permanent settlements began to appear. Limestone itself was settled in 1784, and, a few miles southwest, Washington was laid out in 1786, after having been first settled as a frontier Indian station by Simon Kenton in 1784. Elsewhere on this road were the beginnings of the settlements of Mayslick, Lower Blue Lick, Millers, burg, and Paris. Kentuckians had long looked with hungry eyes do\vn the Licking River, foreseeing the day when the defeat of the Indians would make it a natural avenue for the exploitation of the fertile Miami country beyond the Ohio. This valley had been too long the route for the invasion of Kentucky by Indians and British alike. The mouth of the Licking was a convenient rendezvous for detachments of Ken, tucky Indian fighters from Louisville and Lexington for counter, movements against those enemies. The failure of George Rogers Clark and the State of Virginia to erect a fort at the mouth of the Licking had been one of the strongest grievances in the separatist movement in Kentucky, for the valley of the Licking was the most wlnerable point in the whole Kentucky defense. Wide,awake Kentucky fron, tiersmen had their eyes on the Licking and knew, from many an expedition against the Indian, of the best locations in the Miami Valley. It was primarily with this in mind that the Federal Govern, ment in 1789 erected Fort Washington opposite the mouth of the Licking, thus providing desired protection and enabling settlements to advance down the Licking from the earlier outpost at Ruddle"s Station.a Besides cutting the way through the wilderness to the threshold of the lands beyond the Ohio, these earlier frontiers acted as supply stations for satisfying the material needs of other emigrants and furnished much information concerning the new lands. Here boats were provided for the journey down the Ohio. The most important of these boat yards was at Simrell''s Ferry (West Newton). in West, moreland County, Pennsylvania, on the Youghiogheny, called by

3 For the situation in Kentucky, use has been made of Lewis and Richard H. Collins, Binof? of Kaniuck7. • • . (Covington, Kentucky, 1874 ), 2 vols., and Roben S. Cotterill, Bistor1 of Pioneer Kentuck1 (Cincinnati, 1917 ). FRONTIER OHIO 5'9

Samuel P. Hildreth ""the grand embarking port of the New England emigrants in their descent of the Ohio river_,,~ Here the famous ex, pedition of the Ohio Company under the leadership of Putnam came down from the mountains and built the historic Mayflower to carry the :first emigrants to Marietta, the :first permanent settlement in the Northwest.s Boat yards on the Monongahela were more numerous. From Morgantown to Pittsburgh hundreds of boats were built to carry Kentucky immigrants down the Ohio after 1780, and to accommo, date the ever increasing hoards coming to the West over the Forbes and the Cumberland Roads. Boat builders adyertised their services to merchants and emigrants in the first pioneer news,sheets. Joseph Chester had a boat yard opposite the mouth of the Little Redstone Creek on the Monongahela and advertised that he made all kinds of boats for river traffic.6 In 1803 the travelers, Fran<;ois A. Michaux and Thaddeus M. Harris described ship,building at and above Pitts, burgh as one of the main industries, perhaps second only to that of trading in produce and merchandise .... Harris mentioned Elizabeth, to"'!n, McKeesport, Pittsburgh, and Wheeling as leading ship,building centers of the upper Ohio Valley. Another port of embarkation was at the ""Boat Yards,., on the Great Kanawha River, a less frequented route of emigration to the Ohio. This was situated a few miles above Charleston, and was referred to by Daniel Boone in his characteristic language in 1791, in his description of settlements on the Kanawha, HFrom the Pint [Point Pleasant] to Alire [Ell{] 60 miles; no Inhab, itence: from Alke to the Bote Yards [Mouth of Kelley's Creel(_], 20 Miles; all inhabited.,,.; Pennsylvania and Kentucky frontier communities furnished many settlers for the first Ohio settlements. Each of the early Ohio frontier settlements, although under the immediate direction of easterners, depended to a large degree on western frontiersmen to provide the

4Samuel P. Hildreth, Memoirs of the Ea-rly Pioneer Settlus of Ohio. . . . ( Cincinnati, 1854), 437. 6See Putnam's account in Rowena Buell (ed.), Tiu Memoi-rs of Rufus Putnam. . • • (Boston and New York, 1903), 143-44. 8Pittsburgh Gazette, September 30, 1786. ..-Francois A. Michaux, T-ravels to the West of the A.lughen1 Mountains •.•• (London, 1805), in Reuben Gold Thwaites (ed.), Early Western Travels•... {Cleveland, 1904), III, 157-77; Thaddeus Mason Harris, The Journal of a Tour into th• Te-rritory Northw•st of ilu Alleghan7 Mountains. • • • (Boston, 1805 ), ibid., 334-B. 8Quoted in Callahan, History of West Virginia, 33. 60 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

industry and experience necessary in founding new communities in the rugged environment of the wilderness and the Indian country. There were plenty of settlers, dissatisfied with their holdings not far from the Ohio country, ready, at the earliest opportunity, to pack up their meagre possessions and seek for better luck farther west. The active proprietors of the Ohio Company clearly recognized this fact and sought to attract pioneers from older settlements. In their advertisements for settlers in the East and iri Europe, they stressed the proximity of their land to the Pennsylvania and Virginia fron, tiers, in order to assure prospective settlers immunity from danger because of the nearness of experienced frontiersmen. Their adver, tisement read : This new colony is established so near the western boundary of Pennsyl, vania as to appear to be only a continuation of the older settlements, by reason of which there will no longer be reason to fear that these unsettled regions may be occupied by the savages.• As soon as Marietta had been settled, Putnam and his associates took steps to open their settlement to these frontiersmen. As Put, nam said, ~~The Director & agents with every other proprietor that arrived in the country were early convinced that Some new project must be adopted for accommodating emigrants with Land or the Settlement would soon come to nothing. ""10 The main obstacle in the way of attracting settlers from the older frontier, however, was a group of resolutions adopted by the Company at Boston on November 27, 1787, definitely allotting lands to proprietors only. u Consequently, the directors instructed Putnam, Samuel H. Parsons, and Archibald Crary, in the sum, mer of 1788, to draw up an address to the shareholders, calling attention to the fact that, within twelve months, more than ten thousand emigrants had passed Marietta on the way to Kentucky and other parts of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. The address stated that much the greater part of these emigrants were not owners of any lands in the countries to which they were emigrating, but

9A Descriptwn of the Soil, Production, etc., of that Portion of the United States Sitruzt.d between Pennsylvania, the Rivers Ohio and Scioto and Lake Erie; translated from the French ... by John Henry James (Columbus, Ohio, 1888), 44. 10Buell, Memoirs of Putnam, 108. 11Archer Butler Hulben (ed.), The Records of the Original Proceedings of UU Ohu, Com­ pan7•••• (Marietta, Ohio, 1917), I, 19-20. FRONTIER OHIO 61 expected to become purchasers. Putnam and his associates were confident that many of these would have become settlers on the Ohio Company''s purchase if they could have had the encouragement of cheap or free land, which the articles of association failed to pro, vide. In view of the fact that many had applied for free lands and had gone elsewhere upon being denied them, it was advised that ''giving a part of the lands to industrious people, on performing certain duties in settling, clearing, &c., will be very much for the interest of the proprietors. ''12 A meeting for the consideration of this matter was set for December at Marietta, in the expectation that by that time a sufficient number of proprietors would be present to effect the proposed change in the Articles of Association. However, such was not the case and the meeting was postponed until February, 17 89. At this time a quorum was still lacking, whereupon the agents, "deeply impressed with the necessity of the measure & convinced that the interests of the Proprietors cannot be advanced in any other wayt in flat violation of their charter, resolved unanimously on a donation system. It was agreed that there shall be granted to persons who shall settle in such Places within the purchase. as the Agents may think most conducive to advance the general interests of the Proprietors, & under such Restrictions & Limitations as they think proper-not exceeding 100 acres out of each share of the Funds of the Company.13 On the basis of this illegal arrangement, explorations were n1ade, and, during 1789 and 1790, four settlements were commenced "in pursuence of the Donation system before mentioned."u The same necessity to enlist the aid of the pioneer is to be observed in the second center of settlement in the Northwest, viz.~ in the Miami country. Columbia, the first of the Miami settlements, was founded by Benjamin Stites, a trader of Redstone, Pennsyl, vania, who had contracted with Symmes for the site, after having explored the whole Miami Valley in 1786.15 Long before Symmes,

12Samuel P. Hildreth, Pioneer Histor1: Being an Account of the Firrt Examinations of the Ohio Valle1 and the Earl1 Settlement of the Northwest Territory . ... (Cincinnati and New York, 1848), 224-2S. 13Hulbert, Records of the Ohio Compan1, I, 70-72. uBuell, Memoirs of Putnam, 109. An attempt by the proprietors at Marietta, in the summer of 1788 to remove the legal difficulty in the way of assembling a quorum of share­ holders, by enacting a territorial law enabling all associations of land-holders to hold meet­ ings in which the decision of a majority of "the proprietors present" should be binding, failed, because of the opposition of St. Clair. 16Charles Theodore Greve, Centennial History of Cincinnati and Representativ• Citizens (Chicago, 1904 ), I, 142-43, 17S-77. 62 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

who was the proprietor of the Miami purchase, could start settle, ments of his own, Stites had a project under way that soon caused much distress to Symmes because of the possibility of its becoming ""the City,, which he, himself, was so desirous of founding. Stites, f orehandedness was largely due to his closer contacts with the pioneers, a fact illustrated by Symmes, lament that the former~s influence in the Redstone settlements and connection with Mr. Ganoe·s family, & they with the baptist which are the more numerous sect of Christians in this country, is such that he has been able to embody about sixty men many with their families who expect to settle at the mouth of the little Miami on the sixteen sections which he had located there.16 Columbia received a large number of settlers f rem New York and New Jersey, but it also depended for its existence on the frontier leadership of Stites and his fellow,Pennsylvanians from Redstone. Cincinnati, even more than Columbia, illustrates, in its settle, ment, the debt Ohio owes to the old frontier and the insistence of the latter on free lands. From the very beginning the town was projected and developed under the direction of Kentuckians. Atten, tion has already been called to the interest of Kentuckians in the country beyond the mouth of the Licking River. Colonel Robert Patterson, founder of Lexington, and John Filson, the frontier his, torian of Kentucky, associated themselves as equal proprietors with Matthias Denman of New Jersey, in a plot of 800 acres which the latter had bought from Symmes opposite the mouth of the Lick, ing. Denman preceded Symmes to the West and, as soon as he had gained the assistance of his two Kentucky associates, issued a call for settlers in the Kentud~y Gazette of September 6, 1788, published in Lexington. The terms offered showed that experienced frontiers, men were wanted. The inlots [are] to be each half an acre; the outlots four acres, thirty of each to be given to settlers upon paying one dollar and a half for the survey fi deed of each lot. The fifteenth day of September is appointed for a large company to meet in Lexington, and mark a road from thence to the mouth of Licking, provided Judge Symmes arrives, being daily expected. When the Town is laid off, lots will be given to such as may become resi, dents before the first of April next.17 16John Cleves Symmes to Jonathan Dayton, November 25, 1788, in Beverley w. Bond, Jr. (ed.), The Co"espondence of John Cfrves Symmes (New York, 1926), SO. 17Beverley W. Bond, Jr. (ed.), "Dr. Daniel Drake's Memoir of the Miami Country 1779- 1794 (An Unfinished Manuscript),» in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio Quarterly Pu.hlic4tion (Cincinnati, 1906-), XVIII (1923), nos. 2 and 3, SS. In-lots were small plats located within the proposed town limits, on each of which the home of a settler was built. Out-lots were those beyond the town limits on which crops were raised. FRONTIER OHIO 63

In December this band of Kentuckians met at Lexington and, proceeding down the Licking, laid out Losantiville (Cincinnati), Hthe village opposite the mouth of the Licking. ,,is In this band was the young lawyer and prophet of Cincinnati's greatness, William Mc, Millan, who was immediately chosen magistrate of the squatter government set up by the pioneers.19 It is not without significance that the superior advantages that were to make Cincinnati the emporium of the Old Northwest were perceived by Kentucky pio, neers while Symmes still sought for the site of ""the City. ,, 20 At last, at North Bend, the third of the Miami pioneer towns, Symmes, in his belated attempt to attract settlers, reluctantly found a dependence on the neighboring frontiersmen indispensable. Al, though he had advertised his project in Kentucky in 1787, Symmes did not seem to offer inducements sufficient to stimulate cordial rela, tions with these pioneers. Jealous of the projectors of the Columbia and Cincinnati ventures, he likewise looked with contempt upon· the ability to pay of those who first contracted to settle on his own.n Seeking for information, Symmes engaged a party of Kentuckians, including Filson, to conduct him up the Great Miami on a tour of exploration of the purchase, but he was deserted by them when about forty miles up the Miami. Finally, however, upon arriving at his settlement at North Bend, seeing that accommodation was necessary, forty,eight lots of one acre each was accordingly laid off, every other one of which I proposed to give away ... upon condition only of the donees building immediately thereon. These 24 donation lots were soon taken up, and further applications being made, I have extended the village up and down the Ohio until it forms a front one mile and a half on the River, in which are more than one hundred lots~ on forty of which, observing the order of every other lot, there is a comfortable log,cabin . . . so that there remains not three donation lots unappropriated.22 This fact of the pioneer pressure of free or cheap lands is of the utmost significance. It was one of the few weapons the frontiers, man had in economic and political life, and it was a powerful one. With a universality that made them a political force with which to

18Greve, History of Cincinnati, I, 184-92. l.9Jacob Burnet, Notes on the Early Settlement of the North-We.stern Territory (New York and Cincinnati, 184 i), 5i. 20For a discussion of the reasons for the location and rise of Cincinnati, see po$t, p. 79. 21Symmes to Dayton, November 25, 1788, and May 18, 19 and 20, 1789, in Bond, Symmes, 52, 70-71. 22Jbid., 64. 64 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS be reckoned, these frontiersmen sought every opportunity to get cheap lands. By 1795, Symmes, himself, had become resigned to the inevitable, and wrote to Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey, who was trying to sell some of his lands at an attractive price: There is no such thing as purchasers for the proprietary lots in the several blocks at a price which the owners would listen to. . . . All Kentucky and the back parts of Virginia and Pennsylvania are running mad with expectations of the land office opening in this country.... They almost laugh me full in the face when I ask them one dollar per acre for first~rate land, and tell me they will soon have as good for thirty cents.23 This same pressure of the frontier led not only to cheap lands but to scattered locations. The proprietors of the Ohio Company, as we have seen, came out to the West expecting to exert a greater degree of restriction as to locations than conditions warranted Symmes, with his characteristic eastern misunderstanding of frontier conditions, called attention to this in a letter to Dayton praising the compactness of the Muskingum. settlements. He wrote that the settlers at Marietta were able to repel Indian attacks ""from their mode of settlement on the New England plan of connected towns or villages: the settlers with them being restrained by their directors who will not allow them land whereon to settle at oleasure. ,., The method employed in the Miami region was, unfortunately, less desirable. It was in the power of every purchaser to chuse his ground, and convert the same into a station, village or town at pleasure; and nothing controuls him but the fear of Indians. Therefore, whenever ten or twelve men will agree to form a station, it is certainly done. This desultory way of settleing will soon carry many through the purchase, if the savages do not frustrate them. Encouragements are given at every mans will to settlers, and they bid on each other in order to make their own post the more secure.24 Symmes looked with favor upon the Ohio Company"s method of compact settlement because he thought it made for better protec, tion. As a matter of fact the ""station,, method had long been proved the most effective method of defense against the Indian in Kentucky and the older frontiers. It took Symmes a long time to realize that his success, not only from the point of view of protection against the Indians, but from the point of view of :financial income, lay more in disposing of lands in the country according to the Miami or Kentucky method of scattered location of farms and protected sta,

73Ihid., 174. 24Symmes to Dayton, May 18, 19 and 20, 1789, ibid., S-4. FRONTIER OHIO 65

tions and less in the building up of towns. During his first year, his chief concern was the proper location of ""the City.... of his purchase. 25 Only by degrees did he realize that he had sold the site of "'-the City't't to the group of Kentuckians who had settled Cincin, nati. Having decided on North Bend as the site for ""the City,.. , Symmes informed Dayton that he had disposed of fifty donation lots, and that it was ""highly incumbent on the proprietors to add one fifty more thereto, as people being refused out lots when they apply go directly up to the back._ stations where they are sure to have them. ,,a A month later he urged more donations in the township on the Ohio reserved for his own special profit, and in the other towns on the Ohio, because, during the Indian trouble, white settlers were ""hovering along the Ohio"s banks, fearful to go farther back into the Country..... It was wise, therefore, to offer inducements to these settlers to locate permanently in the river towns, for, as Symmes said, ""When it is once safe for settlers to go so far back as the level country which is much more inviting, we shall find it difficult to persuade them to stop with us. 1127 But buyers did not want to settle in compact groups; they wanted the best locations. With character, istic obstinacy, Symmes refused to recognize the facts, writing to Dayton: If you make partial sales thereof, agree with the purchasers to take it fair, by tiers of sections either from east to west or from north to south, and not to pick single sections here and there throughout the whole. . . . I find that where sections are taken here & there one in a township, pur, chasers suspect that all the best are located, and they will not even purchase the remaining sections, nor so much as go to ·•.:iew them so fully persuaded they are that all the best of the township is gutted out.28 But it was all to no avail. As soon as the Indian danger was gone, the waiting settlers spread out f anlike into the interior to take up new locations. It was impossible for Symmes to stop them. He wrote to Dayton in August of 1795: The village [North Bend] is reduced more than one,half of its num, bers of inhabitants since I left it to go to Jersey in February, 1793. The people have spread themselves into all parts of the purchase below the

25Symmes had first contemplated laying out his city at the mouth of the Great Miami, but abandoned this when he saw that it was too low to escape high water. Ibid., 62-64. Later he considered a site a few miles up the Great Miami, but was finally persuaded to accept North Bend. Jhid., 65-66. 28Symmes to Dayton, April 30, 1790, ibid., 126. 27Symmes to Dayton, May 28, 1790, ibid., 129. 2BSymmes to Dayton, June 1, 1790, ibid., 131. 66 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

a.h .:.The~- m,le ea.st~n limircf The- ~1,·m~na..r1 Chru-T~r °f 11e1. MNOP- Bou.ndo..t)' ,of p--J"en't g~~Ted Symmes b_,Co11g.-~ss ·,I'\. M34 fl'\ n>SP - SJ rn me.::. uT m()ST dcum s. X - College (ownsh; r oJf~,~~d by SJrnf"'l

29Symmes to Dayton, August 6, 1795, ibid., 172. 30lbid., 174. 31Symmes had originally contracted with Congress for a million acres to be located within twenty miles east of the Great Miami. Ibid., 31. Columbia and part of Cincinnati, which he had sold, were outside the twenty-mile limit. As a result, he came into confilct with Governor Arthur St. Clair for selling land that did not belong to him, but, after considerable wire­ pulling in Congress, the twenty-mile limit was abrogated in 1792. A final patent was not assured until 1794 and this deeded him only 311,682 acres or as much as he had paid for. See Map no. III. Claiming that he had contracted for a million acres, Symmes continued to sell locations be­ yond his patented lands. He was, however, not sustained in this by Congress, which merely passed acts in 1799, 1801 and 1802 giving purchasers from him a prior claim to the lands from the Government. This meant that these purchasers could sue Symmes for payments already made to him. It was the prosecution of these suits that ruined him. Ibid., 15-21. 32Richard Peters (ed.), The Public Statutes at Larg~ of the United Stat.es . .•• (Boston, 1848), I, 728-29; II, 112-14, 179-80. 33See post, Chapter III on trade. 3-'See chapters on the statehood contest, post, Chapters VI-VIII. 68 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

St. Clair because of legal technicalities.3G McMillan, leader of the Cincinnati political faction, sought, as delegate to Congress, to reduce to one dollar the price that these settlers should pay the qovernment for their preemptions, and he wrote in 1801 : The senate will raise the price to two dollars; indeed, it was with difficulty that I got it through the house at one dollar. . . . There can he no doubt but the bill will pass, and I shall get it on terms of the most favorable to the purchasers that are practicable.36 One other service, already mentioned, rendered to frontier Ohio by the older frontier should be further emphasized, viz., that of actual protection against the Indians. The expeditions of Colonel Josiah Harmar, St. Clair and General Anthony Wayne owed a large degree of whatever success they obtained to the presence of frontier scouts and of detachments of Pennsylvania and Kentucky militia. In addition, the latter manned the fringe of frontier 44Sta-­ tions.,., which, from 1790 to 1794, served as a most e:ff ective barricade against attack by the Indians. Kentucky Indian :fighters had long made this method of frontier advance famous. With a few intrepid settlers, they would, as a group, stake their claims in a desired locality, per-­ haps improving each individual holding by day under guard, but retiring at night to the common protection of the central station or

fort, where proper defenses insured them against surprise by Indians. 3T Symmes, as we have seen, at :first had discouraged this practice be-­ cause it opened up the interior too quickly to settlement and scattered location, but he soon was forced to give lands to such settlers for the protection they afforded the settlements nearer the Ohio. sa Throughout the period of the Indian wars a ring of these frontier stations gave ample protection to the settlements at Columbia,

35Instructions to McMill:m, in lourn.il of the House of Reprruntatives of the. Territory . • . • 2 Gen. Assemb., 1 Sess. (Chillicothe, 1801), 56-57. St. Clair had denied this because, since they held their lands under Symmes, who had no title to the land, they did not qualify as voters under the Ordinance of 1787 which required voters to be freeholders. St. Clair denied that their paying taxes entitled them to the vote. St. Clair to Joseph Parks, December 13, 1798, in William Henry Smith, The Life and Puhl:c Ser..,ices of Arthur St. Clair. . • • ( Cincinnati, 1882 ), II, 4 36-3 8. The Territori.ll Legislature sought to extend the qualifications to include tax-payers. By enactment on January 2 3, 1802, the Territorial Legislature definitely extended the suffrage to these people by declaring that all persons holding legal preemption of the United States should be entitled to vote for representatives to the Legislature. Salmon P. Chase (ed.), Statutes of Ohio and the Northwestern Territory (Cincinnati, 1833 ), I, 327. The State Con­ stitution formed later in the same y-ear, likewise included provisions that enfranchised them. 38Reprint of part of a letter from McMillan to a friend, in The We.rtern Spy and Hamilton Gazette (Cincinnati), March 2 5, 1801. :rtA good description of the "station" method may be found in Burnet, Notes, 28. See also the agreement between Symmes and Zachariah Hole and his associates, May 21, 1795. Bond, Symmes, 285-86. 38Svmmes to Dayton, April 30, 1790, ihid., 126. FRONTIER OHIO 69

Cincinnati and North Bend.39 If the Ohio Company had had such efficient guards against Indian attack, historians of the Muskingum Valley would not have to chronicle such a horrible massacre as the one that occurred at Big Bottom in December, 1791.'0 It should be emphasized, in conclusion, that these contributions of the older frontier continued throughout our period. No new town W¥ laid out without the offering of free lands to the first settlers who chose to come from the more established regions. The history of the settlement of the Scioto Valley is the history of the immigration of pioneer Kentuckians, Virginians, and Marylanders who, although they gave the political and social institutions of the region a noticeably southern character, nevertheless created a fron, tier society in no essential respect different from that of the valleys of the Miami and the Muskingum. Later settlements in eastern Ohio in the Steubenville region, in the Congressional Military District, and in the W estem Reserve, all were notably affected by the frontier influence of settlers from western Pennsylvania. Imports continued to be brought in over the Kentucky, Virginia and Pennsylvania trade routes by traders from these States, bringing contacts not always of the most wholesome nature. St. Clair deplored the fact that the Territory absorbed too much Pennsylvania whiskey,41 and Wayne was extremely embarrassed by an attack on the Indians by a band of Kentuckians in the Scioto Valley, after he had made his famous peace with the savages. '2

2 The Restricted Advance of Settlement in Ohio during the Indian Wars, 1788,1794.

With this understanding of the relation of frontier Ohio to the older frontier, it becomes easier to trace briefly the actual course of settlement from 1788 to 1803. This movement is really divided into two periods-that of the Indian wars down to 1794, in which

39See Map no. I. '°Hildreth, Pioneer History, 275, 429-39. 41Arthur St. Clair to Alexander Hamilton, August 9, 1793, in Smith, The Life and. Servicer of St. Clair, II, 317-18. ~his band was led by Nathaniel Massie and Robert Finley who were on their way to found Chillicothe. Anthony Wayne to St. Clair, June 5, 1795, ihid., 374-75. 70 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

settlement was impeded, and the period following Wayne"s victory, in which settlement spread with amazing rapidity. The period from 1788 to 1799 was one of disappointed hopes. Harmar was defeated by the despised savages in 1790 and St. Clair met the same fate a year later. Crowded in the towns built on the Ohio"s banks or poised watchfully in the inland frontier stations, the waiting settlers alternately hoped and despaired as the fortunes of war varied. Jealous of the stream of emigrants that daily descended the Ohio for the more hospitable Kentucky country, now no longer the Hdark and bloody ground"" of the days of Boone, Symmes be, sought the government to send more troops and munitions 4,~for the protection and defense of this Slaughter,house, as some in this country [Kentucky] are pleased to call the Miami purchase. .,,~ Not only did the main stream avoid the Ohio country, but after each 4,~slaughter,"" there was a general exodus of those who had already settled there. After Harmar"s defeat, Symmes lamented: Never had been fairer prospects of speedy sales and settlement of lands in the purchase than were about the time the army Marched, great numbers were arranging their business to emigrate from Kentucky and the Pittsburgh Country-but the strokes our army has got seems to fall like a blight upon the prospect, and for the present seems to apall every countenance..... But for the repulse of our army I should have had several new stations advanced further into the purchase by next spring, but I shall now be very happy if we are able to maintain the three advanced stations.... 44 A year later the effect of St. Clair"s defeat was even more appalling. Symmes wrote: On my arrival in the Parchase about the 20th of Novr., I found the settlers in the greatest consternation on account of the late defeat. Several had fled into Kentucky and many others were preparing to follow them­ and it was with the greatest difficulty that I prevailed with people to stand their ground. . . . Indeed it seems that we are never to have matters right. What from the two succeding defeats of our army, and the Governor's arbitrary conduct toward the settlers ... many settlers became very indifferent in their attachment to the Purchase.... 45 It was during these dark days that the worth of the frontier stations was demonstrated to the eastern proprietors. The settlements on the Ohio maintained a precarious existence throughout the period, each one thankful for the protection afforded by forts either of federal or local construction, and by the small but effective frontier

43Symmes to Dayton, May 18, 19 and 20, 1789, in Bond, Symmes, S4. "Symmes to Dayton, November 4, 1790, ihsd., 134. 45Symmes to Dayton, January 17, 1792, ihsd., 156, 1S8. FRONTIER OHIO 71

stations. At the Muskingum, Marietta had not only the protection of the federal Fort Harmar, but its own Campus Martius; at Belpre, Farmers" Castle more than once proved a refuge from Indian attack; up the Muskingum at Waterford was the frontier outpost maintained by the Ohio Company and called Fort Frye. A recession of the frontier took place in 1791 when the settlement at Big Bottom, farther up the Muskingum, was wiped out by an Indian massacre and all settlers on the Muskingum and on Wolf Creek withdrew to the fortified station of Waterford, which remained the outpost of settlement for some time.46 At Gallipolis, the luckless French, bewil, dered by frontier conditions, eked out a miserable existence, being continually scolded by the acting governor, Secretary Winthrop Sar, gent, for their inadequate defense against the lndians.41 At Massie"s Station, now Manchester, were clustered a few intrepid surveyors, under the leadership of Nathaniel Massie, who were surveying the Virginia Military district, preparing for the rush of settlement into the Scioto Valley that would f ollo"v the making of permanent peace with the Indians.~ In the Miami region, Columbia and North Bend had begun their existence protected by block, houses of their own construction, while Cincinnati was fortunately able to dispense with its O"'-'ll protection because of location there of federal Fort Wash, ington. In 1790, a protecting station appeared in the rear of each one of these settlements: behind North Bend was Dunlap"s Station on the Great 11iami; behind Cincinnati was Ludlow"s Station on Mill Creek; and behind Columbia was Covalt's Station on the Little Miami. These stations, like Waterford on the Muskingum, remained the outposts of white civilization, and, although new sta, tions were laid out before 1794, they were always between these three outposts and the Ohio River.

3 The Opening of the Flood,gates, 1795,1803.

The victory of Wayne in August, 1794, and the subsequent formal cession, by the Indians at Greenville, of all the land in what

4effildreth, Pioneer Hirtory, 31i-18, 381, 440-42. 47Winthrop Sargent to the Civil Magistrates and Military Officers at Gallipolis, May 9, 1791, in Smith, Th• Li/e 4nd Servicer of St. Clair, II, 206-07. '8David Meade Massie, Nathaniel Mauie, a Pioneer of Ohio . ... (Cincinnati, 1896), 4i-51. 72 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS is now Ohio south of the line which, in a general way, marked the headwaters of the Muskingum, Scioto, and Miami Rivers, opened the floodgates of settlement to a stream of migration long diverted to the Kentucky country. At last the field was open to unrestrained exploration by the rival agents of frontier expansion, the settler, the squatter, and the land speculator. The settler and the squatter will be considered first. Historians have aped novelists in portraying in heroic terms the restless, transient aspect of the pioneer group. There is no ques ... tion, of course, that many of the pioneers were of superior stock, endowed with qualities in surmounting difficulties that merit the plaudits of posterity. But there is also no doubt that just as many of these pioneers, especially those who were continually on the move, were of inferior stuff, incompetent, poor farmers, incapable of meet ... ing the responsibilities that human society requires of its members. Ohio,s pioneers partook of this dual nature, and there is noth ... ing essentially unique in their chronicle. The descriptions of pioneer society in 1800 left by contemporaries would be just as true of the settlement of the Susquehanna in 17 40 or of that of Wyoming in 1880. It is to repeat an oft... told story to submit the comments of the English traveler and scholar, Francis Baily, on the society in which his fellow ... traveler and countryman, Samuel Highway, found himself in the settlement of Waynesville on the Little Miami River in 1797. Baily wrote: These men are tempted to come and settle amongst you from the inducements you hold out to them; for the first settlers generally have their land given them on condition that they will cultivate it; and they are a race which delight to live on the frontiers, where they can enjoy undisturbed, and free from the control of any laws, the blessings which nature has bestowed upon them. As soon therefore as plantations begin to multiply around them and an increase of inhabitants begin to deprive them of these blessings, they sell their little possession, and with the money arising from it they stock themselves with clothes and other necessaries, and move off to cultivate some other part.49 Again, in 1803, the French traveler, Michaux, observed: More, than half of those who inhabit the borders of the Ohio are again the first inhabitants~ or as they are called in the United States, the first settlers, a kind of men who cannot settle upon the soil that they have cleared, and who under pretence of finding a better land, a more wholesome country, a better abundance of game, push forward, incline perpetually towards the

49Francis B:tily, lou~l of a Tour in Unsettli:d P,1rts of Xorth America in 1790 & 1797 . •.. (London, 1856), 217-18. FRONTIER OHIO 73

most distant points of the American population, and go and settle in the neighborhood of the savage nations, whom they have even in their own country.... Such were the :first inhabitants of Kentucky and Tennesea.... It will be the same with most of those who inhabit the borders of the Ohio. . . .50 It would be a test of the alertness of the reader for him to stop at this point and ask himself, What is the fundamental point of dif, ference between these two accounts of the transient pioneer? If he has observed correctly, he will note that the Englishman, Baily, saw something that the Frenchman, Michaux, failed to see. To the French, man, a certain restlessness impelled the pioneer further on-the pastures simply seeming to be greener a few miles yonder. But to the hard,headed Englishman, before they leave "''they sell their little plantation.,, Here, is thought to be one of the strongest points of motivation urging these squatters into the wilderness. Unable or unwilling to settle down to a life of farming, they always hoped to sell their Hclaims.,., for a good price to a buyer more anxious for it than they. Thus they partook of the nature of small speculators, picking out the best locations and making a minimum of improve, ments thereon. They were an interesting and often troublesome factor in the social life of the frontiers in every period of frontier history. Most of this class of ""first settlers" were squatters, characters common to all frontiers from early times, individuals whose right to a claim was the mere fact of being the first to locate. The grant, ing of patents to squatters, based on ""tomaha";vk'' or settlement rights had long been part of Pennsylvania and Virginia law.111 The settler had but to be the .first to make his clearing, or to plant his crop of corn, or to construct his cabin, in order to establish a right that frontier justice recognized as valid. Much of even so,called legal settlement partook of these squatter characteristics. Symmes was forced to recognize this fact when he abandoned his old plan of building towns in his purchase and decided Hto push the settlements., .. up to the ... rear line. .,., Urged on by these motives and fortified by these customs, the squatter quickly took his place in frontier Ohio. As early as the

liOMichaux, Travels to the West, 192-94. 51For the early precedents of squatter and preemption rights, see Amelia Clewley Ford, ColoniiU, Precedents of Our National Land s,,stem as It Existed in 1800 ... , in University of Wisconsin Bulletin ( Madison, Wisconsin, 1909), II (1910), 112-41. 74 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Revolutionary War, squatters found their way from Pennsylvania and Virginia across the Ohio River. Their presence was, of course, offensive to the Indians who, threatening alliance with the British in Canada, required the removal of the whites from their hunting grounds. Consequently, in October, 1779, Colonel Daniel Brodhead, commanding the American troops at Fort Pitt, on hearing of the presence of squatters on the Indian side of the Ohio, ordered a detachment of sixty men from Fort McIntosh to cross the river at Wheeling and Hdestroy the Hutts,,, Captain William Clarke, in charge of these troops returned to Fort McIntosh ""without any of the Trespassers, but destroyed some Hutts.,, Brodhead informed General that ""he [ Clar"/{ e] writes me the inhabitants have made small improvements all the way from the Muskingum River to Fort McIntosh & thirty miles up some of the branches. ,,52 The ineffectiveness of such tactics is indicated by the fact that in 178 5 the squatters had to be expelled a second time from the same country. On March 31, Harmar, in command at Fort McIntosh, dispatched Ensign John Armstrong ""to dispossess sundry persons who had presumed to settle on the lands of the United States on the western side of the Ohio River."53 Armstrong crossed the river at Wheeling, notified the settlers that they must move and returned to Fort McIntosh to report that the upper Ohio Valley was overrun with squatters. ""From Wheeling to ... [ the Miami],"' he reported, ""there is scarcely one bottom on the nver but had one or more families living thereon. ,,M The Indian wars reduced squatting to a minimum until after Wayne's victory, when the general rush into the newly opened areas continued on into the forbidden region Hwest of the Miami.,, With the expectation that these lands would immediately be offered for sale through the establishment of a government land,office, squatters in large numbers hastened to preempt the best locations. Symmes, in righteous indignation at the pernicious effect of this illicit competition on the price of his own lands east of the Miami,

QQuoted uom the Pennsylvania Archives in Charles A. Hanna, Historical Collections of Harruon County in tlu State of Ohio• ••• (New York, 1900), 47-48. 63Josiah Harmar to the President of Congress, May 1, 1785, in Smith, The Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 3. 54.Jbid., 4. This squatter movement is summarized in Randolph C. Downes, "Ohio's Squatter Governor: William Hogland of Hoglandstown,» in Ohio State Arc-haeological and Historical Society Quarterl1 (Columbus, Ohio, 1887-), XLIH ( 1934 ), 273-282. FRONTIER OHIO 75 wrote in August, 1795, ""All Kentucky and the back parts of Vir, ginia and Pennsylvania are running mad with expectations of the land,oflice opening in this country-hundreds are running into the wilderness west of the Great Miami, locating and making elections of land. ,,55 It was :five years before this country was legally open to settlers! This time, however, there was no violent dispossession. St. Clair, in spite of all his tyrannical leanings, found himself quite unable to check the movement. He warned the authorities at the seat of Government in Philadelphia that, if a land,office were not established soon, ""such numbers of people will take possession of them [ the lands west of the Great Miami] as may not easily be removed, should that be thought necessary.,, Although he warned them to desist, this had little effect, and he had no inclination to bring action against them as trespassers, in the absence of express orders to do so. As a result, the number of these illegal locations increased so rapidly that he was obliged to confess that ""along the river, and a consider, able distance inland, the country is covered with huts; and, I am told, the case is the same in the country above, quite up to the Pennsylvania line_,,Ga Not only did St. Clair desist from bringing action against the squatters, but he actually extended the facilities of the county courts to them when he annexed the region west of the Miami as far as the Greenville Treaty line to Hamilton County. This action was strenuously opposed by Sargent, who wrote to the secretary of state: I believe it practicable to be rid of them [ the squatters] upon an Order of the general Govt-Governor St. Clair thinks otherwise '& has lately attached the Country west of th~ :Miami quite to the Indian Line to Hamilton County, not I think for good and sufficient reasons but perhaps he is the better Judge-I denied this measure because I believed it would countenance lntruders.51 St. Clair.. s policy, however, prevailed over the New England conscience of Sargent, and, when the land,oflice opened at Cincinnati in 1801, it must have been a mere formality for most of the squatters to gain patents for their locations. Further federal recogni,

55Symmes to Dayton, August 6, 179S, in Bond, Symmes, 174. Italics mine. 58St. Clair to Secretary of State, 1796, in Smith, Th, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 402. 57Sargent to Secretary of State, June 16, 1798, Sargent MSS. (in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Library). For a more exhaustive treatment of Sargent's relations to the frontier, see post, Chapter III. 76 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

tion of squatter rights east of the Miami came when Congress refused to recognize Symmes" claim to lands beyond those included in his patent of 1794, but at the same time recognized the preemption right of the settlers to their locations, subject to a payment to the government of two dollars an acre. Still further federal recognition to squatter rights was included in the Land Law of 1800 which gave a preemption right to all who had located mill sites prior to the passage of the law.58 Although Sargent "s attitude toward the squatter was typical of his fell ow New Englanders, one would not expect to find a squatter movement actually designed and urged by them. However, when squatting could be used to advantage, the New England con, science proved no obstacle to the practice. Thus it happened that the two ··college townships"" now known as Athens and Alexander were first settled under the auspices of Marietta land,holders in violation of the express provisions of law. These townships had been reserved by the Ohio Company in accordance with the terms of their contract with the government, to be disposed of under the direction of the Territorial or State Legislature in the interests of a state university.s9 By 1797 the Legislature had not, as yet, been inclined to act with reference to these lands in spite of the fact that the pressure of expanding population was making it quite necessary that these townships be opened to settlement. The situation confront, ing the Ohio Company in 1797 was described by Ephraim Cutler, who commented on the fact that, following the Treaty of Greenville, there were coming down the river many ""families of persons of strong adventurous minds, and hardy frames, but generally of little or no property . .,., Eager for lands on easy terms, this type of home, seeker crowded the village of Marietta in the spring of 1797. The college townships were in the trust of Putnam, a director of the Ohio Company, who was convinced that ""it would be good policy to early make these lands productive, and thus provide a fund to commence an institution ..,., The country was swarming with settlers in 1796 and 1797, and, in order to prevent the entry of undesirables who might cause difficulties, subsequently, to the State"s use of the

58U. S. Statutes at Large, II, 78. 59William E. Peters, Legal History of the Ohio University. . . • (Cincinnati, 1910), 62-64, 7 4-77, 86-88. FRONTIER OHIO 77

lands ( as well as to other private interests in Marietta, who might also desire to profit from the sale of these lands), it became necessary for strong action to be taken. In order, therefore, that the settle, ment of these townships be ""peaceable and respectable,"" it was urgent that there be selected ""from the emigrants already at Marietta, men possessing :firmness of character, courage and sound discretion.,, To these men Putnam gave ""every facility in his power relating to the surveys, &c"" with the result that several selected pioneers, ""substantial men,"" as Cutler calls them, made their way from Mariet, ta up the Hock.hocking in the spring of 1797 to ""make improvements and wait until a more permanent title could be made to them by an act of the Legislature.,., Squatter settlement required squatter govern, ment, and so there appeared another of those innumerable local associations, on the model of Marietta, Columbia and Cincinnati, where respectable and ""substantial men,, for several years acted as magistrates and sheri:ffs, keeping order in a region technically closed to settlement.80 Other evidence of the ubiquitous squatter might be reproduced indefinitely. Let two further examples suffice. At the Falls of the Muskingum, at what was to be the cross,road of the great Cumber, land (National) Road, squatters had preempted the site of Zanes, ville, causing the legal proprietor, Jonathan Zane, so much trouble that he was required to employ the services of Paul Fearing, attorney of Marietta, in order to oust them from his land.si When James Kil, boume brought his band of settlers to the site of Worthington in 1803, he was obliged to compensate certain squatters for their improvements, and he reported that he ""N egociated with Mr. King and Mr. Vance that Mr. King and Benjamin should remove and in compliance with this arrangement, Mr. King had removed on Friday, and on Saturday we all came into his cabin. Soon after I agreed on the price of the improvements with Mr. Vance.""62 Turning to the speculator, we :find that he differed from the

80Ephraim Cutler, "The First Settlement of Athens County with Biographical Notices of Some of the Early Settlers" in Hildreth, Memoirs of the Early Pioneers, 408-14. As might be expected, the complications over the university township in the Symmes purchase were due to the same cause. Symmes to Dayton, February 13, 1800, in Bond, Symmes, 184-86. 61Jonathan Zane to Paul Fearing, October, 1800, Fearing MSS. (in Marietta College Library). Ebenezer Zane, the original proprietor of Zanesville, had transferred part of his holdings to Jonathan Zane and John McIntire. Cc•The Report of James Kilbourne, Agent of the Scioto Company for the Summer of 1803,» in The "Old Northwest" Genealogical Quarterly (Columbus, 1898-1912), VI (1903), 90-91. 78 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

squatter more because he dealt in large amounts of land than because he did not reside on his claim. Both of them dealt in lands before they were legally opened to sale. The speculators were, in proportion to their numbers, more serviceable figures than their humbler and more numerous squatter contemporaries. The truth of this statement must be traced to the quality of the service rendered to the community: that of assuming the hazards and exercising the intelligence and foresight required by the surveying, classifying and marketing in a large way the best sites for settlement. In other words, they performed the entrepreneur"s function of directing the expansion into the appropriate channels. Such speculators were of two classes, those on the ground in the West, and their representa, tives in the East. Each speculator in the West had to have his agents in the East to make the necessary contacts with land buyers and to pick up various kinds of land,warrants and certificates issued by state and national governments for one purpose or another. Ex, amples of such agents were Dayton of New Jersey for Symmes; Pickett, Pollard and Johnson of Virginia for Massie,63 and Robert Means of Virginia for Duncan McArthur.64 Although these eastern brokers performed, no doubt, an es, sential service in the settlement of the frontier, it is not they whom we desire to stress at this point. It is probably not unfair to say that at least a more typically frontier service, if not a more valuable one, was performed by such men as· McArthur, Ebenezer Zane, Putnam, Thomas Worthington, Massie, Symmes, Israel Ludlow, and a host of others who did the actual pioneering in the directing of settle, ments. They were speculators in the true sense, picking out the best locations prior to actual settlement, as the fruit of their own hard,earned knowledge of the geography of the country, the soil, the course of trade and other factors influencing the general trend of settlement. Almost all of them were surveyors, and those who were not, like Symmes and Jacob Burnet, learned about the country by bitter experience or through keen powers of observation.

63Pickett, Pollard and Johnson were the eastern partners of Nathaniel Massie. See agree­ ment between these parties, December 23, 1797, Massie MSS. (in Western Reserve Historical Society). MMeans was the eastern partner of Duncan McArthur, speculator in lands in the Virginia Military District. See the Duncan McArthur MSS. (in Library of Congress, Manuscript Division), Vol. I, li83-1807, parsim. FRONTIER OHIO 79

As was the case in the different types of speculation from the days of Alexander Hamilton in 1789 to the time of John D. Rocke, feller, the skill of these entrepreneurs is attested to, in a large meas, ure, by their ability to discover the ~~bottle,necks .,., of their respective fields of exploitation. In the former the bottle,neck was the state and federal bonds; in the latter it was the process of the refining of oil; and in the frontier process it was the town. The towns were the strategic points where real estate values were concentrated by virtue of the adaptation of the town sites to the exchange needs of the country. Cross,roads, mill sites, adaptability to military protection, boat landings, facilities for harbor navigation, flood elevation, river and creek junctions, extensive hinterlands were only a few of the essential factors the discovery of which made the successful town speculator. The most outstanding and successful example of this phase of pioneering in Ohio is, of course, the founding of Cincinnati. Pur, chased from the unsuspecting Symmes at a ridiculously low price, it enjoyed a greater immunity from the floods of the Ohio River and was the natural center of three fertile river valleys, the two Miamis and the Licking. It had invited the location of a federal fortress at a point for which Kentuckians had long been demanding such pro, tection as insurance against the Indian expeditions that had more than once ascended the Licking Valley. It was, therefore, altogether natural that the discovery of these advantages should have befallen the lot of the experienced pioneer speculator, Patterson, the founder of Lexington, Kentucky, with his associates, Filson, likewise of Kentucky, and Denman of New Jersey, while the inexperienced Symmes, destined to fail as a speculator, carried on for several years longer his quest for ~'the City."., But the golden age for the speculators dawned with the victory of Wayne at Fallen Timbers, August 20, 1794. In the Miami region, however, they had been active even before Wayne"s victory, counting on the eventual defeat of the Indians. In December, 1793, John Ludlow offered donation lots to first settlers at a village planned by him at Mount Pleasant.85 A month later John Dunlap informed all

er,Centinel of the North-Wutern Territory (Cincinn:iti), December 21, 1793. 80 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

those holding donation lots in Colerain that they must comply with the terms of settlement before May 1 or forfeit their claims."' In December, 1794, Israel Ludlow, whose knowledge of the region between the Miamis was not exceeded by any, because of his execution of the survey of Symmes" Purchase, laid out a town on the site of Fort Hamilton which he first called Fairfield and later Hamilton.11

Seventeen days after the signing of the Treaty of Greenville, August 5, 1795, Ludlow, in association with St. Clair, General James Wilkinson and Dayton, contracted with Symmes for the pur, chase and settlement of the entire seventh and eighth ranges between the Miamis, and for the creation of three settlements, one of which was to be Dayton. Surveying parties under Dunlap and Daniel C. Cooper, who later became sole proprietor of Dayton, made the necessary surveys in the fall of 1795, and early in 1796, under the direction of Dunlap and Cooper, the settlement was made.88

Other speculations in the Miami region were: the settling of Deerfield by John S. Gano and Company in 1796;69 the laying out of the town of Franklin (Warren County) by Cooper, William C. Schenck and others of Cincinnati;10 the establishment of Waynesville in 1797 by the Englishman, Highway, who associated himself with Elder John Smith of Columbia in making his purchase from Symmes;71 the laying out of Middletown by Stephen Vail in 1802;72 the settle, ment of Rossville in 1801 by Burnet and Company;73 the offering of lots in Reading by Abraham Vorheas in 1798 and 1799;n the opening of a ""New Town"" (Caesarsville) on Caesar"s Creek in

GeJbid., January 18, 1794. 61A History and Biog,-aphical Cl7clopaedia of Butler Count1, Ohi-0 (Cincinnati, 1882), 28S. 68Roben W. and Mary Davies Steele, Earl1 Da1ton. • • • (Dayton, 1896), 20-21; Centinel, January 16, 1796; Beverley W. Bond, Jr. (ed.), "Memoirs of Benjamin Van Cleve," in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio Quarterl7 Publication, XVII ( 1922 ), nos. 1 and 2, 56. 89Centinel, January 30, 1796. 'lOThe History of Warren County, Ohio • ••• (Chicago, 1882), S18-20. 71Ibid., S SS-S7; Baily, Journal of a Tour, 202 ff.; Centinel, February 6, 1796. 72JhiJ.., 627; Sp-y, November 3, 1802. 73History of Butler County, 287. '"Sp7, August 20, 1799; Henry A. and Kate B. Ford, History of Hamilton County, Ohio (Cleveland, 1881 ), 393. FRONTIER OHIO 81

1800 by Massie and Thomas Cameal;75 the establishment of Williams, burg, Clermont County, in 1800 by William Lytle, surveyor;1'' the buying, by John Paul in 1803, of the site selected by commissioners as the county--seat (Xenia) of Greene County.77 How unconventional enterprising speculators could be is shown by the fact that Israel Ludlow, in the late summer of 1794, after the Battle of Fallen Timbers, on the expectation that the treaty with the Indians would be followed by the immediate enactment by the Federal Govern, ment of an act opening the lands west of the Miami to sale by the establishment of a government land office, began surveys west of the Miami ·•for the benefit of individuals holding land,warrants of the United States. 11 This attempt was promptly nipped by Sargent, who, as acting governor, served notice on Ludlow to cease his activities. 18 In the Scioto Valley, the central figure is the greatest of all Ohio speculators, Massie; and here is an example of one who did not special-­ ize altogether in town sites. Trained as a surveyor, speculator and trader in western Virginia and Kentucky, he was the first to explore the lands north of the Ohio reserved by Virginia and known as the Virginia Military District. In 1790 Colonel Richard C. Anderson, principal surveyor of the Virginia Military lands in Kentucky and the Northwest, appointed him a deputy surveyor, after which Massie became the leading explorer of the District, surveying between 1790 and 1801 practically all the streams on the eastern side of the Scioto system. In this period, he actually surveyed 708 tracts containing over 750,000 acres. He was the founder in 1791, of Massie1 s Station (Manchester) and, in 1796, of Chillicothe.711 Many other Ohio spec-­ ulators gained valuable experience in Massie 1s service, among whom were Lytle, McArthur, and Lucas Sullivant. Besides the speculative ventures of Massie in the Scioto Valley, there were the enterprises launched by Sullivant at Franklinton (Columbus) in 1800,80 by Henry

-:ssn, March 26, 1800. 'leJ!Jid., July 30, 1800, History of Clermont County, Ohio • ••• (Philadelphia, 1880), 297. 'l'l'George F. Robinson, History of Greene County, Ohio. • • • ( Chicago, 1902 ), 23-24. 78See post, pages 14 5-46. "%9Massie, Life of Massie, 28-64. 810Hutory of Franklin and Pickaway Counties, Ohio . ••• (1880), 34. 82 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Massie at Portsmouth in 1803,81 and by Kilbourne of Cheshire, Con ... necticut, at Worthington in 1803.82 On the Hocking River, the Ohio Company sponsored the first settlement at Athens, as we have seen, even before it was legally open to adventurers.83 Farther up the river, where it was crossed by Zane1 s Trace, Ebenezer Zane laid out the town of New Lancaster (later Lancaster) on land granted him by Congress in 1796."' This became the nucleus of a community formed into the county of Fairfield in December, 1800. Expansion on the Muskingum from Marietta, Belpre, and Waterford, fruits of the Ohio Company"s speculation, was slow; Cutler's development of his holdings in Ames Township being the best ... Jmown feature.85 At the junction of the Licking (Ohio) and the Muskingum Rivers, where another of the grants of Ebenezer Zane was situated, the site of the ferry, established across the river for travelers along Zane"s Trace, slowly came to be known as Zanes ... town (later Zanesville) .88 Farther up the Ohio a group of settlements had appeared by 1803 to form the nucleus of the county of Belmont. The towns in this group were: Newellstown (later St. Clairsville) laid out by David Newell of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, a cousin of St. Clair; Bellaire, laid out by Jacob Davis in 1802; and Pultney, by Daniel McElheran and Robert Troup of western Penn-­ sylvania.87 Still farther up the river, above Wheeling, two other friends of St. Clair, James Ross of Pittsburgh and Bezaleel Wells of

81Nelson. W. Evans, A History of Scioto County, Ohio. • • • (Portsmouth, Ohio, 190 3), 7i7-80. 82Mira Clarke Parsons, "Historic ~·orthington," in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Publications, XIII ( 1904 ), 71-72. In his "Autobiography," Kilbourne thus humorously described his speculation: About this time, commencement of 1800, conceived the plan of forming an emigration company to the then N. Western Territory. It took about one year [1800] to make my friends believe me serious in the proposition; the next [ 1801] to satisfy them that I was not insane; the third [1802] to explore the country, complete the Scioto Company of forty members and prepare for operations, and the fourth [1803] to commence improvements, and near the end of the year to conduct the families to the purchase, all of which devolved on me. This first year's settlement consisted of twelve families and 100 members. . . • During this year [ 1804] surveyed and divided to all of the proprietors their land in the company's purchase, closed up all its concerns and dissolved the association. "Autobiography of James Kilbourne," in The "Old No-,,thwest" Genealogical Quane-,,ly, VI (1903 ), 114-15. Several documents involved in this transaction are printed ibid., il-91. 83Hildreth, Memoirs of the Early Pioneers, 408-14. 8'Albert A. Graham (comp.), History of Fairfield and PeN"y Counties • •.• (Chicago, 1883 ), part III, 13 3-34. 85Julia P. Cutler, Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler (Cincinnati, 1890), 35-42. 86History of Muskingum County, Ohio. . • • (Columbus, Ohio, 1882 ), 6i-68. Zane was associated in this enterprise with John McIntire of Pennsylvania. They advertised town lots in Zanesville in the Pittsburgh Gazette, March 23, 1799. 87John A. Caldwell, History of Belmont and Jefferson Counties, Ohio . ••• (Wheeling, West Virginia, 1880), 224-26, 257, 280. McElheran advertised locations in Pultney in the Pittsbur2h Gazette, July 20, 1799. FRONTIER OHIO 83

Washington County, Pennsylvania, and Wellsburg, Virginia, laid out Steubenville on lands bought f rem the Government in 1796.88 Farms were being taken up along Little Beaver River and its branches, and this gradually led to the establishment of Columbiana County in 1803.119 Settlement was rapidly proceeding along the Mahoning and its branches under the auspices of various members of the Connecticut Land Company. Ephraim Quinby, who laid out Warren in 1800, and John Young, the founder of Youngstown, were the chief of these. Cleveland, by reason of its not being in the Ohio Valley, was one of the less known villages of the time. 90 In the years 1800 and 1801, certain events transpired that the observer might believe would have stopped speculative activity. These events were the opening of government land,offices at Steubenville, Marietta, Chillicothe, and Cincinnati for the sale of certain blocks of public lands not already alienated; the opening to settlement of the Congressional Military District (bounded by the Greenville Treaty line, the Scioto River to Columbus, a line east from Columbus, and the Seven Ranges); and similarly, the opening to settlement of the tract reserved for Canadian refugees, called the Refugee Tract (a narrow strip running east from Columbus to the western boundary of Muskingum County) . It cannot, of course, be denied that these innovations, designed to facilitate the sale of land by the Govern, ment directly to settlers, did reduce the speculations of middlemen to a great extent. However, their activities were by no means elim-­ inated. Enough has been said of the squatters, surveyors, and spec, ulators on the lands west of the Miami that were not opened for sale at the land,office at Cincinnati until 1800, to demonstrate that many of the sales at that office were to individuals who had been en joying the benefits of settlement for some time prior to their receiving title from the Government. In the other two regions opened by the Government to settle, ment at this time, speculative activity is even more apparent. In one of these, the Congressional Military District, the land was awarded by

88Joseph B. Doyle, 20th Century History of Steuhen:iille and Jefferson County, Ohio . ••• (Chicago, 1910), 360-63. 89Hi.rtory of Columbiana County. • • • (Philadelphia, 1879), select. 90History of TrumhuU and Mahoning Counties • ••• (Cle\"eland, 1882), I, 241-44; Joseph G. Butler, History of Y our.gstou·n and the Mahoning Valley. • • • ( Chicago and New York, 1921 ), I, 91-116. 84 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

lot to the soldiers of the Revolutionary War as a bonus for their services. The soldiers" right to share in these lands was represented by an official warrant issued by the Government. These warrants were transferable and, quite naturally, found their way gradually into the hands of speculators as the holders sold them. One of these spec, ulators was the land-jobber Symmes, who sought to recoup his losses in the Miami Purchase by investments in the Military District. In this enterprise Symmes employed his friend and agent, Dayton, to buy up warrants in the East. When, in 1800, the locations of warrant, holders were being drawn by lots in Philadelphia, Symmes wrote to Dayton inquiring as to the facts of their '"'"Military Speculation. .,., He begged his agent to send him a map of the District on which the locations drawn by Symmes should be pointed out. This would enable him to go into the country in the spring of 1801 to begin a settlement, if he were '"'"so fortunate as to draw any ... worth ini, proving at this period. ""91 Apparently he was so fortunate for we find him, a month later, publishing in the Cincinnati Spy a request that all who intended to become adventurers in his lands in the District meet Hat John Lyons tavern on Mill Creek,"" March 29, '"'"to enter into articles of regulation, elect a foreman and inform each other who will furnish waggons, oxen or horses, so that by uniting, assistance may be given to the whole.,., A week later the party was to march overland '"'"in a body with their waggons, pack,horses, cattle, sh eep and h ogs. '1'1112 Other entrepreneurs offered their services to the public for this same project. Armstrong and William Wells of the Miami Valley announced that they had spent :five months in exploring the Military District and had .... obtained a perfect knowledge of this tract.,., which was '"'"superior to any persons whatever."" They, therefore, offered to act as agents for locators, promising to cause land.-warrants to be registered properly, to attend to the drawing of lots, and the procur, ing of patents. Their compensation was '"'"one,eighth part of the land, or a compensation in money, as may best suit their employers.""113 Schenck and of Cincinnati likewise offered their serv, ices, announcing that Schenck had an intimate knowledge of the Dis,

111Symmes to Dayton, FebrU!ll'y 13, 1800, in Bond, Symmes, 187-88. ~s111, March 19, 1800. valbid., May 28, 1799. FRONTIER OHIO 85

trict from having assisted in the survey of the Greenville Treaty line, which was its northern boundary.94 Schenck later obtained certain of these lands in his own right and offered them for sale to the public.95 The third block of land opened by Congress to settlement at this time was the Refugee Tract, so called because it was allotted by Congress to certain refugees from Canada who had been indiscreet enough to aid the American cause in the Revolutionary War.98 This tract was quite small and, hence, rather insignificant in so far as area goes. But this very fact made it possible for a certain group of speculators to gain a complete monopoly on the locations within it. This group was made up of Levi Whipple and Elnathan Scofield, surveyors of the Tract, and Fearing, a leading lawyer of Marietta and representative of the Territory in Congress. The information concerning this enterprise is contained in a lette::- written by Whipple to Fearing in December, 1801. This letter is unique in that it gives an extremely intimate account of the details of speculative motivation and methods. Whipple wrote, ""You mentioned, when I saw you, of not knowing of any person that was a going to make a business of locating, which induced you to undertake in the business ..,., Referring to possible competitors, he continued, ""Since you left this place [Marietta] I have been informed that Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Noah Zane and some others have been exploring for the purpose of locating; and likewise Mr. Scofield had it in contemplation_.,., Since they (Fear, ing and Whipple) were not well. enough acquainted with the best locations, it might cause warrant,holders to ""give the locating to some other person, who was personally and particularly acquainted with the land &c I mentioned to Mr. Scofield what we contemplated doing, and asked him whether he would engage with us; which he engaged to do, and therefore will not go on himself . .,~ Since Scofield had been the surveyor of the Tract, he had the advantage of having made ""par, ticular observations,.,., hence being qualified "~to make the most Judi, tious locations of any person whatever. .,., ""Under those considerations,.,., Whipple observed, HI thought his information would be more ad, 94Jbid., August 13, 1799. 95Jbid., September 10, 1800. 96For a description of the circumstances concerning these Canadian refugees and the acts of Congress, see Christopher E. Sherman, Original Ohio Land Subdivisions, in Ohio Cooperative Topographic Survey, Final Report (Columbus, Ohio, 1925), III, 116-19; also William E. Peters, Ohio Lands and Their Subdivisions (Athens, Ohio, 1918 ), 284-92; and Carl Wittke, "Canadian Refugees in the American Revolution," in The Canadian Historical Revfrw (Toronto, 1920-), III ( 1928), 320-33. 86 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

vantage to us than the disadvantage of increasing the number of Sharers in the profits for locating.,, Whipple, therefore, had Scofield

make out some plats H containing the prefferences of location.... and sent them to Fearing in Washington, for his use in making locations for warrant--holders in the East. This plat, incidentally, had been fur-­ nished by the surveyor, Putnam, on condition that I should request you not to have it come to the sight of the Secretary [ of the 'I'reasu.ry] for he said he had not sent on a corrected plat of that survey to him, and seeing you have one, might suppose you obtained it from the office [and] might think it singular to take occasion to complain that he had not been furnished with one. As to profits if Fearing should make any locations, he was re-- quested to make a divis;on with the owners and take it [the profit] in some of the early [preferable] locations even at a considerable deduction in quantity, as they are much superior to the later ["p;efferences"]- to the fiftieth or sixtieth 9 cho[ ice] is good, the remainder indifferent. .- lt is not surprising, in view of the above, that some of this specu-- lative activity should run afcul of frontier individualism. The most conspicuous example of this is the opposition to Symmes. As has been pointed out, Symmes experienced at various times the censure of the representatives of the government for his alleged violations of the law, in selling lands not within his purchase, but he also experienced, throughout his career, great difficulty in keeping on good terms with the masses. In a protest drawn up in 1796 by William Goforth of Columbia, and approved by a mass meeting called to agitate for state-­ hood, one of the grievances of the people was that ""the first judge of the supreme court [Symmes} is perhaps, the greatest land--jobber on the face of the earth, and must eventually either mediately, or immediately feel himself interested in many, if not most of the legal decisions respecting lands laying bet~'een the Miami rivers."'913 This view was also a dominant factor in the continued agitation in the Territory for a reform of the Territoriai Supreme Court.99 e7Levi \.'\,'hippie to Paul Fearing, December 16, 1801, Fearing MSS. 98Centinel, February 20, 1796. 99In 1799 St. Clair wrote to the secretary of state: I am sorry to say that in most cases, whatever he [Symmes] thinks proper to declare as Law is almost always implicitly conceded by the other Gentlemen. And here as the occasion brings it in give me leave to regret that the Bill for new modelling the Supreme Court of this Territory was not passed into a Law. [This hill would have increased the number of judges and. would have added a chief justice.] It is of vast consequence that the Chief Justice at least should be a thorough Lawyer, an independent Man, and uninterested in the Suits that come before the Court, which will not apply to Judge Symmes in any instance, and as to the last, he is either mediately or immediately concerned in all where the title of Land comes into question. Arthur St. Clair to Secretary of State, May 15, 1799, St. Clair MSS. (in Ohio State Library), Box 11, no. 107. FRONTIER OHIO 87

It found further expression in oppos1t1on to Symmes, partner, Smith of Columbia.100 Smith was one of the leading merchants of the Miami Valley and was the chief accredited commercial and :6.nan, cial agent of Symmes, being authorized by the latter to receive at his n1ills grain and pork in the periodical instalments by which the purchasers of Symmes, lands made payment for their holdings. When measures \.Vere being agitated by prominent Cincinnat{ politicians in favor of a division of the Territory in such a way as to make Cincin, nati the capital, the leaders did not want Smith's help, because, as St. Clair wrote to Dudley Woodbridge of Marietta, .... If Mr. Smith enters into it [ measure in favor of a division], it will go down al, most universally in Hamilton county.",101 When, in 1802, the Repub, licans of Hamilton County were forming their political party, they refuSed to affiliate v,ith this land,jobber,s partner for, as Charles Wil, ling Byrd, the secretary of the Territory, \Vrote to }v1assie, .... The Dem, ocratic Societies of Hamilton are as jealous of Mr. John Smith as they are of McMillan and Burnet [Federalists}, and are attempting to prejudice me against him. ,,102 Indeed, so opposed were they tt> Smith that they refused to endorse him as a delegate to the Consti, tutional Convention. 103 This situation lends peculiar significance to the attempts by Symmes to fraternize with the masses. In the struggles between the people of the lower 11iami country and Sargent, the acting governor, 1 from 1789 to 1795, Symmes was obviously playing for popularity. 0.. At a Republican meeting held on March 20, 1801, in Cincinnati at Mennesier,s Hotel, Hthe honorable J. C. Syn1mes was chosen chair, man and after an elegant supper the following toasts were drank ...,,ios One w·onders if Symmes did not finance the supper. On July 8, a notice appeared in the Spy, ""Communicated by the honorable JOHN CLEVES SYMMES,,, announcing a Republican mass,meeting near Cincinnati on July 4. Part of Symmes, communication read, .... Citizen John C. Symmes '\Vas chosen president, and citizen doctor Goforth,

lvOfor Smith's business connections with Symmes, see rost, pages 116-17. 101st. Clair to Woodbridge, December 24, 1801, in Smith, The Life and Senrices of St. Clair, II, 548. 102Charlcs BJ.-rd to Massie, June 20, 1802, in M:ts~ie, Life of ,".1as:ie, 210. 1°3See post, page 244. 1°'See port, pages 13 8-40. lOlSSp1, March 25, 1801. 88 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

08 vice president. "'11 In view of the fact that the editor of the Spy was in good standing with Symmes" sworn opponents, the Cincinnati boosters, it would seem that Symmes" communication was printed in this way to reveal to the public that he was really playing for public approval.

4 The Frontier Church. The history of any frontier is incomplete without a recognition of the place of the church in the lives of the inhabitants. Frontier religious expression was, of course, crude, and the reason for this is the pathological condition created in the individual by the crudeness of his life. Indian fighting, the overshadowing importance of the struggle for a living, the lack of any refinements in material, intellec, tual and social conditions, and the empty loneliness of life, all helped to build an environment that left its unfortunate victim incapable of appreciating the joys of a calm, dignified and cultured reaction to the mysteries of life and death. The effect of such conditions upon one individual is illustrated in the case of Charlotte Chambers Ludlow, wife of the land specu, lator and surveyor, Israel Ludlow. Mrs. Ludlow was the daughter of General Benjamin Chambers of Chambersburgh, Pennsylvania. Al, though, perhaps, not one of the first families in eastern Pennsylvania society, the Chambers family was accustomed to a certain degree of refinement, as may be seen from the girlhood letters of Mrs. Ludlow written before her marriage and her life in the West. In 1792, while this serious,minded maiden was visiting in the home of a military friend of her father near Philadelphia, she wrote to her mother: I was impelled by curiosity to attend a Quaker meeting at Columbia . . . . [And commenting on the opening silence] I wish this solemn silence was observed in all churches until the audience compose their minds from the hurry of external objects and common conversation, and so prepare themselves for the reception of the grand truths they came to hear. . . . I fancied there was in silence, something more eloquent and instructive than in the most elaborate harrangue of erudition. The mind learns to rest upon itself.107 How differently she wrote ten years later, after nine years of married life in the West. How much of that poise and calm. and lOOJhid., July 8, 1801. 107Lewis H. Garrard, M,~moir of Charlotte Clwnhen (Philadelphia, 18;6), 10-11. FRONTIER OHIO 89

dignity is lacking, as, writing from Ludlow Station to her mother, she said: I thank you for the description of the ••great meeting." You inform me you had no •·disorder," no ••crying out:• My dear Mother, I wish you could all have such zeal and deep feeling. How I would rejoice to hear that some of your dignified ladies, some of your stout,hearted Deists, or some of your good old formalists, had been heard crying out, •·Men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved?" Our good Dr. King would then have mounted as on eagle· s wings, and soared above the dull theology of the schools, and felt the transport of renovated youth on seeing the new,born sons and daugh, ters of Zion.108 Where is that eloquent silence of days gone by? What tragic testimony to the ravages of frontier isolation! Mrs. Ludlow was alone at Ludlow Station for long periods while her husband was out on sur, veying trips, on one of which, in 1804, he was killed. In her loneli, ness she undoubtedly heard many frontier preachers, and not only absorbed their frontier theology, but adopted their terminology. V ae victis! In view of the primitive conditions on the frontier, it was natur, al that the church with the least amount of formality in creed and government should make the most progress. The church having the least ""red tape"., for the establishment of new congregations; whose ministers were, more often than not, self,appointed; whose financial burdens were kept at a minimum; whose missionaries were more active; and whose doctrines were more democratic, was the church which gained the most converts. For this reason, it was the Methodists, the Baptists, and the New Lights, a schismatic sect which seceded from the Presbyterian Church, that dominated the religious life of frontier Ohio. For a long time prior to the :first settlement of Ohio, the Pres­ byterian Church had enjoyed preeminence on the American frontiers of Pennsylvania and Kentucky because of its more democratic theolo, gy and church government. The frontier work of Francis Asbury for Methodism had not by 1788 had sufficient time to overcome the lead of his Scotch, Irish competitors. This is well illustrated by the religious history of the Miami Valley during this period. It was quite natural that the Presbyterians should have been the first to establish themselves in Cincinnati, be,

lOSJbid., so. 90 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS cause of the strength of that denomination in the regions from which the bulk of its population was drawn, viz.: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. The First Presbyterian Society of Cincinnati was or, ganized in 1790 by Rev. David Rice of Danville, Kentucky, leader of the Presbytery of Transylvania in which Cincinnati lay. With the assignment in 1790, by Rice, of James Kemper as a regular preach, er to the Miami region, and his subsequent ordination as pastor, the Society soon became the leading church of Cincinnati, and in 179 5 completed the construction of its first meeting,house with money raised by popular subscription. As settlement spread into the interior, Kemper and Rice preached to the new settlers, and many new con, gregations were formed as part of the Synod of Transylvania and later of the Synod of Washington (Kentucky) .109 It soon became apparent, however, that all was not well with Presbyterianism in Kentucky and Ohio. There were certain elements in the Presbyterian system, inherited from John Calvin, that ,vere not adapted to the frontier. These were the insistence on a learned clergy, the possession of what Frederick L. Paxson calls a creed ""with a tough intellectual content,.,., and a somewhat over,meticulous regard for formality in the establishment of new congregations. The occasion for the crystallization of opposition to these features came with the Great Revival of 1800110 whose spread north of the Ohio started a secession movement among the Presbyterian congregations of the back country of the Miami Valley, which eventually, accord, ing to Anthony H. Dunlevy, ""carried off the great body of the Pres, byterian Church in the Miami Valley, with a number of their preachers ..,., 111 Among the obscure frontier preachers who had experienced that strange religious awakening in the revival at Cane Ridge were Richard McNemar and John Thompson of Kentucky. As a result of that experience these men became persuaded of the truth of certain prin, ciples of free,will which ran directly counter to the central precepts of Calvinistic doctrine. Consequently, at the annual meeting of the Presbytery of Washington in November, 1801, at Springfield in Ham,

199Greve, Hi1tor1 of Cincinnati, 3 SS-62. Although the Congregational Church was technically first in Marietta, because of its New England origins, it did not become the dominant church type in southeastern Ohio. 11°Catherine Cleveland, The Great Revival in the West, 1797-1805 . ••. (Chicago, 1916). 111Anthony H. Dunlevy, History of Miami Baptist Association. . . • ( Cincinnati, 1889 ), 44. FRONTIER OHIO 91 ilton County (now Springdale township), charges of heresy were brought against McNemar. His accusers alleged that he had declared, first, that Christ has purchased salvation for all the human race, with, out distinction; second, ""that a sinner has power to believe in Christ at any time,'' and, third, ""that a sinner has as much power to act 112 faith as to act unbelief .H McNemar, in his reply, did not deny these charges, but in reality substantiated them by asserting that Christ is the Saviour of all men; that a sinner is capable of receiving testimony of God at any time he heard it; and that a sinner is as capable of believing as disbelieving, according to the evidence pre, sented to the mind. It is obvious that these assertions by McN-emar of the doctrine of f ree,will were absolute heresy to conscientious believers in Calvin, istic predestination. However, there were not enough persons present at this meeting of the Presbytery in 1801 to substantiate the charges, and so, according to the rules, they were dropped. The meeting as, signed McNemar to preach to the congregation at and near Turtle Creek (now Lebanon) and gave Thompson the area at and near Springfield (now Springdale). If the Presbytery hoped to silence McNemar and Thompson by placing them in these remote frontier settlements, they were mistaken. Indeed, the doctrines of free,will which they were preaching found such fertile soil in the minds of these frontier folk that McNemar, in the annual meeting of the Presbytery at Cincinnati in October, 1802, '\Vas again accused, by an elder of Kemper"s congregation, of propagating false doctrine. He was examined by the Presbytery on the fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures, viz., election, human depravity, atonement and others, and it was found that his state, ments were ""hostile to the interests of all true religion ..,., Apparently an admonition was considered sufficient, for he was reappointed to serve the Turtle Creek congregation and to minister occasionally to several congregations as far north as Dayton.111 McNemar continued to propagate his doctrines in the congre, gations that had been assigned to him. In the spring of 1803, a direct conflict occurred between Kemper and the revivalists in a camp meet,

112John P. MacLean, Shakers of Ohio .••• {Columbus, Ohio, 1907), 32-H. 11:;Jhid., 34. 92 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS ing held at the Beulah congregation at the Beaver Creek settlement­ now in Van Buren township in Montgomery County. The leader of this meeting was the Kentucky revivalist, Robert Marshall, who was assisted by Kemper, McNemar and Thompson. Kemper appar, ently saw an opportunity to strike a blow for orthodoxy and delivered a sermon on predestination, using as a text an appropriate passage from Isaiah (XXII, 23): .... And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father"s house_,, The result was, according to the laconic narration of an unknown chronicler, that, .... on Sabbath morning Marshall followed, and literally fulfilled the context (verse 25) to the extent that Kemper and his 4 followers retreated homeward. '"11 Isaiah XXII, 2 5, reads: ""In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord hath spoken it.,, This was apparently too much for Kemper. In the spring meet, ing of 1803 of the Presbytery of Washington, held at Springfield (Springdale), all of McNemar"s congregations had asked for a re, examination of his doctrines and the Turtle Creek congregation asked for the whole of his time. The latter request was granted, appar, ently in order to limit his activities, but the farmer was rejected and the matter referred to the meeting of the General Synod at Lexington in September, 180 3. The Synod upheld the Presbytery in admonishing McNemar for his heresy and, at the same time, refused the request of McNemar, Thompson and others for the establish, ment of a separate Presbytery north of the Ohio. The latter gentle, men thereupon withdrew from the Synod of Kentucky, formally constituted the Presbytery of Springfield, and sent a circular letter to their congregations justifying their action. The Synod replied by suspending all the protesting members and declared their parishes without ministers.~ A year later McNemar and his associates car, ried their protest to its ultimate conclusion by abolishing their own Presbytery and, in e:ff ect, constituting themselves a new sect called the ""New Lights, 't'I with every congregation an independent unit. According to John P. Maclean, every Presbyterian church in south,

lHQuoted "from the Old Review Book in the possession of Elder Mo5es E:i.stwood" of Beav~r Creek, in History of Montgomery County, Ohio . ... (Chicago, 1882), 176. 115MacLean, Shakers of Ohio, 34-36. FRONTIER OHIO 93

western Ohio, except three in and near Cincinnati, was swept into this new organization.1111 The doctrine of this New Light faith is a perfect example of frontier influence. In a word, it was the equality of all hum.an beings before God. As McNemar expressed it, New Lightism meant, that all creeds, confessions, forms of worship, and rules of government, invented by men, ought to be laid aside, especially the distinguishing doc, trines of Calvin. That all who received the true light of the spirit in the inner man and faithfully followed it, would naturally see eye to eye and understand the things of the Spirit alike, without any written tenet or learned expositor. That all who received this true light would plainly see the purity of God, the depravity of man, the necessity of a new birth, and of a sinless life and conversation to evidence it. That God was no respecter of persons­ willeth the salvation of all souls-has opened a door of salvation, through Christ, for all-will have all invited to enter. 117 Their form of church government, like their creed, was a perfect product of the frontier. They believed that all •·rules of government, invented by men, ought to be laid aside . .,., It is interesting to note what some of these inventions were, against which they were protest, ing. They objected to the various official positions by which church membership was divided into ranks, and ••Every claim to superiority, (by a succession of church offices) had been laid aside . .,.,118 Thus they abolished their own Presbytery and ""confessed and denied not, that they [ as a Presbytery] were as far off the true foundation as the rest. ""119 Also, .... the power and authority of modern clergy, as succes, sive to the apostles, was renounced ..,., This leveling of the clergy was necessary because the old clergy were proud, aspiring, contentious, striving who should be the greatest, over, looking common people as an inferior rank of beings, deeply immersed in the cares of the world, eager after the salaries, or posts of profit in civil government, and some even holding their f ellow,creatures in perpetual slavery, or selling them for money.120 They abolished all elders, saying, ~·we think the eldership ought not to form a separate body distinct from the Church itself, or go out of doors secretly to transact such business as concerns the body of the people at large ..,,in The ordaining of ministers was abolished, .. the farthest that they went[being] ... to express their satisfaction

ll6Jbid., 106. 117Richard McNemar, The Kentucky Re:•i:.1al; or a Short History of the Late Extraord.inar1 Outpouring of the Spirit of God in the Western Statrs of America (New York, 1846), 30. 118Jbid., 5 8-5 9. 119Jbid., 44. 120Jbid., 11. 121Ibid. This quotation is taken from the principles of the schismatics drawn up by the congregation at Turtle Creek, April 20, 1804. 94 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS with, and encourage those who they believed had power and authority given them from heaven."" 122 They dispensed with all formality in the ritual of admission to membership, simply hearing, in meeting, the subjects ""publicly relate"' their conversion and giving them "'"the right hand of fellowship. ,,m They dispensed with all church discipline, saying: We think it tends to keep the body of the people in the dark, and obstruct a real spirit of communion, to examine and admit members-try causes of scandal-censure-rebuke-reprove, or suspend in secret, or to transact privately by the representatives of the people such, or any other business of a public nature.12' In short, they sought to establish a perfect democracy. The power of government was considered in the body of the people. . .. All distinction of names was laid aside, and it was no matter what anyone had been called before, if now he stood in the present light and felt his heart glow with love to the souls of men.... Neither was there any dis .. tinction as to age, sex, color, or anything of a temporary nature; old and young, male and female, black and white, had equal privilege to .minister the light which they received in whatever way the spirit directed.125 If this be an impossible Utopia, the important thing is, not that it is the mere figment of a preacher"s imagination, but that it was a real product of frontier conditions, and worked in practice until the frontier had disappeared. The New Light movement was only one evidence of the effect of the frontier on religious life in the Miami region. The progress of the Methodists and the Baptists is another. Although the Baptist theology lacked the democratic elements of free grace espoused by the Methodists and the New Lights, their type of church government, their simple method of establishing new congregations, and their use of lay preachers enabled them to keep pace with their rivals. As we have seen, the Baptists had an early start at Columbia, and be, came the center of a very vigorous missionary movement. 1.."8 This Bap, tist background of the settlers at Columbia made it possible for Dr. Stephen Gano of New Jersey, a relative of Stites, to organize the first Baptist Church on January 20, 1790, several months before the organization of the first Presbyterian Society in Cincinnati. Gano was invited to become pastor, but he declined. The church, however, 122Jbid., 60. ~Ibid., S9. lli]bid., 44-45. 1!71SJbid., 31, 58. l!.'6See ante., page 62. FRONTIER OHIO 95

found a pastor in Smith, a lay preacher from western Pennsylvania and a native of Virginia, who visited Columbia in 1790, and whose preaching was found quite acceptable.121 How informal this arrange, ment was may be seen from the description that the English traveler, Baily, gave of the religious situation at Columbia in 1797. Baily com, mented upon the fact that Smith combined the various duties of merchant, farmer and parson, the latter being only incidental to the others. This led to the observation: In these half,settlcd countries there is no regular religious society, but some one amongst the re~t, either remarkable for his powers of oratory or a well,spent life, takes upon him the office of minister; and as occasion serves, goes a short distance into the country, where the inhabitants meet at each others houses.];!8 With the expansion of population into the interior, after Wayne~s victory in 1794, the Baptist Church expanded in the same way that it had expanded from the Redstone settlements in Pennsylvania. As Dunlevy says, HThe inhabitants of Columbia, most of whom had settled there only temporarily for protection, began rapidly to move to lands they had purchased further in the interior.m29 As these people moved out they farmed congregations wherever they went and by 1797 there were three congregations besides the mother church at Columbia. In September of this year, representatives of these four congregations met at Columbia and formed the Miami Baptist Association. A committee was appointed to draw up the principles of faith, practice and decorum, which were accepted by the meeting of the Association in 1798.130 The annual increase in the number of churches in the Association after 1798 was rapid. By 1799, five more congregations had been added to the original four; in 1800, four more; in 1801, three more; in 1802 and 1803, eight 1 more. :n According to Dunlevy, ""the Baptists were very little, if any, affected by the New Light revival.,, Allowing for bias, some exp la, nation of this can be seen in the fact that Rule Number 13 of the Association adopted in 1798 read, ""No vote or advice {of the Asso, ciation] is to affe-::t the independence of churches.,, Another indication of the same democratic tendency is seen in the fact that, in 1800,

l!.'7Dunlevy, Mi,zmi Baptist Association, 16-18. 128Baily, Journal cf a Tour, 201. 120Dunlevy, Miami Baptist Association, 20. 12i)Jbid., 27-29. 1:UJbitl., 30-36. 96 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS the Association voted to lay aside the title of reverend and substitute that of elder. The main work of the Association seems thus to have been limited to the ordaining and assigning of preachers to congre, gations.122 The Methodists were somewhat slower in beginning work in the Miami Valley, but their progress was quite rapid thereafter. Whereas Kemper, the Presbyterian divine at Cincinnati, was accom, panied by a military escort upon his entry into Cincinnati in 1791, "'Methodism came riding into Cincinnati on horseback. ,,133 At first it made little headway. In 1793 Francis Clark, a local preacher from Danville, and a pioneer of Methodism in that part of Kentucky, preached at Fort Washington and was shocked by ""the godlessness of the troops and the wickedness of the citizens. ,,i:u But after Wayne,s victory, the Methodists spread into the interior in much the same way as did the Baptists. The reasons for this are to be found in a number of circum, stances. The Methodists enjoyed the advantages of an active and in, spired central organization which supervised the missionary work without the disadvantages found in the Presbyterian system of too much formality in establishing new congregations and an undemo, cratic dogma. The circuit system, inaugurated by John Wesley, in, eluded the organization of classes or meetings of the devout in the homes of neighbors where prayers, Bible discussions, and sermons generally made up the simple ·program. Every pioneer circuit,rider left in his wake a chain of classes which continued the services between visits of the preacher. This naturally gave rise to a system of lay and local preachers similar to that existing in the Baptist organization. "'A young man who showed any ability in public speaking was urged by the class, leader and the circuit preacher to exercise his gift on every possible occasion.,, Indeed, these local preachers often organized classes before the circuit,rider came. What made this system still more adaptable to frontier_ conditions was the Wesleyan doctrine of ""free grace, free,will, and individual responsibility," in contrast with the Presbyterian and Baptist doctrine of predestination and fore,

132Jhid., 30, 34, 46. 133Greve, History of Cincinnati, I, 363. 134Samuel W. Williams, Pictruu of Early Methodism in Ohio (Cincinnati and New Yorkt 1909), 38-39. FRONTIER OHIO 97 ordination. In this, the Methodists anticipated the doctrines subse, quently developed by the New Lights.135 The real beginning of Methodism in the Miami Valley came when Francis McCormick of Virginia, after living in Kentucky for some time, convinced himself that he was opposed to slavery and in 1797 settled near Milford in what is now Clermont County. Mc, Cormick formed a class of neighbors in his home and two other classes in settlements on the Little Miami to the south. He was so zealous for the cause that he attended two Conferences ~~to persuade the preachers to come over into Macedonia and help us.,, Asbury saw the possibilities of the situation and in 1798 appointed for the task John Kobler, a presiding elder of the Kentucky district, with instructions to include the Miami Valley in his circuit. Kobler went directly to McCormick,s home near Milford and preached to his host ,s class. McCormick then accompanied Kobler around the circuit up the Little Miami and across to Dayton and down the Big Miami to Cincinnati, the two preaching and farming classes as they '\vent. After this the expansion of Methodism was rapid. McCormick re, ceived an able ally in Philip Gatch who settled nearby in 1798, and the two continued. to preach and form new classes. In 1799 the circuit was extended to the Scioto Valley, which received Methodism so enthusiastically that the Scioto region enjoys the distinction of having the site of the first Methodist meeting house in the Territory. Chillicothe became a Methodist center, a society being organized in 1800 and attended by the political leaders, Edward Tiffin and Worthington. Indeed, Tiffin had been the leader of a class here prior to the coming of the circuit,riders.136 The Miami Valley also acted as the haven for another sect from the East, the Quakers. These pious people came to settle in and near the present site of Waynesville in Warren County. Late in the 18th century there had been a considerable movement of Quakers from Pennsylvania into the back parts of the Carolinas and Georgia. They seem not to have been happy here and, about 1800, there arose among them a strong anti,slavery group, led by one of their number, Zachariah Dicks. The result was that in 1799 Quakers began to leave

135VVilliam W. Sweet, The Rise of Methodism in the West (Cincinnati, 1920), 13-14. :i:l6John Marshall Barker, History of Ohio Methodism . ••• (Cincinnati and New York, 1898 ), s;-93. 98 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS these southern regions for the Northwest Territory. Some settled at Concord in Belmont County; others went to the Miami region in such numbers that in December of 1801, according to the custom of their church, they petitioned the proper authorities, viz., the West, land Monthly Meeting in western Pennsylvania and the Quarterly Meeting at Redstone, for the privilege of holding their own bi,v;eekly meetings. Delegates were sent from Pennsylvania to the Miami to examine the request and it was granted in 1802. By 1803 their numbers had so increased that they were granted a monthly meeting of their own, called the Miami Monthly Meeting.131 What has been described in some detail in the Miami Valley was going on throughout the Territory, although the sources are not so plentiful as they are for the former region. The Methodists _made more progress in the eastern part of the Territory than in the Miami Valley. One reason for this was that they had organized circuits in western Pennsylvania earlier than they had in Kentucky. The settle, ments in western Pennsylvania and northwestern Virginia, down as far as Wheeling, had been farmed into two circuits by 1787-the Clarksburg circuit and the Ohio circuit. As might be expected, Meth, odist preachers followed the squatters across to the left bank of the river. Before the circuit was formed, General Richard Butler, in 178 5, observed, concerning the squatters he was seeking to remove from the other side of the Ohio below Wheeling, HThe people of this country appear to be much imposed upon by a religious sect called Methodists, and are become great fanatics. "'138 By 1801 the number of classes and societies had so increased in this part of the Territory that it was made part of the West Wheeling circuit and cut off from the Ohio circuit. In 1799 and 1800 classes were organized and a circuit with fifteen societies formed on the Hockhocking. A few classes on the Mahoning in the Connecticut Reserve were served by the Erie circuit in Pennsylvania.139 Other denominations were scattered through this region. At Marietta and the surrounding country, the Congregationalists, were, of course, strong, but, as in the case of the Presbyterians in the

137Rufus M. Jones, The Later Periods cf Quakerism (London, 1921 ), I, 408-10. See also H. E. Smith, "The Quakers, Their Migration to the Upper Ohio, Their Customs and Dis­ cipline," in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society PubUcations, XXXVII ( 1928 ), 49-56. 138Quoted from the "Journal of General Butler," in Hanna, Harrison County, 52. 139Barker, Ohio Methodism, 94-108. FRONTIER OHIO 99

Miami country, they were limited to the older settlements, while the Baptists and Methodists made greater progress in the interior. The Quakers were especially strong in Jefferson County where two Monthly Meetings were organized by 1803 at Concord and at Short Creek. There were also Quaker meetings at Middletown and Salem in Columbiana County.u0 The Presbyterians, too, were active in Columbiana, Jefferson, and Belmont Counties. The Western Reserve received a marked Congregational or Presbyterian impress through the early labors of Rev. Joseph Badger of the Connecticut Missionary Society.141 One noticeable feature of the religious history of the Territory is the prominent place played by religious leaders in politics. At least five members of the Constitutional Convention in 1802 were prominent church leaders. These were Tiffin, Smith, Gatch, John W. Brown, and Nathan Updegraff. Tiffin, :first governor of Ohio, was an ordained Methodist deacon and one of the pioneers of Method, ism at Chillicothe, having founded a class there in 1798.142 Smith, first United States Senator from Ohio, was the :first pastor of the Baptist Church at Columbia and later took charge of the Island Church near his home farther up the Little Miami at Round Bottom.u3 Gatch was an enthusiastic partner of McCormick in spreading Methodism in Clermont County. Brown, called by St. Clair ""an english Taylor 1 turned Parson to get a livelihood without working, "" " was, according to Cutler, ""by profession an Independent minister,""145 and apparently went about the country preaching wherever he could get a hearing. Brown was especially active in the Miami Valley, preaching at various houses in the interior settlements and forming Congregational churches, one of which was at New London in what is now Butler County.146 Updegraff, of Jefferson County, was the leader in establish, ing the Quaker Meeting at Mt. Pleasant in 1800.147 Another noticeable feature of the religious history of the Terri,

HOJones, Quakerism, I, 42-4~, 406-11; Smith, "Quakers," Zoe. cit., 41-48, 66. 141See A. Memoir of Joseph Badger, Containing an Autobiography and Selections from His Private Journal and Correspondence (Hudson, Ohio, 185'1 ), 21-78. li2James B. Finley, Sketches of Western Methodism; ed. by VV. P. Strickland .. ( Cincinnati, 18 56 ), 260-87. l'3Dunlevy, Miami Baptist A rs o ciation, 9 5-1 1 0 . 1HSpy, September 11, 1802. 145Cutler, Life of Cutler, 67. 146History of Butler County, 429. U7Jones,' Quakerism, I, 410-11; Caldwell, Histor1 of Belmont and bfferson Counties-, 535. 100 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS tory is the part played by the church in stirring up anti--slavery feeling at this early date. The anti--slavery motives of the Quaker migration have been alluded to. McCormick is supposed to have left Kentucky because of his dislike of this institution. During the contest over statehood in 1802, a report gained circulation in Athens that the proponents of statehood were in favor of slavery. Return J. Meigs, Jr., of Marietta received a letter from a friend at Athens who wrote, 44Others from Federal creek spare no pains in spreading the report; even Mr. Pugsley, the Baptist preacher, blows it with as much energy as an Irishman would a bagpipe . .,.,us This report bears all the ear-­ marks of having been originated for political purposes in order to draw a red herring across the real issues involved in the statehood contest: an attempt by the Cincinnati--Marietta opponents of state-­ hood to make it appear that the Scioto agitators desired statehood partly in order to reintroduce slavery into the Northwest.149 There, fore, it is probably fair to say that this propensity of frontier preachers to agitate the moral question of slavery accounts in part for the raising of so much smoke from time to time by politicians in Ohio on the slavery issue. To prolong this account by an excursion into a more intimate description of the types of worship and preaching practised within these churches would lead too far afield. Much crudity and lack of refined religious expression would be found, it is true, but although the stammering of frontier tongues and the excessive emotion of f ron, tier hearts make up the darker and more pathetic side of a phase of American thought, they have been too often held up to ridicule, and too little understood.150

148Cutler, Life of Cutur, 66. 149See post, chapters on statehood contest. 150See Cleveland, The Great Revival; :i.lso Peter George Mode, Source Book and Biblio­ graphical Guide for A11Url.can Hutory. . . . ( Menasha, \Visconsin, 1921); and Gilbert Vivian Seldes, The Stammering Century . ... (New York, 1928). CHAPTER III THE PROBLEMS OF TRADE

1 The Conflict of the Upstream and Downstream Trade.

T NOW becomes necessary to focus our attention upon the trading and ~ommercial structure reared by the people of frontier Ohio I to bring the products of their toil into the best markets and, in return, to obtain such articles as they could not themselves produce. It is probably fair to say that this commercial interest was of the foremost concern to the majority of the home seekers of Ohio, and the most compelling challenge stimulating the faculties of the keenest pioneers and entrepreneurs. As was the case in the realm of religion and politics, Ohio,s commercial origins were but a phase in . the greater development of the United States as a whole. As in politics, the North\vest Territory was expected, with the aid of the conservative Ordinance of 1787, to provide new Federalist communities for the Union, so in commerce it was the confident belief of eastern merchants and speculators that the trans,Allegheny peoples would quickly fit them, selves into a. direct interchange of commodities of great profit to both East and West. In both cases, however, the East \vas doomed to disappointment; in both cases local influences were destined to triumph over eastern expectations: politics was marked for Jef, fersonianism, and trade was to be downstream instead of trans-­ montane. Men like George Washington, impelled, no doubt, by their close interest in the political and financial stability of the Federal Government, allowed themselves to be convinced that the settlers in the West would find a market for their exports in the same cities and along the same routes that furnished their imports. That was the way that normal inland trade had proceded in the past. Besides, any other way would detract from the value of the land. Hence, the wish being father to the thought, that was the way trade was to be carried on. 101 102 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Washington"s delusions as to the destiny of trade are demon, strated by his well ... known interest in the development of the West. From 1753, the year of his :first trip to the West, to 1774, he actively espoused measures for the improvement of the upper Potomac, in the legislatures of Virginia and Maryland.1 It was the renewal of his interest in this same program at the close of the Revolution which led, as one of many causes, to the calling of the Constitutional Convention. Washington "s :first step in the development of this post,war program was his famous trip to the western waters of the United States in 1784.2 Washington, of course, owned land upon the Ohio and the Great Kanawha, and was, therefore, influenced in his observations by considerations resulting from his own embarrassed :financial situation following the war. His impressions of the ease of the portages over the Appalachian barrier were thus overly optimistic. He said : All of these are so many channels through which not only the produce of the New States, contemplated by Congress, but the trade of all the lakes ... may be conducted ... thro• a shorter, easier, and less expensive com, munication than either of those which are now. or have been used with Canada, New Yk, New Orleans.... [We should] open a wide door, and make a smooth way for the Produce of that Country to pass to our Markets before the trade may get into another channel. On October 10, six days after his return, he wrote a long letter to Governor Benjamin Harrison of Virginia urging upon the Legislature immediate measures for the consummation of this subject.3 The letter was promptly submitted to the Virginia As ... sembly which met on October 17 ,4 and the latter was so impressed by its analysis of the apparent possibilities that a law was passed immediately authorizing the formation of a company to proceed, in cooperation with a company authorized by Maryland, with the ~~extension of the navigation of the Potowmack from tide ,vater to the highest place practicable on the North Branch. ""5 Simultan ... eously an act was passed authorizing the treasurer of the State of Virginia to subscribe in the name of Washington for fifty shares in

1 Archer Butler Hulbert, 'Washington and the TV est. • • • (New York, I 90;), I 9-20. 2The di:iry of this trip is in John C. Fitzp:ttrick (ed.), The Di.i.rfrs oj Gt·org~ Washing­ ton, 1748-1799 (Boston :md New York, 1925), II, 277-328. 3George Washington to Harrison, October 10, 1784, in Jarec! Sparks (ed.), The Writings­ of George Washington • •.• (Boston, 1858), IX, 58-68. fBenjazr.in Harrison to Washington, November 13, 1 i84, ibid., 68-69. 5William Waller Hening (ed.), The Statutes at Large ••• of Virginia (Richmond, 1823), XI, 510-25. FRONTIER OHIO 103 the Potomac Company and one hundred shares in the James River Company which had been organized in the spring.a The later road legislation by Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania shows that as much as possible, under the circumstances, was done for the de, velopment of this system of communication with the West... But Virginian optimism could not create trade, for the height of the mountains and the more natural outlet of the Ohio Valley through New Orleans were factors too powerful to permit of the immediate success of these artificial schemes to promote commercial union. Washington himself was fully aware of these factors, but fought hard to advance his own proposals. In his advertisement encouraging settlers to emigrate to his western lands, he wrote disparagingly: If the produce of the country, according to the ideas of some, should go down the Mississippi, they [ the prospective settlers] are nearly as con­ venient for that transportation, having the stream ... to descend, as those which are not settling about the Falls of the Ohio and upon Kentucky . . . but if it [ the produce] should come by way of Fort Pitt to Potomack ( which is the most natural) or to the Susquehanna-by the Great Kanhawa to James River-or by the Lakes Erie and Ontario to New York, they are infinitely more so. '" 8 Others, while admitting that the heavier commodities would have to take the river route, still insisted that a large part of the trade could make the grades across the mountains with profit. Thus, in 1790, after two years in the Territory, Rufus Putnam, who was more closely associated with Washington in his western land pro, gram than any other individual outside of Virginia and Maryland, \vrote to his Massachusetts friend, Fisher Ames: It is true that Flour, Hemp, Tobacco, Iron, Pot-ash, and such bulky artic1es will go down the Mississippi to New Orleans for Market ... but it does not follow hence that it will be for their interest to loose their connection with the Atlantic States but the contrary will appear if we con­ sider: that all the Beef, Pork, & Mutton ( from a very Great part of the western country) will come to the Seaports of Verginia, Maryland & Pennsylvania to market, as will also most of the Furs Skins, &c, obtained by the Indian Trade.... Besides, all the Goods for carrying on the Indian Trade as well as supplying the Inhabitants ... are, at present, imported into that country from Philadelphia, Baltimore, Alexandria, &c &c &c much 6Jbid., ;25-26. •In addition to the Potomac improvements, provisions were made for the construction of ro:ids to the Falls of the Great Kanawha and to the mouth of the Little Kanawha. Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XII, 72-74, 29;_97_ See also Samuel P. Hildreth, Pioneer Hinor, • ••• (Cincinnati, 1848), 245. In Pennsylvania "The Western Road to Pittsburgh" was provided for as a state road and was built during the years 1785-1787. Archer B. Hulbert, The Old Glade (Forbes') Road, in Historic Highways. . . . ( Cleveland, 1903 ), V, 190. SWashington to Putnam, June 2, 1784, in Rowena Buell (ed.), The Memoirs of Rufus Putnam . ••• (Boston and New York, 1903), 230-31. 104 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

cheaper than they can be obtained from New,orleans, or Quebeck. And their is not the least doubt but when the navigation of the Potowmack is com, pleated, with the carrying,place to the Monongahala, according to the pian of the undertakers, the transport of goods into the western country will be lowered fifty per cent-and Should other communication be opened, which their is no doubt but their will, between the Susquehanna & Alleghany River-James River and the Great Kenhawa; the expense of Transportation will be reduced Still lower.9 But Putnam was mistaken, for· it was to be a long time before improvements over the mountains would bring freight rates within the realm of practicability. Eloquent testimony to this fact is to be found in the observation made in 1802 by the French traveler, Franc;ois A. Michaux, after a trip from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. He \,Tote: The price of conveyance would not be so high as it really is, were it not that the waggons frequently return empty; notwithstanding they some, times bring back on their return trip to Philadelphia or Baltimore, fur skins that come from Illinois, or ginseng, which is very common in that part of Pennsylvania.10 The main thing that these wagons took east with them was specie, much to the consternation of frontiersmen. A Pennsylvania farmer of 1787 thus vented his wrath on the export situation: In the year ~84 no less than 63 wagons unloaded at Pittsburg. The last two years indeed not so many; [but] every merchant in the place will allow me to State these waggons each to draw £50 of carriage and Who pays this carriage? An evil equally as much felt is the real loss of circulating specie which these waggoners carry off. It is a notorious fact, that the carriers principally belong to the lower counties.u Some attempts were made to meet the difficulties of direct trade with the East by shipping fur and ginseng. But the volume of this was too small to afford much relief. Another reliance "'Tas cattle,droving. We have already noted Putnam"s hope for the de, velopment of a considerable trade with eastern ports in ""Beef, Pork & Mutton_,., John Cleves Symmes, pioneer land speculator of the Miami country, in advertising his lands for sale in eastern news, papers, declared, ""The farmers" profits here must be great, as horses and oxen may be raised free of expense, save a little salt which is cheap; and they may be drove to Philadelphia for less than four dollars a head.,,12 In the Pittsburgh Gazette for January 16, 1790, a correspondent calling himself ""The W estem FarmerH stated 9Rufus Putnam to Ames, 1790, ibid., 234-3 5. 1°Francois A. Michaux, Tra-.1els to the West of the Allegheny Mountains . . . in tl:e Year 1802 (London, 1805), in Reuben Gold Thwaites (ed.), Early Western Tra::elr. ( Cleveland, 1904 ), III, 158. 11Pittsburgh Gazette, June 9, 1787. 12Beverley W. Bond, Jr. (ed.), The Correspondence of John Cleves Symmes. . . . (New York, 1926), 238. FRONTIER OHIO 105' that one great motive that induced many settlers to come west \Vas the expectation ""that stock would be capable to carry themselves to market; either to Philadelphia, Baltimore or Alexandria, in Vir, ginia.'" But how disappointing the cattle,trade had turned out to be is laconically narrated by the same writer thus, ··some of us have done it [ cattle,droving to Philadelphia, etc.], but found it did not answer our expectations, owing to the large droves of cattle from the back settlements of the Carolinas and Virginia."" Confronted with all these difficulties in the eastern trade, the frontiersmen were obliged to place their chief reliance on the down, stream trade. This had been perceived by land speculators who were able to diagnose the situation more accurately than Washington. Thus the Ohio Company, in advertising its lands on the Muskingum, stated: Above all, it is upon the Ohio and Mississippi that there can be transported a great number of things necessary for the markets of Florida and the West Indies, such as wheat flour, beef, bacon, lumber for joinery and ship,building, etc., that they will be more frequented than any river upon the earth.13 Symmes, founder of the 11iami Purchase in 1788, in his Tren, ton Circular advertised, ""The distance from Fort Pitt is about five hundred miles down a gentle river, navigable for boats of one hun, dred tons to the Mississippi and down the Mississippi to the sea. Hit In another advertisement, Symmes wrote of his lands in the Miami Purchase on the banks of the Ohio with more optimism than ac, curacy, .. Vessels may be built here of two hundred tons burden, and being fully freighted may be navigated with safety to New York, or any other sea,port. "'15 This downstream trade had, of course, begun to show its ad, vantages before the Ohio pioneers appeared in the Northwest. From the beginning of the first extensive settlements beyond the moun .. tains in Kentucky, the frontiersmen of the Blue Grass made it quite clear that they expected New Orleans to be their market. It is true, of course, that they criticized Congressional impotence

l3john Henry James (ed.), Ohio in 1788. ••• (Columbus, 1888 ), 43. These statements are based upon a report of 1770 to Lord Hillsborough which represented the Ohio and Mississippi as arteries of export and import superior to those between the interior and the Atlantic colonies. This report is quoted at length, 49-53. U"The Trenton Circular" in Historical :ind Philosophical Society of Ohio Quarterly Pub­ lication ( Cincinnati, 1906-), V ( 1910 ) , 90. l5Advertisement in Brunswick (New Jersey) Gazette and Weekly Monitor, January 8 and 22, 1788, in Bond, Symmu, 282. 106 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

in negot1atmg with Spain for an outlet down the Mississippi far more severely than their actual commercial needs warranted. As Professor Robert S. Cotterill well says, ""That Kentucky in 1783 had no products to send to market did not at all deter the Kentuckian from clamoring loudly for a place in which to market them.... The entire absence of commerce neither prevented the regulations of 1 Spain nor tempered the wrath of the Kentuckians. "" " Yet it was not many years before trade relations with New Orleans began for those who knew how to get the Spanish to ease up on the high tariff rates, and James Wilkinson, active in Louisville as a trader since 1784, found it quite profitable to ship a cargo of ham, flour, and tobacco to N·ew Orleans in 1787, and to return to Kentucky by way of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh in regal splendor.11 In this business enterprise, Wilkinson had, significantly enough, the able assistance of Nathaniel Mas.5ie, the greatest land speculator of cen, tral Ohio, whose prosperity in later days was based largely on his early experience in the Orleans trade.18 Nor were the favors from Spanish officials at New Orleans confined solely to Wilkinson and Kentucky. In February, 1788, Isaac B. Dunn, an officer under General Arthur St. Clair during the Revolution, wrote from Louisville to his farmer commander, describing the growth of trade on both sides of the Ohio. He wrote: The line of business in which I have engaged, that of bartering goods & wares for the Produce of this country, admissable in the Port of Orleans, even under the Partial Trade we enjoy with them-promises well ... how long it will be before this partial trade will give place to a general, free navigation, I will not pretend to determine--but when you have seen the situation of this country, & become acquainted with the sentiments of the people, added to the prodigious emigrations pushing to the western side of the Ohio from the eastern part of this continent-you will conclude perhaps, with me, that nature Designed New Orleans to be the Mart of this country­ & this country to be the richest in the W odd-the Period cannot be very distant.19 Western Pennsylvania, too, had early begun to make use of the Orleans market. While descending the Monongahela on May 7, 1788, Colonel John May of the Ohio Company noted in his journal, ""This morning I stopped a boat for New Orleans . . . and

16Robert S. Cotterill, History of Pioneer Kentucky ( Cincinnati, 1917 ), 207. 17Ibid., 221. 18James Wilkinson to Massie, December 1 >, 1786, December 29, 1786, in David Meade Massie, Nath4niel Massie, a Pioneer of Ohio •••• (Cincinnati, 1896), 111-14. 19Isaac Dunn to St. Cl.:lir, February 15, 1786, Arthur St. Clair MSS. (in Ohio State Library), Vol II, 1781-89, p. 1S8. FRONTIER OHIO 107 agreed with the principal to carry me, my people and effects to Pittsburgh for five dollars.,,.,

2 First 'Traders of Frontier Ohio. Difficulties were, however, certain to arise in the West, out of the inherent economic weakness of a trading structure whi~h required imports to be paid for with exports shipped into the markets by such a lengthy and roundabout route. Under normal conditions the result would have been a great stringency of money such as was described by St. Clair when commenting in favor of certain equitable readjustments in the fees of the different law officers and processes. Said he: Corn is made the comparative measure which the persons may accept in lieu of money, and operates very unequally in different parts of the Territory-for Example a Bushel of corn in settlements about the eastern extremity is worth about 2/ [shillings] or 24/90 [of a dollar] in the middle settlements it is worth 30/90 and in the western extremity one Dollar. It is in the option of the person to take the money or the corn, and he will doubtless take what is most beneficial to himself thus for a Service rated at one Dollar in the West the officer will receive one Bushel of Corn-in the middle three Bushels and in the eastern extremity three Bushels & three, Quarters.21 It is interesting to note that this situation led to the first attempt of a territory to inflate the currency when in 1799 the first popularly elected Legislature authorized the issuance of auditor"s certificates ""for monies due from the territory.," These certificates paid an interest of six per cent and were receivable for taxes. Extremely significant is the fact that the penalty for forgery of the auditor"s name, i. e., counterfeiting, was death.22 For a time, however, such commercial and financial difficulties were kept at a minimum by certain temporary marketing conditions that served to absorb the agricultural surplus in the West on the spot. Although a few traders, like William Stanley of Cincinnati, 1n 1792 collected shipments for New Orleans,= most entrepreneurs in the Ohio country down to 1795 were happily relieved of this

20Journal of Col. John May • .•• (Cincinnati, 1873 ), 32-33. !!lUndated, unsigned memorandum, St. Clair MSS., Box 8. 22-rheodore Calvin Pease (ed.), The Laws of the Northwest Territory 1788-1800 ••• , in Illinois State Historical Library Collections (Springfield, Illinois, 1903-), XVII (192S), 386-88. 23l)iary of Major William Stanley, in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio QUMterl1 Puhli&ation, XIV (1919), nos. 2 and 3, 19-32. 108 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS necessity by the opportunity of selling the surplus either to the hordes of immigrants who were rapidly peopling the Ohio Valley or to the armies sent from the East to wrest the land from the Indians. The trade with the armies-sutling as it ~vas called-continued with varying intensity throughout the frontier phase of American life to absorb much of the pioneers, surplus grain, horses and cattle. There is abundant evidence of the part played by the sutler in frontier Ohio. There is the case, for instance, of Stanley who in 1792 had taken a load of the surplus down the river to New Orleans, but in 1793 had decided that the sutler,s trade presented greater opportunities for profits. In his diary Stanley narrates, in his quaint fashion, the progress of his venture: As Genl Wayne is laying at Cincinnati with his troops ( 1793 ) we purchaise & deliver considerable produce & do considerable business . . . our Dani Gano goes to Phil a for goods in October make a considerable purchaise & about Dec. or fore part of Jany I prepare to take a small store to Greenville where Genl Wayne built a garrison & camped for the winter ... git back to Columbia early in spring 1794---& our John S. Gano goes in for goods-I take out another small assortment to Greenville­ do considerable business-git home abut 1st Augt.... I take goods late in fall of 1794 or 1st Jany 179'5 to Greenville again; open at Fort Jefferson ... purchaise a drove of hogs & kill salt & smoke them there . . . continued part time there Greenville at Ft. Jefferson & Columbia til fall of 1795'.u It is apparent from the records that not all the sutlers had a due regard for the niceties of the law, especially that forbidding the sale of liquor to the soldiers without a license. In his Memoirs:, Benjamin Van Cleve, pioneer settler of Dayton, narrates that on February 7, 1794, he engaged with his uncle, Robert Benham, a Cincinnati merchant, ""to keep a store at Greenville.,, Here he dis, posed of six horse loads of whiskey, cherry bounce, and other spirits, was court,martialed for selling liquors to soldiers without license, and sentenced to forfeit all his stock. But, fortunately, he ~"had only a few gallons of brandy in hand & they did not take it.,., His uncle and his uncle"s partner soon arrived and, according to Van Cleve, Hdid not then nor had they any reason to :find fault with me."'215

24Ibid.. 22-23. Benjamin Van Cleve, a pioneer settler of Dayton, was employed by William Duer, in procuring flour and horses for St. Clair's army in 1 791. His adventures as an employee of Duer are described in Beverley W. Bond, Jr. (ed.), "Memoirs of Benjamin Van Cleve," in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio Quarte1'l1 Publication:, XVII ( 1922 ), nos. 1 :md 2, 23. 25Jbid., 42-44. FRONTIER OHIO 109

This business with the army provided what was very scarce in frontier trade, viz., real money, in the form. of certificates drawn by the quartermasters on the Government at Philadelphia. Quite natu, rally merchants preferred these in payment for their goods because they eliminated all the trouble incident to accepting payment in commodities which had to be sold at New Orleans. Dr. Daniel Drake reported, from a personal interview with John Bartle, sutler and one of the :first merchants in Cincinnati, the method by '\vhich these notes were used. According to Drake, Bartle did a large business for that day furnishing the army with many of its supplies. For these he received drafts on the government which he cashed in Lexington at a premium of two and a half per cent. Whence they were remitted to Phila. to purchase goods for the new settlements of Kentucky.":.ie While the army was present, therefore, the export and import problem of the Ohio Valley was quite simple. A card appearing in the Centinel for several weeks early in 1796 announced, ""Bills of exchange at ten days sight, on the secretary of War in Phila, delphia. Caleb Swan Paymaster of the troops of the United States Head,quarters Greenville_.,.,::, So extensive was this trade with the army that the owners of private boats carrying public property agreed upon a fixed schedule of rates for the transportation of freight from Fort Washington to Fort Hamilton and to the mouth of the Stillwater. It was advertised that com '\vould be purchased and received at $1.10 a bushel at Stillwater landing on the Miami, a price which shows, incidentally, that the growers of corn were not complaining.28 The other temporary absorbent which served to postpone the development of the difficulties inherent in the downstream trade was the sale of part of the surplus to the newly arriving bands of settlers in the West.29 The settler, naturally, was exchanging his possessions in the East (if he had any) for land in the West. Hence, he usually could pay for supplies for the :first year in cash or its quivalent. Thus a temporary demand was created in the pioneer towns that kept prices at a relatively high level. Jacob

26Beverley W. Bond, Jr. (ed.), "Dr. Daniel Drake's Memoir of the Miami Country, 1 i79-1794 (An Unfinished Manuscript),'> in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio Quarterly Publication, XVIII ( 1923 ), nos. 2 and 3, 88. ZZCentinel of the North-Western Territory (Cincinnati), January 9, 1796. 28Jhid., March 7, 1795. 29For contemporary comments on the rush of settlers into the West in 1795 and 1796, see Centinel, April 2S and December S, 1795, and April 2, 1796. 110 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Burnet commented, ""For many years, these emigrants created the only demand which existed in the interior settlements for the sur.. plus products of agriculture. ,,ao These products generally consisted of corn and meat, a cow for the emigrant's milk supply, and an ox or two to break the ground for his first crop.31 Some of these neces .. sities, of course, he often brought with him. In 1788 Symmes and his first settlers had been greatly embarrassed by the high prices of these supplies.32 In 1796 Van Cleve, who was exchanging his possessions in Cincinnati for lands, oxen, and other articles in Dayton, lost on the transaction because of the high price of pro... visions and labor.33 In order to appreciate these demands of new settlers on the surplus, it is necessary to analyze more closely the predicament of the average newly arrived frontiersman. Travelers from the East, after the arduous journey across the mountains, always :fitted them .. selves with flour, cattle, whiskey, salt and other articles when they set out to descend the Ohio or its tributaries.34 After the newcomers had settled, they continued to depend upon nearby towns, or if these were inadequate, as they often were, upon the shippers from the Pittsburgh country. Marietta settlers, according to Samuel P. ffi1 ... dreth, often made purchases from the ""boats that traded in pro ... visions from Red Stone and the country about Pittsburgh, ,-,a:; while others, like Hezekiah Stites at Columbia in 1789, in an emergency, sent out agents to Pittsburgh to bring in by boat a consignment of goods.36 Symmes wrote at the beginning of his enterprise in the Miami country, ""As to flour it is chiefly brought down the Ohio from the Monongahela and other rivers in the country around 3 Pittsburgh."" • In western Pennsylvania, therefore, a group of mer .. chants began to appear, known as ""Kentucky traders," who made a large business of shipping provisions to the western settlements.

30Jacob Burnet, Noter on the Early Settlement of the North-Western Territory (New York and Cincinnati, 184i), 397. 31For an interesting account of these early needs of the settlers, see the discussion be­ tween Judge George Turner :ind St. Clair on the bill for the more speedy recovery of small debts, St. Clair MSS., Box 1, Envelope 3; Box 8. 32John Cleves Symmes to Dayton, May 18, 1789, in Bond, Symmes, 60. 33Bond, "Memoirs of Benjamin Van Cleve,» loc. cit., 58-59. 31For instance, the famous expedition of 1788 to Marietta, led by Rufus Putnam, assembled at Simrell's Ferry on the Youghiogheny in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, where they built their boats and "Lade in Stores.» Buell, Memoirr of Rufus Putnam, 104. 35Hildreth, Pioneer History, 245. 38Statements of Hezekiah Stites in Bond, "Dr. Daniel Drake>s Memoir,» loc cit., 62-63. ffSymmes to Dayton, May 18, 19, and 20, 1789, in Bond, S1171mer, 57. FRONTIER OHIO 111

Senator James Ross of Pittsburgh referred to these traders in a letter of December, 1796, to Secretary Winthrop Sargent of the North, west Territory, saying that the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers had frozen over on November 27 much ·•to the distress of the Ken, tucky traders.,., who were obliged, therefore, to sell their wares at low prices in the immediate neighborhood. 38 The English traveler, Francis Baily, who, in 1797, descended the Ohio with one of these traders, wrote that the people of the Territory ""depend very much upon the boats which, coming from the upper and more settled parts of the country, bring with them many articles of use and luxury."'39 A smaller quantity of imports from the older western settle­ ments came over less frequented routes from regions where the o]d settlements approached closest to the Ohio River. Thus, in 1789, a ••state road" or trail was opened by Nicholas Carpenter bet\veen Clarksburg and Marietta, over which, in 1790 or 1791, cattle, which had been collected at Clarksburg, were driven to Marietta.40 In 1790 or 1791 beaver skins, buffalo,skins, bearskins and meat were carried down the Little Kanawha by canoe and up the Ohio to Marietta.41 In the Miami region, Symmes not only collected many provisions from the country about Limestone, but engaged Captain Isaac Taylor to lay out a road or trail to Lexington by way of the Licking River.42 Symmes had, in fact, counted on this from the be, ginning of his interest in Miami lands, for he wrote in his advertise, ment in the East for settlers, •·salt is now made to any quantity, in Kentucke, opposite this tract on the south-east side of the Ohio, where seven counties are already considerably settled and where any number of neat--cattle may be had very cheap. ""43 Towns soon ap, peared on the Licking, one of which, Falmouth, became a shipping point for milled lumber. In December, 1794, John Wallere [Wallace?] of Falmouth advertised in the Cincinnati Centinel, ""Plank and scant, ling of every kind, either delivered at the mill or in Cincinnati on the

38Senator James Ross to Sargent, December i, I i96, Winthrop Sargent :MSS. (in Ohio State Archaelogical and Historical Society Library). 39Francis Baily, Journal of a Tour in Unsettl,:d Parts of North America in 1796 & 1797 . •.• (London, 1856), 202. 40James Morton Callahan, Semi-centennial History of West Virginia. • • • (1913 ), 39, 69. 411bid., 69. 42Symmes to Dayton, May 18, 19, and 20, 1789, in Bond, Symmes, 84. 43Advertisement in Brunswick Gazette and Weekly Monitor, January 8 and 22, 1788, i'bid., 282-8 3. 112 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS shortest notice.,," Cattle also were driven over to Cincinnati from Kentucky, as is shown by Symmes" comment in August, 1791, that St. Clair"s army was encamped at ""Mr. Ludlo\VS station, five miles from Fort Washington, on account of better food for the cattle, of which they have near one thousand head from Kentucky."" Indeed, the need for cattle was so great that Symmes advised ··that people emigrating hither will do well to bring out their luggage by the 4 labor of oxen. . . . in lieu of horses . .,, :; One of those engaged in driving stock from Kentucky to Cincinnati was Van Cleve, employee of the army contractor, Colonel William Duer. In August, 1791, Van Cleve was stationed at Lexington where, he wrote, ··we re, ceived the horses as they were purchased, branded them, took them to pasture in the neighborhood ..,, After collecting horses for two weeks in this way, he proceeded to Georgetown where he waited ··whilst the droves of horses were arriving. .,., When all the droves were assembled, he took the artillery horses in the foremost drove to Cincinnati where he arrived on the 27th of August.46 The Territory furnished a disconcertingly large market for western Pennsylvania whiskey. In 1793 St. Clair wrote to Alexander Hamilton, observing ··with pleasure the measures that have been pursued to make it more apparently the interest of the western counties to comply '\vith the Excise Law."" In order to assist Hamil, ton, the governor offered to ··procure a Law at the next session of the Legislature forbidding the importation of all ardent spirits into the Territory, the duties upon which have not been either paid or secured; and if I should fail in it," St. Clair added, ··congress, I suppose will not leave this country open as a market for those who choose to disobey their laws. ""47 St. Clair, of course, over,estimated the pliability of the rest of the Territorial Legislature. With this understanding of the commercial effects of the needs of the new settlers and of the army, we can better understand the status of trade in the Northwest down to 1795. We should, of course, supplement this with a recognition that a certain amount of exporting directly to eastern markets (not via New Orleans) took

'"Centinel, December 20, 1794. 45Symmes to Dayton, August IS, 1791, in Bond, Symmer, 150-51. 46Bond, ccMemoirs of Benjamin Van Cleve," loc. cit., 23. i 7St. Clair to Hamilton, August 9, 1793, in William Henry Smith, The Life and Public Ser.1ice.r of Arthur St. Clair• ••• (Cincinnati, 1882 ), II, 317. FRONTIER OHIO 113 place in furs, ginseng and cattle. But enough has been said of these to indicate what a negligible part they could play in a trade of such dimensions as that between two such great markets.

3 'The Problem of the Surplus.

Such were the devices that kept the balance of imports and exports in proper adjustment in the Northwest during the :first years of settlement. But all these reliances for the exportable surplus could not be permanent. The trade in fur, ginseng and cattle was inade, quate; immigrants soon became creators instead of consumers of the surplus; and by 1800 the federal armies operating against the Indians had been reduced to a minimum. The result was a gradual return to normal conditions \Vith a growing dependence on the do~7Ilstream trade. One phase in this return to normalcy is the complete disappear-­ ance of the trade in furs with the friendly Indians in the to\vns near the Ohio River. This meant the gradual elimination from the trading system of the frontier towns of the commodity of fur from the thin stream of direct exports to the East. The mercantile establish, ments at Cincinnati and else~•here were no longer trading,posts and their proprietors were no longer fur traders. As \vhite settlement, aided by the Treaty of Greenville in 1794, reduced the wilderness, game became scarce and the Indians withdrew to more remote points. At the same time, as is well known, the British in Canada, les.s troubled by settlers' problems, became a more attractive market for peltries, and with the evacuation of Detroit in 1795, Malden, across the straits, became the center of a thriving trade in furs. The result \Vas a very marked decline in the volume of furs appearing in the frontier towns of the Northwest, and what curtails volume so drastically in American trading, destroys. \Vestern tradesmen were building for a new and modern white man's country, catering to the white man's buying and selling habits, and could not be bothered with such a desultory and unsatisfactory trade. The f e'\v Indians who straggled in occasionally with their furs were, therefore, given scant attention. Symmes, who ·was still rather a novice to western 114 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS ways m 1796, wrote that the Indians were becoming troublesome. He said: We have but one merchant in this part of the Purchase, & he will not buy their deerskins; their next resort is to beg from me, & I was compelled last week to give them upwards of $40 value, or send near 40 uf them away offended. . . . Though we have 20 or more merchants at Cincin, nati, not one of them is fond of purchasing deerskins ..a Along 'With the decline in the fur trade went the trade with the army with the resultant removal of the war time restrictions on their trading rights. In 1792 the Territorial Legislature had passed as a war measure, a law requiring all merchants to purchase a license, the fee for which was sixteen dollars a year."~ It was designed, of course, to curb the excesses occasioned by the trade relations of civilians with the soldiers and Indians. With the withdra'\val of the army after the battle of Fallen Timbers in August, 1794, evasion of this law by failing to renew the license became common, the merchants evidently feeling that, with the removal of the cause of the law, it ceased to be operative. In January, 1795, Aaron Cadl.ve11, the license commissioner in Cincinnati, was obliged to publish a notice that, whereas, •·a number of the citizens of Hamilton County have opened stores, taverns, etc. \vithout being authorized and others having expired with no renewals,,, they were warned to comply with the regulations or expect the procedure of the la\v against them. 50 Four months later he again served notice that ••whereas it appears that many people are deceived to think that the License Law is repealed and hence may act in defiance of the law,"" all "vho are exposing for sale dry goods or groceries without a license .... are invited to come forward and pay the license money. ""51 How effective these warnings were is shown by the fact that less than three months later, on July 14, the law was repealed by the Territorial Legislature.52 With the disappearance of the abnormalities of the fur trade and the war trade came the appearance of certain positive factors of normal trade life. One of these was the concentration of trading in Cincinnati. This city was located at the crossroads of the Ohio River trade route and the Licking River trade route which gave it a great advantage, to say nothing of its geographical location and the pres,

.asymmes to Dayton, January 20, 1796, in Bond, Symmes, 1 i 5-i6. 49Pease, Laws of the Northwest Territory, 61-66. 50Centinel, January 3, 1 i95. 51Jbid., April 25, 1795. G!?Pease, Laws of the Northwest Territor1, 256. FRONTIER OHIO 115 ence of Fort Washington, built opposite the Licking River by Major John Doughty in 1789, no doubt because cattle, supplies, troops and other war aids could be transported with great ease down the Licking River from Kentucky. :..1 With the opening of the interior by the Treaty of Greenville, the people who were inhabiting the rival trading centers at North Bend and Columbia, waiting for the cessa, tion of Indian hostilities, left to take up farms. On his return to North Bend in August, 179 5, Symmes wrote: The village is reduced more than one,half in its numbers of inhabitants since I left it to go to Jersey in February, 1793. The people have spread themselves into all parts of the purchase below the military range since the Indian defeat on the 20th of August, and the cabins are of late deserted by dozens in a street."54 It was noted in a preceding paragraph that in 1796 there was only one merchant in North Bend and over twenty in Cincinnati. The same thing was happening in Columbia.;;.; So far had this con, centration gone by 1797 that early in that year the English traveler in the Ohio Valley, Baily, called Cincinnati ""the metropolis of the north,western territory. ""00 But the most characteristic aspect of this return to normalcy, as has been already indicated, was the appearance of a surplus. The rapidly expanding commercial life could not, of course, depend permanently on supplying emigrants with produce. Although the tide of emigration increased at a rapid rate, the average emigrant"s cash or balance in the East seldom ran beyond the first year, and thereafter he found it necessary to pay for his supplies in the pro, duce of the country. Judge George Turner, in arguing for judicial reform in the Territory in 1790, stated, ""But few persons who emigrate westward have any money left, after defraying the ex, pences incident to a long journey."":n The accumulated effect of a growing population paying its merchants in produce was naturally a general surplus. ""Cash or country produce.,., became the catchword

53For a discussior. of the re:isons for the location of Fort VVashington at Cincinnati, see Robert Ralston Jones, Fort JV ashington. • . • ( Cincinnati, 1902 ), 11-13. For a discussion of the natural advantages of Cincinnati, see Daniel Drake, Natural and Statistical View or Picture of Cincinnati and the Miami Country . •.• (Cincinnati, 1815), 61-62, 231. MSymmes to Dayton, August 6, J 795, in Bond, Symmes, 172. S5Drake wrote of Columbia in 181 5 that at first it had the largest settlement and was expected to flourish, but occasional floods "have destroyed that expectation, and it is now inhabited chiefly by farmers." Dr:ike, View of Cincinnati, 37. Columbia was experiencing its first flood when Symmes embarked from Limestone in January, 1 i89, to lay out North Bend. Symmes to Dayton, May 18, 19 and 20, 1789, in Bor.d, Symme.r, 61. 00Baily, Journal of a Tour, 228. See also Burnet, Notes, S3-S4. 57George Turner to St. Clair, October 2 5, 1790, St. Clair MSS., Box 1, Envelope 3. 116 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS of the day. Repeatedly merchants, millers, artisans, and land specula, tors advertised their services for the familiar ~~ cash or country pro, duce.,, Wheat, corn, pork, and beef were the most common articles used in settlement of debts. The following references from newspapers, selected quite at random, illustrate the procedure. David Ziegler advertised West Indian and dry goods, ~~ corn taken equal to cash. " 53 W. & M. Jones, Grocers, advertised that all who had contracted for wheat must fulfill their contracts by November 15 .59 Smith & Findlay, Matthew Nimmo and the editors of the Spy advertised that they would accept wheat.60 Poor & Washburn advertised that any person having good beef cattle could turn them in for debts.61 Lyons & M', Guines, cabinet,makers, offered to take the greater part of their payments in ~~merchantable wheat. " 02 At Chillicothe, Samuel Smith and Henry Vanmeter accepted cattle and pork in payment for the use of their stud horses.a John M'Dougall, one of the leading mer, chants of Chillicothe, advertised continually, stating that he received cattle and pork in payment.8f, Another great source that contributed to this surplus was the use of produce in paying for land. Symmes, the greatest landholder of the Miami Valley, found that only by perfecting such a system of payment could his speculation be made profitable. The follo"mng is but one of a number of Symmes., public announcements: Clean Wheat and Rye may be delivered to the use of the Subscriber at his Mill in Northbend at any time before the first day of January next at five shillings per bushel ... in payment of any debt due him on bond, note or contract, and the amount shall be immediately credited. Wheat and Rye may also be sold and delive;:ed to the following gentlemen, viz. John Smith, Esq., Mr. Christian Wallsmith, Mr. David Grummon, and Mr. Joel Williams [all millers], and their several notes of hand to the amount of sales to each given in the name and to the use of the Subscriber, payable in one year with six per cent interest . . . shall be received and credited as cash. Some good bar,iron, three or four copper stills, cows under seven years old, and young cattle will also be received and credited at a price agreed on by the buyer and seller.83

58Cen'!inel, February 22, 1794. 59The Western Spy and Hamilton Gazette (Cincinnati), November ;, 1799. 00Ibid., July 9, 16, 1800; December 12, 1801. 61Jhid., October 17, 1801. 62Jbid., July 9, 1800. 63Scioto Gazette (Chillkothe), January I; March 19, 1803. 64Ihid., September 4; December 18, 1802. 65Sp,,, October 1 S, 1800. Washington, in advertising for tenants in 1784, offered to accept produce in payment. Buell, Memoirs of Rufus Putnam, 230. FRONTIER OHIO 117

In 1801 Symmes, in advertising for payments of obligations in wheat, corn, whiskey or bacon, served notice that ""Mr. Smith's cer, tificate of number, quantity, and price shall entitle the seller to a credit for the amount of value on any paper whereon money may be due. ,.,es In other words, Symmes had agents at strategic points through, out his purchase, whose mills and warehouses received annually the year"s produce in payment for the lands which all neT.JJ settlers were buying. Wherever one looks one finds this same land sale system practiced by all the great landowners of the Northwest. This Smith, Symmes' agent for the receipt of payments, was Elder John Smith, pastor of the Baptist Church at Columbia, proprietor of the Round Bottom Mills, prominent political leader (later, with Thomas Worthington, Ohio"s :first senator), and a noted entrepreneur in developing com, mercial connections between the Territory and the lower Mississippi.67 He was also owner of extensive lands, and advertised for sale, from time to time, quantities of it, in and out of Symmes" purchase. All persons indebted to him for land in 1802 were asked to make imme, diate payment in ""Wheat at Round Bottom Mills and . . . Pork at Mr. Daniel Conner Merchant. ,,es Tne same system of land payment is found in other regions of the Territory. Massie, the greatest landholder of the Virginia Military District, whose connections with Wilkinson's commercial ventures have already been noted, was instructed by one of his clients, Charles Wilkins of Lexington, to receive pork in payment for lands sold prior to a certain date. ""The pork will be received any time before the 1st of Feby next at Manchester & [IJ shall depend upon you to procure hands to conduct the boat to the Bayou piere or Natchez as I shall direct."'69 Massie, who owned a mill at the Falls of Paint Creek, wrote to Thomas James, who \Vas to take charge of a proposed shipment to New Orleans, "1 have prepared a boat which I am in hopes will answer the purpose of conveying the cargo safe, for my part there will be ninety,three barrels of Pork and four of hog lard all of which I shall commit to your care to do the best you can for

68Spy, February 25, 1801. e7See Anthony H. Dunlevy, History of the Miami Bapti$t Auociation. . . . ( Cincinnati, 1869), 96-119. essp,., September 25, 1802. 69Charles Wilkins to M:issie, December 29, 1801, in M:issic, Mduie, 175-i6. 118 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS me. ,'t-70 Worthington, who owned extensive lands to the east of the Scioto, was the proprietor of several mills erected at different sites in the valleys of the Scioto and Hocking.71 His diary records several rentals of land to settlers on terms stipulating annual payments in grain.72 In the Muskingum Valley, Ephraim Cutler, merchant and land-­ holder, disposed of his lands in this way. He wrote: When I resided in Ames township, with a view to encourage settlers to come into that part of the country, I bought on credit a considerable amount of land from proprietors in New England, which I sold to settlers on credit, trusting them until they could raise wheat or cattle, usually the latter, to pay me for their farms .... Eventually, many poor families were placed in very flourishing circumstances, who had nothing with which to buy land, nor a dollar to spare for years after they made the purchase of me. I thus aided some two hundred families to acquire homes.73 Dudley Woodbridge, Sr., of Marietta, owner of large quantities of land in the Ohio Company's purchase, was a builder of mills and was interested in the construction of ships and the transporta-­ tion of cargoes from Marietta down the Ohio.74 Other proprietors of the Ohio Company who owned mills were Robert Oliver and Commodore Abraham Whipple.'jo So vital a part in the commercial life of the Northwest was the mill becoming that there gradually appeared a new technique that adapted the mill more directly to merchants, needs. This \Vas the erection of mills especially equipped to do merchant business. It is illustrated by the opening, in 1799, by Thomas Goudy, of a mill on Mill Creek, north of Cincinnati, in which he had two pairs of millstones, ""one for country work and the other for merchant work.,, The latter was Hfor Merchants and others intending to have wheat for Merchants.,, They might ""be accommodated with granaries to their wishes.,r.6 It would naturally not be a long step from this to mills constructed for merchant work only.

'iOJbid., 189-90. 71See entries concerning construction of mills :ind location of mill sites throughout 1801 and l 802, Diary of Thomas Worthington, Thomas VVorthington MSS. (in Library of Congress). 72Jbid., February l 2 and 21, 1801; April 22 and March 30, 1805. '13Julia Perkins Cutler, Life and Timer of Ephraim CutleT. . . . ( Cincinnati, 1890 ), 89-90. 7'Concerning mills, see Dudley Woodbridge, Sr., to William Woodbridge, September 22, 1802; concerning transportation on the Ohio, see Dudley Woodbridge, Jr., to William Wood­ bridge, April 1, 1803, written from Louisville, Kentucky, William Woodbridge MSS. (in Detroit Public Library, Burton Historical Collection). 75Archer B. Hulbert (ed.), The Records of the Origi111al Proceedings of the Ohio Com­ pany• ••• (Marietta, Ohio, 1917), 11, 3, 125, 200. '18Sp7, May 28, 1799. FRONTIER OHIO 119

In the Miami Valley, the merchant-mill system having reached the stage described above, it was not long before millers and mer, chants brought about a closer commercial association by which their services could be consolidated and thus be made more effective. This \,vas the formation in 1803 of the well,known Miami Exporting Com, pany. This early attempt at cooperative marketing and credit was the natural outcome of the conditions already described affecting the surplus in the Ohio country. A suggestion for such an organiza, tion had been circulated by a Pittsburgh merchant in 1802 and had appeared in Cincinnati newspapers.77 According to Jacob Burnet, prominent Cincinnati la'\vyer and man of affairs, the plan was first suggested by Jesse Hunt, an experienced merchant of Cincinnati, as a result of a decline in prices.78 At any rate in January, 1803, ""'A Fanner"" took it upon himself to give notice of a meeting at Grum, mon "s Tavern on February 1, ""for the purpose of adopting the most suitable plan of exporting the produce of the adjacent country to market. .,., The meeting was held and a committee formed of some of the leading merchants, millers and land speculators of southwestern Ohio and the nearby regions of Kentucky. Prominent among these were Jo~ Smith, Israel Ludlow, Martin Baum, Jacob White, James Findlay, Hunt, and Stanley. The committee reported late in Febru, ary in favor of forming an exporting company because ""experience proves it to be extremely difficult for Farmers and others of this country, in their individual capacity to convey their produce and manufactures to the best markets.,., Regulations were drawn up and stock subscriptions were opened on March 1. Each share of $100 was to be paid by a $ 5 cash deposit at the time of subscribing and the rest in produce during a period of two years. A president and directors were to ""Establish such correspondences make such ship, ments, & dispose of the funds of the Company"" as they saw fit. An annual dividend of 6% was guaranteed.79 The Company, quite obviously, was organized to enable the merchants to secure more reliable and concentrated control of the shipments of produce from the Miami Valley to New Orleans. In

T7Frank P. Goodwin, "Building a Commercial System," in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Publications (Columbus, Ohio, 1887-), XVI (1907), 329. '18J3urnet, Notes, 398. 19Spy, January 19; February 2 3; March 9, 1802. 120 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

other words the organizers focused their attention more on the co, operative marketing aspect than the cooperative credit one, for it was only an incidental po~•er that was granted to the officers to loan money to members. Yet it is not surprising, as Charles C. Hunting, ton points out,80 that the cooperative credit purpose soon became paramount and the Company thus evolved into the :first bani{ in Ohio, advancing certificates to shippers with which to buy the pro, ducts from the farmer on the security of which they would market it in New Orleans and thus secure the funds to pay principal and interest. Thus did paper money gradually evolve from John Smith's warehouse certificates to the more widely recognized certificates of a corporation. Thus, indeed, was banking born in Ohio.

The mill and its warehouse were thus key institutions of the Northwest. They opened, as it were, the door of opportunity for the effective concentration for commercial purposes of a widely scattered product. They and their owners were, therefore, the fa, vored objects of land companies and legislators. It was a universal prac-­ tice for frontier communities to encourage the building of mills. For instance, the Ohio Company donated lands to builders of mills in their Purchase, and even offered to compensate those who had suffered losses in building them. 81 But the most significant recognition of all is the Federal Land Law of 1800 which granted preemption to all those who had begun to erect grist,mills or sawmills on public lands prior to the passage of the act.82 This, quite signi:ficantly, is the :first step in the official surrender of the Federal Government to the squatter.

Legislation further facilitated this commercial credit system by standardizing it. In 1799, the :first popularly elected legislature passed ""an Act making Promissory Notes and Inland Bills of Ex, change negociable_.,, It also passed ""an Act regulating grist,mills and millers.,., which prescribed maximum rates for the grinding of all grains and provided regulations concerning the millers" accountability

80Charles C. Huntington, "A History of Banking and Currency in Ohio before the Civil War," in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Publications, XXIV (1915), 258. SJ.Hubert, Records of the Ohio Co,r.pany, I, 62; II, 172. 82Richard Peters (ed.), The Puhlic St:1tutu at Large of the United States of America. ••• (Boston, 1848) II, 78. FRONTIER OHIO 121

for the quality of the grain and the use of proper measuring de, vices.83 In 1802 ""an Act providing for the inspection of certain articles of exportation'' was enacted. All ""wheat or rye flour, Indian com or buckwheat meal, biscuit, butter, hog's lard, pork and beef' must be inspected and stamped by officials appointed by the Court of Quarter,sessions in each county. Any one who exported these com-­ modities without having them inspected and marked were to be :fined $500.8' Under these circumstances the commercial life of the Northwest entered into a stage in which the frontier note is less and less appar-­ ent; or perhaps one should say, a stage in which the old frontier gave way to new ones, the bankers', the merchants', the shippers', and the ship--builders' frontier. At any rate, life in Ohio was ··settling down'' around new routines and the less glamorous occupations, i. e., to ""business as usual." Thus Baum 's freight for New Orleans left period, ically, as is shown by his notice in 1801, intended to warn creditors that payment should be made in due time so that millers and butchers could have time for their work before the cargo '\Vas shipped.86 Thus, likewise, was an insurance company organized at Lexington and offered its services to ""those exporting produce from the Territory."'se Notice should especially be made of the newest of the new pioneers, the ship,builders. Shipyards of the Ohio Valley had long been sending out the ordinary flatboats in abundance, but now vessels built and rigged for seagoing traffic began to appear. The Monongahela Farmer, launched from the town of Elizabeth on the Monongahela River, in May, 1800, was the first of a long list of this type of ship. 87 Marietta's well,known part in ship,building began in the same year.88 Some attempted to form a company for this pur, pose in Cincinnati, but the venture apparently failed.69 Even more

83Pease, Laws of the Northwest Territory, 360-62, 366-68. &salmon P. Chase (ed.), The Statu.tu of Ohio and the Northwestern Territory. . . . (Cincinnati, 1833), I, 333-3S. 85Spy, February 25, 1801. 86Jbid., March 13, 1802. f¥1Jbid., May 29, 1800. For a contemporary account of ship-building at Elizabeth Town, McKeesport, Pittsburgh, Wheeling, and Marietta, see Thaddeus Mason Harris, Tiu Journal of • Tow- into the Territory Northwest of the Allegheny Mountains ••• in ... 1803 •••• (Boston, lSOS), in Thwaites, Early Western Travels, III, 337-38, 344, 349, 3B. SSCharles Cist (comp.), Tiu Cincinnati Miscellany (Cincinnati, 184S), I, 205. 89Spy, September 17 and 24, 1801; February 2S, 1802. 122 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS inland towns began to ship direct to New Orleans. The Scioto Gazette of Chillicothe in 1803 noted that ""Thursday a large Orleans boat loaded with Pork for Messrs. James & McCoy, of this place, left it for New Orleans. This is the :first boat of the kind ever built upon the waters of the Scioto."90 The picture of trade in frontier Ohio would be quite incom, plete were the appearance of certain factors illustrating the pressure that western trade was beginning to make upon national affairs in the two fields of diplomacy and public land policy to be neglected. If the importance of the downstream trade in the life of the Ohio Val, ley is sufficiently impressive little testimony is needed to show the consternation with which its people viewed the withdrawal by the Spanish of the right of deposit in 1802, or the threat of a French control in 1803. Findlay, of the Cincinnati firm of Smith & Findlay, wrote in March of 1803, ""The shutting of the port of Orleans is the whole subject of conversation from the oldest citizen to the shoeblack. You would be diverted to hear them talk on the subject. They suppose the militia could take Orleans, and keep it against all the troops that could be sent. ""tll. Elder John Smith became so closely acquainted with the situation in New Orleans that he was able to write from that place to Findlay that ""the Spaniards and Americans almost to a man, are wishing with increasing fervour, that the People of the United States would at this important crisis come down and take possession of this province. ""92 John S. Gano wrote in a more composed vein, ""The base conduct of the Spaniards on the Mississippi has injured the western country very much in their commerce this season, though there has been considerable ship, ment of flour and pork from this place, notwithstanding the uncer, tainty of the market. .,.,i3 Worthington, pioneer leader of the Scioto Valley, busied himself in Washington, learning from President Thomas Jefferson himself the status of the diplomatic situation in, volving New Orleans. He wrote to Massie: I had near an hour's conversation with Mr. Jefferson a few days since

00Scioto Gazette, February 26, 1803. 91James Findlay to Meriwether Lewis, March 7, 1803, in Is:iac Joslin Cox (ed.), "Selections from the Torrence Papers, v,» in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio Quarterl1 Puhlication, IV ( 1909 ), no. 3, 98-99. 92J ohn Smith to Findlay, April 13, 18 0 3, ibid., 101-0 2. 93John S. Gano to John Holroyd, April 3, 1803, in Cist, Cincinnati Mi.reel/any, I, 267. FRONTIER OHIO 123 on matters which relate to our country and particularly New Orleans. He informs me the most prompt measures have been pursued to do away the difficulty at that place that the Spanish minister on receiving information of the state of affairs there had immediately dispatched a pilot boat with a communication to the intendant and to the governor general who resides at the Havannah. That there is good ground to believe the Intendant has acted unauthorized by his government and that matters will be very soon put in their usual train. 94 The turn of the century brought another evidence of the grow, ing power of the frontier with the passage of the Land Act of 1800. By this law the Federal Government had definitely abandoned the policy of large sales and grants to such great speculators as the Ohio Company, Symmes, and the Scioto associates for the policy of sales in small lots to individual settlers at moderate terms ($2.00 per acre in four years) at the various local land offices established at strategic locations. This means that the government, if it intended to make money out of the sales, as it did, was now more directly dependent on this downstream trade than ever before. In other words, the difficulties inherent in such trade, its risks and hazards, that, as has been sho\vn, Symmes and others had to share with their customers, now had to be assumed by the government itself. Consequently bad crops, droughts, closure of the Mississippi, embargoes and what not were now going to compel Congress and the President to accommo, date themselves to the adversities of the market,place. Relief meas, ures, extensions of time for payment, preemptions, even donations \Vere to begin to work themselves into federal policy, and, once be, gun, they would never be stopped. Nothing could illustrate this better than the keen observation by Burnet of Cincinnati of condi, tions in the very first year of this new policy. Burnet wrote in his 'N. otes that he was a resident of the Miami country before, and at the time when the sales of the public lands commenced, and it was his opinion, . . . that nine,tenths of those debtors would lose their lands and improvements, under the laws then in force, unless relief should be obtained from Congress . . . money was not to be had because it was not in the country.95 This situation is well brought out by an attempt made in Con, gress in 1803 to suspend the collection of all debts or duties due to the Federal Government from the citizens of the states of Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky, and the territories of Indiana and Mississippi.

M-rhornas Worthington to Massie, December 2S, 1802, in Massie, Manie, 220-21. 95Burnet, N ou,~ 4 S 1. 124 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Representative Thomas T. Davis of Kentucky, on January 28, intro, duced a resolution to instruct the Committee of Ways and Means to inquire into the expediency of this measure. The occasion for this action by Davis was the effect of the closing of New Orleans on the surplus. Davis said: The produce on hand was the means with which they had expected to pay debts due the United States. Many citizens in that country were indebted to the United States. If they were pushed by the Government while the port of New Orleans remained shut, and prosecuted for debts which they were unable to pay, from an inability to sell their produce, great embarrassment and uneasiness would be produced. On the other hand, if an indulgence should be extended until their ports were opened, the existing debts could be secured by counter,securities, under the direction of the Supervisor, or such other offices as Congress may authorize, by which the ultimate payment will be effected.gs The resolution \Vas agreed to. An interesting reference to this same problem is to be found in a letter of Samuel Carpenter of Lancaster, a proprietor of extensive lands, and, as usual, a mill owner. He wrote to Worthington in 1804: There is a great proportion of the people in this country that have sold their property on credit in the Atlantic States, and brought about as much money with them as would bear their expenses and perhaps pay the fourth part of a quarter,section, but would not have it in their power to buy it all down in cash [for a whole quarter,section]. . . . I have had an opportunity since my mill is a going to see the people almost from every quarter of the country, the general enquiry they made was whether I had heard from you that the interest would be taken off from the purchase money and whether the land would be sold in smaller tracts.97 Such straws as these show which way the wind was beginning to blow. It would seem from the preceding discussion that the centrifugal or downstream tendencies of trade were, by 180 3, triumphant, and that the operation of such centripetal or upstream forces as the Federal Land Law of 1800 only intensified the tendency to look to, ward New Orleans for a market. As was indicated this law would have caused much discontent if, by requiring payments to be made for the land, it had increased the westemer'ts difficulties without increas, ing his money supply. The one ray of hope-internal improvements -early hoped for by Washington, was realized only imperfectly at this time in the Ohio Valley. Some met it in terms of endeavors to

96Annals of Congress, 7 Cong., 2 Sess., 445. 97Samuel Carpenter to Worthington, February 16, 1804, Thomas Worthington MSS. (in Ohio State Library), Boxes A to D. FRONTIER OHIO 125 improve the means for importation up the Mississippi, by encouraging such schemes as the development of steamboats,98 the use of sails," or the constructing of a canal around the Falls of the Ohio at Louisville.100 But no improvements could ever wipe out the ad, vantage of the Atlantic ports in supplying the West with imports nor overcome the clumsiness of having to pay for these imports with exports to New Orleans. As late as 1815, Drake deplored this fact by pointing out that the New Orleans trade could never bring the maximum advantage to the Ohio Valley until more extensive and more efficient importing facilities were developed at that port and in the Gulf.101 Feeble, indeed, were the earliest efforts to improve the return trip to the East. The state improvements of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, noted in the beginning of our discussion, were quite inadequate. The improvement of the federal mail service to the Ohio Valley in 1794, by substituting the Ohio River for the Wilderness Road, obviously could only scratch the surface, 102 and the latter continued to be the more common route of return to the East for merchants in the Miami Valley.103 Zane"s road from Wheeling to Maysville was simply a trace which facilitated the carrying of the mails and the course of emigration to the West. Federal aid to road building in Ohio was made so ineffectual by local politics that Burnet in 1847 wrote that ··an parties admit that the three per cent fund" for the opening of roads, has produced no perm.anent benefit. ,.,104 The plan of some over,optimistic individuals in the Territorial Legis, lature in 1800 and 1801 to build a state or territorial road from Cincinnati to Marietta by way of Chillicothe was rejected by the Legislature for :financial reasons.106 In 1815 there was not a single road in Ohio passable by wagon all the year around.1oe The most serious attempt made to solve the problem was by driving cattle across the mountains. This, indeed, was to become an

98Spy, March 11 and 2 5; April 22, 1802. 99Goodwin, "Building a Commercial System," loc. cit., 33S. 100Findlay to Worthington, January 9, 1804, in Cox, "Torrence Papers," loc. cit., l0S-0G. 101Drake, View of Cincinnati, 149. 102Timothy Pickering to Putnam, May 24, 1794, in Buell, Memoirs of Rufus Pu.tff4m, 386-87 103Bond, Symmes, 84. 10,Burnet, Notes, 339. 105Jou.rnal of the House of Ref/1'esentatit•es of the Te:rritory. . . . (Chillicothe, 1801 ), 2 Gen. Assemb., 1 Sess., 147. 108Drake, View of Cincinnati, 220-21. 126 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS enterprise of some proportions, such as to justify the boast made years later by Cutler, enterprising merchant of Washington County, when he wrote, ""I commenced this traffic in 1800, and it was said that I drove the :first cattle over the mountains to eastern markets ever taken from Ohio. ,,io. But the business had its difficulties: there were no open ranges, no ""free grass/, stock-yards were city pests, and there was plenty of competition in the East. How the people of the Ohio Valley ultimately contrived to solve this question of com-­ mercial union is a story ye~ to be told.

107Cutler, Life of Cutler, 89. CHAPTER IV THE REIGN OF WINTHROP SARGENT

1 Frontier Self-government.

o GROUP of people, especially frontier people, is ever entirely satisfied. There is always striving. There are always tyrants N to overthrow, windmills to assail, and worlds to conquer. And frontier environment in Ohio presented tyrants, windmills and worlds aplenty for its children to struggle with. Nor was frontier heredity different. There was a discussion elsewhere of the rela, tion of frontier Ohio to the frontiers of Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky, and attention has been directed to the nature of the fron, tier land seekers, surveyors, speculators, sutlers, and general riff raff who provided a background for its population.1 It is comparatively easy, therefore, to understand the crudeness, the disrespect for au, thority, the restlessness, even the unreasonableness and quarrelsome, ness of these first Ohioans, as merely an episode in the westward march of the American frontier. All of this, and more, is brought out in the history of this turbulent period before 1796, which is aptly characterized as "·The Reign of Winthrop Sargent." No American frontier ever has had to submit to the rule of a more autocratic civil governor than did frontier Ohio in the years from 1790 to 1795. Sargent2 who, in accordance with the terms of the amended Ordinance of 1787, was acting governor of the North""Test Territory in the continued absence of Governor Arthur St. Clair/ was utterly unfit for the office. Born and bred in New England, he knew nothing of the merits of frontier life; he saw only its disorder

1See ante, Chapter II. 2For a survey of the life of VVinthrop Sargent see Benjamin H. Pershing, "Winthrop Sar­ gent," in Ohio State Archaeological and Historiol Society Publications ( Columbus, Ohio, l 88i-), XXXV (1926), 587-602. 3It should be emphasized at the outset that Governor Arthur St. Clair, like his successor in In­ diana, William Henry Harrison, considered that his primary purpose in the West was to win the wil­ derness from the Indians. Civil affairs were of minor importance, for a while at least, and they were, therefore, delegated to his subordinate, the secretary. This fact, plus a chronic tendency towards the gout, and a secret overwhelming ambition to return to Atlantic: politics (after his failure in western endeavors) accounts for St. Clair's lack of interest in the people of Ohio until 179 5. 127 128 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS and Hlicentiousness. "l"I He had served worthily as an officer in the Revolution and, therefore, believed in the efficacy of military law wherever civil law failed. Ambitious to succeed he thus became a willing instrument of those Federalists who sought to make the West an integral part of the Federal Union. Sargent was a leading organiz, er of the Ohio Company and, as such, believed in the possibilities of orderly and directed settlement, and hoped for :financial success as well. In his personality were combined austerity, cynicism, and a desire to be respected, which made him the object of derision among his ~~subjects. "l"I Jacob Burnet, in describing the early popularity of St. Clair, says that the governor ~~was plain and simple in his dress and equipage, open and frank in his manners, and accessible to persons of every rank. In these respects, he exhibited a striking contrast with the Secretary, Colonel Sargent; and that contrast, in 4 some measure increased his popularity. "1"1 If we add to these counts against Sargent, a surprising lack of tact, it becomes a marvel that such a misfit should have survived even for a short time on the frontier. There could be only trouble, fruitless bickering, and wasted tempers with such opposing forces arrayed against each other. Fron, tier Ohio began its political existence with too much of a squatter self,su:fficiency to be able to have its destinies presided over by a New England Puritan. It must first be borne in mind that in the first three white settlements of the Northwest Territory, informal local governments were organized prior to their formal creation by fed, eral authority. The first of these was Marietta. At the first meeting of the directors and agents of the Ohio Company, it was resolved, ~~That a Board of Police be appointed for the regulation of the set, tlement. ... That the Board draw up a plan or System for the Gov, ernment of the settlement, to be laid before the proprietors present, as soon as may be."l"l:i Two days later, on July 4, these regulations were written out ~~and posted on the trunk of a large beech tree near the mouth of the Muskingum.,,e Their New England conscience appar,

4Jacob Burnet, Notes on the Early Settlement of the North-Western Territory (New York and Cincinnati, 1847), 374-7S. 5Archer B. Hulbert (ed.), Records of th• Original Proceedings of tlu Ohio Com('an1 (Mari­ etta, Ohio, 1 91 7 ), II, 44-4 S. 6Samuel P. Hildreth, Pione~ Histor1 (Cincinnati and New York, 1848), 214. For the text of th~e regulations, see Western Reserve Historical Society Tracts (Cleveland, 1870-), no. 97 ( 1917), p. 107 ff. FRONTIER OHIO 129

ently troubling the pioneers, after the Treaty of Fort Harmar, Jan, uary 9, 1789, which temporarily settled the Indian question, the citizens of Marietta drew up a memorial congratulating St. Clair at length on this event. They went on, however, to lament, ~~with all the Feelings of men anxious to live under the Precepts of legal Authority,,.. the governor"s enforced absence at a time when the ~·system of Laws", was uncompleted, a lack they felt ~~most sensibly ..... Asserting that the establishing of ~~ city Regulations,., could be derived alone from the governor·s sanction, they protested that ~~Naught but the most absolute Necessity can exculpate us in assuming even the private Police of our settlen1ent.'" Such necessity, however, existed and, therefore, the Propriety of some system which may tend to Health, the Preservation of our Fields '& Gardens & other essential Regulations will, we flatter ourselves, apologize for our adopting it, & convince your Excellency that we would not ever be guilty of an Inter£erence with, or Encroachment upon any of the Perogatives of Government." Farther down the river at Columbia, the same thing was done with no apologies. Luke Foster, one of the original settlers, tells us that, although there was no need of an elaborate law code at the beginning, some regulation '\vas necessary and this ··was both summary, & energetic, tho cheap without fea or cost_,, The first case was the felony of a barrel of flour, and the method of recovery is interesting. Upon discovery of his loss, the owner enlisted the aid of the first man he met who proposed to search every house, & add every housekeeper to their party, as they went on, until they numbered 13, the next man, refused their ad, mittance. but the determined serch prest forward, & found the barrel of flour under the bed. The 13 :first formed themselves into a court, & determined the punishment, then provided each a good whip, tied up the culprit to a thorn tree and gave him 3 stripes each . . . the property being restored ~.11 was settled. Thus was applied the law of Moses. Foster laconically adds, •·Some other small causes were settled by the same spirit."8 In Cincinnati, the same type of frontier justice was applied. Irregularities having occurred, one day word was circulated through the settlement calling for a meeting of the people on the next day for

7Citizens of Marietta to St. Clair (undated), Arthur St. Clair MSS. ( in Ohio State Library), Vol. II, 1781-1789, p. 278. 8Luke Foster to Thomas Clark, May 23, 1819, in Beverley W. Bond, Jr. (ed), "Dr. Daniel Drake's Memoir of the Miami Country, 1779-1794 (An Unfinished Manuscript)," in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio Quarterly Publication ( Cincinnati, 1906-), XVIII (192 3), nos. 2 and 3. 130 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS the purpose of determining what should be done for their common safety. At the time appointed, they met, elected William McMillan chairman, appointed a secretary and formed a code of by,laws, fixing the punishment to be inflicted for certain offences. A court was organized, trial by jury established, and McMillan and John Ludlow appointed judge and sheriff respectively. The first offence was the theft of cucumbers from a citizen's garden. The off ender was arrested, a jury impaneled, evidence heard, and the accused sen, tenced to twenty.-nine lashes on the naked back .. which were in ... flicted the same aftemoon. ''9 Formal civil government was, of course, soon established, but it was no sooner done than the long drawn out endeavor began to place political institutions under the control of the people. The first of these attempts was also in Marietta and was directed against the form of control the eastern absentee proprietors had set up for the government of the Ohio Company in its operations on the fron ... tier. It was led by Judges Samuel H. Parsons and James M. Varnum who sought, in 1788, to obtain local control over the affairs of the Ohio Company by a proposed law of the Territorial Legisla, ture relating to estates held in common, i. e., such great proprietor... ships as the Company's grant in southeastern Ohio. This law would have enabled one,tenth of th~ proprietors to call a meeting which would have had the ""right, by vote of the major part of the proprie ... tors present or shares represented, to transact such matters as shall concern their common estate.''10 Obviously, of course, the aim was to wrest control from the majority of the proprietors in whom the Company's charter vested sole control. The measure was rejected by St. Clair because, first .. if any benefit would accrue to the owners ... it ought to extend to all," and, second, the Territorial Legis.­ lature was not competent to alter the charter of the Company.11 This is an early assertion of the Marshall ... Dartmouth.-Fourteenth

9Jacob Burnet to J. Delafield, Jr., October, 18 3 7, Jacob Burnet, "Letters Relating to the Early Settlement of the Northwest Territory . . . ,» in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio Transactions (Cincinnati, 1839), part second, I, 19-20. 10William Henry Smith, The Life 4ff.d Public Services of Arthur St. Clair (Cincinnati, 1882 ), I, 64-65, note 2. 11St. Clair to Judges Parsons and Varnum, July 29, 1788, ihid.., 66. FRONTIER OHIO 131

Amendment doctrine that Legislatures are not to tamper with the sanctity of contracts, i. e., that charters are contracts. Another effort in this direction arose about the same time out of a difference of opinion concerning that part of the Ordinance of 1 787 which read, ""The governor and judges . . . shall adopt and publish ... such laws of the original States ... as may be necessary and best suited to the circumstances of the district.,, The governor maintained that the la\vs adopted should adhere strictly to the letter of the state laws.12 On the other hand, the judges claimed that they had power Hto adopt such laws as may be necessary and best suited to the circumstances of the district; provided, however, that such laws be not repugnant, but as conformable as may be to those of the original states.,, In support of this they claimed that ""in the set, clement of a new colony . . . a variety of prospects and objects arise to which old countries must be strangers. . . . -.,ia In spite of his scruples, however, St. Clair acquiesced in the judges .. views in the passage of the militia law, the necessity of which ""only can be our justification. ,,u The same reason must have governed his acquiescence in later laws. This interpretation was later to get the Territory into a great deal of trouble. The introduction of formal civil government into the Miami settlen1ents in 1 790 marked the beginning of friction between Sar, gent and the people. The Indian situation caused St. Clair to return to the East and to turn over civil affairs to the secretary, who :first met the new judges, George Turner and John Cleves Symmes, for the purpose of legislation at Vincennes, after he had established civil government there. m The strong local desire for self,government found expression at Vincennes in the proposal, by Turner and Symmes, of ""an act aut[h]or[iz]ing the election of and vesting in Supervisors power to lay out highways, regulate fences, and other concerns in husbandry, and for punishing trespassers on water craft_,, It provided that annually ""the freemen of every city town village or station throughout the territory . . . shall assemble together at some con,

12St. Clair to Judges Parsons and Varnum, August 7, 1788, shid., 72-78. 13Judges Parsons and Varnum to St. Clair, July 31, 1788, ibid., 69-70. ust. Clair to Judges Parsons and Varnum, July 30, 1788, i.hid., 68. 15Parsons and Varnum had died. The Act of August 7, 1789, gave the secretary of the Territory the power to act as governor in the event of the latter's death, removal or a.bsencc from the Territory, Richard Peters (ed.), The P@lic Statutes at urge of t1u United Stat•s of America• ••• (Boston, 1848 ), I, 50-S3. 132 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS venient place and publickly proceed'' to elect a moderator, clerk and a council of select men who shall have power ""of making bye laws, regulating ... all matters touching the health convenience ac, comodation and interest of the inhabitants . . . which relates to public or private roads or ways and husbandry as may apply on general principles for their prosperity and encouragement. ''16 Sargent made short shrift of this proposed law. ""It appears to me, Gentle, men,'' he wrote, Hthat the adoption of the law ... would virtually be incorporating every Town, Village, or Station, now or hereafter to be established, and might in the hands of designing or ignorant men produce a multitude of evils and be made use of as a sanction to very mischievous purposes. '"11 This disagreement soon developed into an open quarrel. Sar, gent had apparently made up his mind that if he could convene the Legislature at Marietta, he could, with the aid of Judge Rufus Putnam, the fourth member of the Legislature, enact laws more in harmony with his conception of territorial needs. Turner and Symmes countered by proposing that they remain for a few days at the Falls of the Ohio, opposite Louisville, for the purpose of legis, lating, advancing the typically frontier contentions that Marietta was not the proper place to pass laws that would have greater effect in the Miami region than at the Muskingum. The judges undoubtedly felt themselves justified in this reasoning because of the fact that it was quite apparent that the valley of the Miamis already had not only more inhabitants than the Marietta region, but was destined to de, velop more rapidly and farther into the interior. This reason, however, was not at all convincing to Sargent, who addressed them a curt note in which he infarmed them that their desire to remain at the Falls was somewhat surprising, in view of the fact that they had planned to proceed to Cincinnati. He an, nounced that he was leaving in half an hour and concluded by saying: As no public business can delay you here I have to request you would ascend the River by this opportunity, and be so obliging as to meet me at the Town of Cincinnati ... upon the 28th instant, when if public service may l$Winthrop Sargent MSS. (in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Library). 17Winthrop Sargent to Symmes and Turner, July 25, 1790, in Official Record of the Nonh­ west Territory, Northwest Territory MSS. (in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Library), 1 S3-S4. FRONTIER OHIO 133 admit of it we will take an escort for Muskingum, that the Legislature may be complete by the presence of Judge Putnam.18 So saying, Sargent departed for Cincinnati, but not before Turner and Symmes had placed in his hands a second protest. To this, Sargent replied at length, after his arrival at Cincinnati. He chided them for obstructing the legislative program and for hinting that a bill could become law without the governor.,s approval if he were in the minority. He expressed his sorrow that they did not deem it proper to accompany him to Marietta: ""I had understood your honors intended holding the General Court there in October. .,., He '"could not conceive an acknowledged impropriety in assembling at one place for the purpose of Legislating at another. .,., He then peremptorily closed the issue with this parting shot which was not likely to soothe the injured feelings of the judges: You are pleased to say, gentlemen, that the Legislature is sufficiently complete without the addition of a fourth person. With all due deference to this opinion I humbly conceive that the presence of Judge Putnam is neces, sary in order to make it so; and I am persuaded that his wisdom and experience in the Legislature would be highly beneficial to the interests of this Territory.19 No doubt the ambitious secretary derived considerable self, satisfaction from his own adeptness in composing such clever sen, tences of veiled sarcasm. However, his frontier subjects were in no mood to appreciate them. This episode over the calling of the Legislature, with the judges as spokesmen for their frontier con, stituency, reveals a situation which boded ill for the future. It is a mistake to interpret these conflicts between men like Symmes and Turner on the one hand and Sargent and St. Clair on the other as mere personal clashes. They are more than that, for, as land speculators, Symmes and Turner desired to make their holdings attractive to frontier settlers. In fact, as pointed out in the second chapter, they were forced to be liberal by the competition of land speculators in Kentucky. This aspect of Symmes., opposition to governmental autocracy is revealed continually in his letters to his eastern partner, Jonathan Dayton. When St. Clair issued a proclamation on July 19, 1791, warning settlers that certain lands near Fort Washington and near the Little Miami did not belong to Symmes, the latter wrote, "'The Governor.,s proclamations have con,

18Sargent to Symmes and Turner, August 22, 1790, ihid., 232-33. 19Sargent to Symmes and Turner~ August 30, 1790, ibid., 234-39. 134 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS vulsed these settlements beyond· your conceptions ... ,:ao A few months later, after St. Clair"s defeat, Symmes wrote: What from the two succeeding defeats of our army, and the Governor's arbitrary conduct towards the settlers, still more discouraging at the time than even the defeats, many settlers became very indifferent in their attach, ment to the Purchase, and many had left it on account of the Governor's conduct before his unparalleled defeat.21 St. Clair"s unwillingness to protect the settlers at Dunlap"s Station late in 1791, followed by his departure from the Territory and Major David Ziegler"s measures to afford that protection, caused Symmes to comment that, ""Majors sometimes do more good than Generals. ""22 When Captain John Armstrong at Fort Washington sought to expel certain settlers from Dunlap"s Station, Symmes wrote, ""The citizens have applied to me for advice, and I have directed them to pay no regard to his menaces.""23

2 Military Rule and Civil Strife. The friction with Sargent developed rapidly in the period of the Indian Wars from 1790 to 1794, as the acting governor sought to keep his subjects in a proper state of defence. In fairness to the acting governor, it must be made plain that he was attempting to do his duty as he saw it. He sincerely wished to prevent disorders which might lower the morale of the army or provide cause for trouble with the Indians. Upon his arrival at Cincinnati in August, 1790, at the begin-­ ning of his first extended residence in the city, Sargent observed that the civil inhabitants were not as orderly as the Indian situation warranted. He felt that too much liquor was being sold by the traders to the soldiers, and that the people were too free in their use of :firearms. He, therefore, issued a proclamation to the people of Hamilton County, ordering that on and after September 4, ""the acts passed at Vincennes . . . prohibiting the sale of spiritous and intoxicating liquors to Soldiers . . . and for restraining the disorderly

20John Cleves Symmes to Dayton, August 1 S, 1791, in Beverley W. Bond, Jr. ( ed. ) , T Ju Correspondence of John Cleves S1mmes . ... (New York, 1926), 148. 21Symmes to Dayton, January 17, 1792, ibid., 158. 22.Jbid., 157. St. Clair had the rank of major-general. 28Symmes to Dayton, January 25, 1792, ihid., 161. FRONTIER OHIO 135 practice of discharging :firearms at certain hours and places should be in full force and operation in the County of Hamilton.""" The fact that Sargent singled out the inhabitants of Hamilton County for this special warning was not at all conducive to the con, tinuance of good relations with that community. Turner publicly voiced the common feeling on this matter and was sharply repri, manded on September 1 by Sargent, who wrote, ""I have with much and painful astonishment been infarmed of your sentiments expressed to one of the Magistrates upon the Subject of my Procla, mation. . . . \Vould it not Sir have been more proper to have dis, closed them to me and laid the matter before Congress ?,,25 Having been thus publicly humiliated at the outset, Sargent could not be expected to submit to being browbeaten by the mob. The defeat of Colonel Josiah Harmar in 1790 offered ample reason for introducing new disciplinary measures. Sargenfs militia orders of March 6, 1791, practically turned every settlement into an armed fortress with all the male inhabitants subjected to a routine extremely distasteful to them. The commanding officers of the county militia were to apportion the men to the several blockhouses of each set, tlement according to its need. On the :firing of a cannon or of three muskets all were to repair instantly to their assigned alarm,posts. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, that all firing of guns within one mile of the blockhouse be ""positively prohibited." At the sound, ing of reveille each morning every man v..ras to appear on parade for inspection of arms. A patrol was to be sent out every morning from each blockhouse and no person was suffered to go out of the settle, ment to his work until its return.26 Within a month a court,martial had sentenced two men to con, fnement for violation of these orders.21 The defeat of St. Clair in the fall afforded still more reason for increased caution. Stockades ~·ere strongly recommended around those settlements which lacked them.28 The orders against firing of muskets were repeated, in view of the continuance of the ""most shameful practice of discharging

24Official Record, Northwest Territory MSS., 240-41. 25Sargent to Turner, September 1, li90, ibid., 241-43. 28Jbid., 247-48. 27Jbid., 2 SO-S 1. :ZSOrders of December 10, 1791, ioid.., 431-32. 136 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

:firearms by night and day_.,., The militia officers were required to afford every assistance to the civil magistrates in immediately sup, pressing such conduct and apprehending the culprits. The people were reminded that, by martial law, persons found guilty of making false alarms might be punished with death and that "" every person detected in the commission of this crime shall be prosecuted with the utmost rigour. .,.,29 But discipline enforced with the utmost rigor among frontiers, men was folly, and, when accompanied with talk about the death penalty, approached the ridiculous. Some measures of defense were undoubtedly wise, but the civilians did not care to have them im, posed by an autocrat. Kentuckians had been building stations in the wilderness long enough to know the cautions necessary in time of Indian war.30 Moreover, these orders furnished a splendid opportunity for the natural quarrelsomeness of the frontiersmen. Sargent himself admitted that they operated to restrict their natural desires. 4 "I am not ignorant,.,., he wrote to Lieutenant,Colonel Ebenezer Sproat of Marietta, "4of the inconveniences that may result to the inhabitants from such limits to their pursuits-that they came into this country professedly to till the ground, and that to give up their plantations for another year will be almost like death to their fairest hopes and expectations . .,.,:n But, instead of trying to make these inconveniences as bearable as possible, Sargent.,s lack of tact only goaded the citizens into rebellion. When, in March, 1792, Lieutenant,Colonel Oliver Spencer of Columbia objected to furnishing the quota of his settlement to a company of militia for :fifteen days., service with the regular troops to help in some construction work, on the grounds that it weakened the defences, Sargent informed these frontiersmen that if they had built a stockade around their settlement as he had advised they would have less reason to complain.32 Nineteen of the sixty men ordered out failed to appear, and Sargenfs court,martial :fined them from

:!9Qrders of December 27, 1791, ibid., 433-34. 30See ante, page 68. 31.Sargent to Sproat, January 3, 1792, in Official Record, Northwest Territory MSS., 4 36-> 7 32Sargent to Spencer, March 11, 1792, ihid., 452-53. FRONTIER OHIO 137

$1 to $6. 50 each. 33 At the same time, Sargent announced promotions rewarding the faithful. 34 The discontent of the inhabitants soon found vociferous ex pres ... sion. In June, 1792, a few months after the court... martial, an episode occurred in which the citizens had the satisfaction of publicly humili ... ating Sargent. Certain civilians, having hired themselves out as army artificers, committed some offense for which they were chas ... tised and imprisoned in Fort Washington by Ensign William H. Harrison. John Blanchard, a frontier merchant and sutler, acting as the deputy of Isaac Ludlow as clerk of the Court of ·Common Pleas, issued a writ of habeas corpus on Harrison for the delivery of these men to civil authorities on the grounds, no doubt, that this \Vas one of the rights and privileges guaranteed to all American citizens. The sheriff who attempted to serve this writ at Fort Washington was denied admittance, and General James Wilkinson immediately pro... tested to Sargent against the procedure of the court as .... infesting the corps of artificers and soldiery with ideas of licentious[ness] . . . tend, ing to the subversion of discipline."" Sargent, who had some pique with Wilkinson, began proceedings against Blanchard, not on the grounds claimed by Wilkinson, but because Blanchard was not le ... gaily entitled to serve the writ, since he had not been legally appointed by the judges to the office of clerk of the court.all In so doing Sargent made the mistake that he later committed, time and time again­ of trying to tell the courts what to do. In a letter to Symmes asking him to begin proceedings, Sargent characteristically said, .... This Mr. Blanchard . . . [is] a man commonly reported to be without principle, property, or knowledge. ,,36 He appointed Samuel Swan in Blanchard"s placet but the latter continued to exercise the clerk's functions. This prompted Sargent to write again to Symmes, .... I am anxious that you should take cognizance of those offenses as soon as possible, for from the general character of the man and his little known attachment to this Country, his stay in it is quite problematical with me_ .. ,as As Symmes did not seem to share Sargenfs feeling in the matter, the

33Jbid., 465-66. 341bul., 456-58. 35Sargent to Wilkinson, June 4, 1792, ibia., 469-69¾. oosargent to Symmes, June 4, 1792, ibia., 470-72. tnJbul., 472. 38Jbul., 474-75. 138 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS latter wrote to the judges of the Court of Common Pleas to ascertain why they continued to make use of Blanchard" s services.ie The judges promptly forwarded the papers justifying Blanchard"s tenure, and Sargent immediately executed a strategic retreat. He turned the papers over to the federal attorney with instructions that ""if it shall appear that [from] the faith of the said Court and Mr. Blanchard, [that] he has been acting under proper authority without intention of usurpation you will undoubtedly be governed accordingly, for I am confident you _are not disposed to institute suits merely vexa, tious. ""'° What Sargent thought later of his part in this affair is shown in a letter to St. Clair in which he said, .... A very criminal inattention of Symmes" in a case of Usurpation and where the Usurper was the dam"st rascal in the world except ------[sic} in-­ valved me in Embarrassment from which with much trouble I ex, tricated myself. ,,u The next time that Sargent took it upon himself to enforce the law he was more sure of his legal grounds. The incident grew out of flagrant violations of his orders against night,firing. These nocturnal frolics had long troubled this serious,minded New Englander and seriously endangered the safety of the frontier. At Marietta, on the first Founder"s Day, April 7, 1789, a ""miniature riot"" had taken place which Sargent reported to his chief as follows: It seems the People had the [MS. torn} to fire a Piece of Artillery for Amusement after Dark, & being prevented by Judge Putnam & myself they took it so much in Dudgeon as to make a confounded Racket with their small Arms-even after we had ordered them to disperse agreeably to the Provision of the Riot Act. He entered a complaint to Putnam, who investigated the matter, much ""to the Terror of the Culprits, three of whom are bound over ~ considerable Sums & Sureties to June Court. "'2 At Cincinnati Sargent had had difficulties with these frontier celebrations during the Christmas season of 1791, and had sent four men to the guard,house, who, being ""urged on by some artful de.. signing men, clamoured exceedingly at being carried prisoners to the Garrison, and menaced the Soldiery. ~,.a But the climax was reached a year later when night firing continued from Christmas eve 39Jbul., 481-82. 40Sargent to Abner M. Dunn, August 9, 1792, ibid., 483. 41Sargent to St. Clair, January 20, 1793, St. Clair MSS., Box 3, no. 172. 42Sargent to St. Clair, April 10, 1789, ihid., folder 3, 1i70-1789, p. 224. '3Sargent to St. Clair, January 19, 1793, Official Record, Northwest Territory MSS., S27-42. FRONTIER OHIO 139

to January 8 ""in a manner of such aggravated circumstances of insult as reflected almost indelible disgrace upon the town . .,., On Christmas eve Sargent had instructed McMillan, the local magistrate, to use his best endeavors to prevent the expected disorders in cooperation with a small party of militia which he had ordered out for the pur, pose. The firing, nevertheless, continued nightly, and on New Year"s eve he again issued instructions to McMillan and the other magis, trates in Cincinnati, and, at the same time, requested that a constable attend the militia in patrolling the streets. The constable, however, could not be obtained. That evening the militia took two prisoners, one of whom was rescued by a mob which so insulted the militia that ··1 have been surprised myself they could refrain from some act of violence."' The disorders continuing, Sargent, on January 6, ordered a constant patrol and wrote to Symmes at North Bend describing the situation and naming the ringleaders, two of whom were ""Finley & Smith Storekeepers."" Sargent had :flattered himself that this letter ··would have produced him [Symmes] immediately in Cincinnati.,., In, stead it produced a reply from Symmes in which he ••seemed to justify or extenuate the outrage . . . concluding with the advice "to dismiss my guards, and that if a few should afterwards incorrigibly persist they should find that he too had zeal to support the laws_n,« In this advice Symmes showed a true understanding of frontier psychology, which, if Sargent had followed, the trouble would, no doubt, have ceased. Instead, he continued the guards with the result that, on the night of January 7, one of them, Thomas McCulloch, ··was caught in the act of doing what he had been ordered to prevent. .,., Sargent immediately clapped him into the guard--house and ordered him to be court,martialed. Thereupon Symmes issued a writ of habeas corpus for the delivery of McCulloch to civil authorities, and rumors spread abroad that a body of eighty men were ready to deliver him by force if necessary. This gave occasion for a scathing letter from Sargent to Symmes which closed with the cutting remark, •1.1 will endeavour to devise ways of executing my Duty without even the appearance of Contempt of your Honour."'45 Sargent, on the morn, ing of January 14, mounted guard at his own house 1.•and without

'"I hid. 45Sargent to Symmes, January 13, 1793, Sargent MSS. 140 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS the formalities of a writ, removed the prisoner_.,., During the trial, .... some vile and insulting measures were taken to produce violence and disturbance; to inflame the minds of the populace, and cause a riot but they were counteracted; peace and good order seems well restored at present. '"46 But Sargent did not let matters rest with the punishment of McCulloch; he insisted on punishing the other ringleaders who were not in the militia, and, to do this, he had to carry the case to the civil courts. By the average administrator, the result of such a proced, ure in view of the outcome of the Blanchard affair, might have been foreseen, but not by Sargent. He presented the names to the Court of Quarter,sessions, together with his letters to Symmes and a depo, sition of one of the witnesses concerning the disorder, and the federal attorney was furnished with additional evidence for the prosecution.47 How the Court welcomed Sargent"s 1,1,aid/., may be gathered from the secretary's report to St. Clair in which he wrote: No Crime against the public or any the most flagitious Conduct of a popular magistrate [Symmes] could be adduced to Conviction and Sentence. I am persuaded in the County of Hamilton that great invaluable blessing of trial by Juries ... is perverted to a Curse ... and ... the solemn Ties of sacred Oaths and Obligations are here most notoriously sported with. Although the most convincing evidence was laid before the Court they side,stepped the issue by referring the matter to the grand jury where "-it rests to the great Encouragement of similar conduct_.,., Sargent claimed that the Court had enough evidence to proceed without indictment by a grand jury, but in despair, he confessed, ""candidly I believe they will at all Events go with the multitude even to do Evil..,, The one chiefly responsible for the defiant attitude of the Court, was, of course, its leading member, McMillan, concerning whom Sargent wrote, .. _If McMillan had been of my own appointment I would have removed him because as a magistrate he is unpardonably negligent . .,,48 Although beaten in the civil courts, Sargent had the satisfaction of separating the sheep from the goats in the militia by creating a separate company, giving as his excuse that ""some reluctance and un, easiness having arisen by enrolling indiscriminately all Ranks and

460£6.cial Record, Nonhwest Territory MSS., 527-42. 47Sargent to the Court of Qu~rter-sessions, February 5, 1793, ihid., 544-46. 48Sargent to St. Clair, February 12, 1793, St. Clair MSS, Box 13, no. 176. FRONTIER OHIO 141

people in the Town together in the militia."°'49 The aristocratic com, position of the new company may be seen from a letter of Sargent"s to Swan and "'the Gentlemen"' who had proposed the new company: From your Example in the honourable Character of Citizens & Soldiers, I flatter myself with that general .. observance of good Order and Military Discipline.. (of which you seem to be so properly impressed) the present Situation of this place renders peculiarly necessary & that a laudable Emula, tion to excell in Arms may pervade the County & Territory.50 The whole affair gave Sargent an opportunity to air once more his views as to the nature of his subjects. Of Symmes he said, ""He has taken an active part to Sedition-popularity is his Aim.''01 Of the populace he wrote: The people Generally are made up from that Class of men who have escaped to the Frontier as to a place where independent of every civil obligation they might range uncontrouled-Licentiousness is their Character, istic and the magistrates who shall dare to enforce the Laws which are adopted will of Course become the object of their highest Displeasure.52 The same story was repeated in the fall of 1794 in an episode that grew out of a scuffle between a party of peaceful Indians and some inhabitants of Cincinnati. The outrage occurred on September 8. At four o'clock in the afternoon Sargent wrote to McMillan, ""I wish you on receipt of this to pursue the most prompt, necessary, and legal measures to correct and prevent the reiteration of such outrages. ''53 That evening he ordered out twenty militia men to pre, serve order.54 Two days later he issued a proclamation ·•expressly enjoining the Justices of the general Sessions of the peace for Hamilton County to cause immediate Inquiry in the premises. " 55 Again, as in the Blanchard case, he referred the whole matter to a grand jury. In the hearings before the grand jury, the evidence was •~so managed that the whole result was a Bill for assault and Battery only against two persons." Of these two, one ~•was tried in the absence of the principal Witness and acquitted, and the other day by Delay of Pro, cess made his Escape."' The proceedings were thereupon laid before Putnam, judge of the Supreme Court of the Territory, the only result being that Putnam came to the conclusion, shared by Sargent, ~·that

'°Sargent to St. Clair, January 20, 1793, ibid., no. 172. rosargent to Swan, etc., January 18, 1793, ibid., no. 171. Sl.]bid., no. 172. 52JbiJ.., no. 176. 53Sargent to McMillan, September 8, 1794, Official Records, Northwest Territory MSS., S83. MI bid.> S8 S. U.Jbid., 586-88. 142 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS the present administration of the civil authority of Hamilton County is inadequate to afford protection to the Indians in amity with the United States.""56 Well might the despairing secretary have exclaimed, as he had on a form.er occasion, ""More corruption I candidly declare I believe does not exist in the world amongst an equal number of people that in the Body of Hamilton County as is exhibited by their general Conduct and particularly in their Conduct as grand and petit Jurors. .,,,:51 His attempts at the establishment of peace and good order having been frustrated by the different groups of civil authorities, Sargent, early in 1793, made a bold attempt to gain control by making the judges of the Court of Comm.on Pleas, all of whom were appointees of the governor, subject to removal at his pleasure. In so doing, he created a situation in which the conflict between frontier traditions of self,government and the conservative traditions of paternalistic authority was brought more clearly to a head than in any preceding episode. The opportunity presented itself when it became necessary to increase the number of judges in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, a course made necessary by the increase in settlement, the enlargement of Hamilton County in 1792, and the addition of certain duties to the courts. Instead of merely commissioning two new judges, Sargent recommissioned the other three so that all five judges were to hold office ""during pleasure.""58 This produced an in, dignant protest from the :five judges who, ""uniting in the Language of 1774,"75 of Liberty Privilege &ca &ca &ca/" refused to accept the commissions, asserting that they 4"'\vould not stoop to the indignity of holding offices the tenure of which is during pleasure."" The first three judges continued to exercise their offices under the old commissions. This, of course, was too much for Sargent, who proceeded to deliver to the judges a lecture enlivened, as usual, with shafts of keen sarcasm. He flatly informed them that ""the tenure of all commissions under the Government are during pleasure, either implied or ex, pressed."' Since they had appealed to their rights as Americans, they were informed that ""in Washington [County] the Court is

68Sargent to Randolph, November 1, 1794, sbid.., 595-96. 57Sargent to St. Clair, February 7, 1793, St. Clair MSS., Box 13, no. 174. 68Qfficial Records, Nonhwest Territory MSS., S44. FRONTIER OHIO 143 composed of Americans, some of them possessing as much law know!, edge as any County court judges in the Territory with as "sacred regard to the rights of mankind." .,., Pointing to the fact that a frontier community is made up of men varying in intelligence "~from civili-­ zation to almost a state of nature and savage customs,.,., Sargent stated that, as a result, many appointments would be made to important office of men ""no ways adequate thereto."" Consequently, it would continually be necessary for the welfare of the community that such men give way to persons better qualified for positions of responsi-­ bility. 119 Sargent implied that the better type of administrators would not take up their abode in the Territory until conditions were more settled, and he \vished, therefore, to be in a position to appoint them to office as the occasion required. The principle was logical enough, but never before had it been stated so bluntly to the very men who would be removed from office as the result of its application. Fortunately the return of St. Clair put the settlement of the matter into more judicious hands. St. Clair, whose theory of the tenure of appointments was entirely in accord with Sargent"s, had, however, what Sargent lacked, viz., an ability to bring about a com, promise without either side yielding its point. He maintained his own opinion by selecting two lawyers who would give an opinion that the continuance of the judges in office, on the basis of their old com, missions, was usurpation. He satisfied the judges by o.ff ering to make out new commissions ""in the original form"' and by promising to obtain from the Legislature, when it should meet, ""an act, worded in such manner as to save the feelings of everyone ... [and] that \vould give validity to all they had been doing."" 60 This enabled St. Clair to write to the secretary of state that the difficulties had been accom ... modated in such a manner that c.c.the Dignity of the Government had not been committed, nor the just and necessary prerogative of the Governor weakened. ""61

159Sargent to Willi:un Goforth, William Wells, William McMillan, John S. Gano, and Aaron Cadwell, February 9, 1793, ibid., 5S0-S9. «ISt. Clair to Randolph, May 9, 1793, in Smith, Lifa and Services of St. Clair, II, 312-14. See also the record of the commission (in Sargent's hand), in Official Records, Northwest Territory MSS., 565. 81St. Clair to Jefferson, August 9, 1793, St. Clair MSS., Box 10, no. 104. 144 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

3 Winthrop Sargent and the Land Speculators. St. Clair had returned, but not for long. Political developments drew him East again but this time with a growing realization that he would soon have to return. General Anthony Wayne had relieved St. Clair of his military responsibilities and had brought an end, tern, porarily, to Indian troubles at Fallen Timbers in August, 1794. This removed the great obstacle to westward expansion. As settlers entered the new region in ever greater numbers, it became, therefore, more than ever necessary in the fall of 1794 that greater attention be de, voted to the drawing up of a real civil establishment for the govern, ment of the Territory. This required the intelligent and tactful guid ... ance of St. Clair. Accordingly, he set out from Pennsylvania in the fall of 1794 for Marietta where he planned to hold the Legislature early in 1795. The gout and other factors, however, forced St. Clair back to Pennsylvania, leaving Sargent to blunder through the winter. Again, certain forces of this new expanding frontier life ran counter to the secretary,s sovereign will, and quarreling ensued-this time over the administration of the public land laws. The entry of squatters and speculators into the lands west of the Great Miami late in 1794 has already been noted. 82 As has been pointed out, no other phenomenon was more typical of frontier life than this. The instant, however, that Sargent perceived that this illegal entry of lands was going to take place, he set about to crush it. On October 6, a little over a month after Fallen Timbers, he sent orders to Captain Virgin, in command of the militia at North Bend, the settlement closest to the scene of the violations of the land laws, informing him of the activities of surveyors on the lands preparatory to the formation of a settlement. He commanded Virgin to ascertain whether these men were government surveyors, and if not, to ""prohibit immediately all further proceedings therein.,.. Virgin was also to obtain the names of the principal persons employed in this transaction and to report them to Sargent.ea

82See ante, pages 7 4-7 S, 8 1. 83Sargent to Virgin, October 6, 1794, Official Records, Northwest Territory MSS., S94. FRONTIER OHIO 145

That Sargent was conscientiously seeking to do his duty as he saw it is shown by lus report to the Secretary of State, in which he said: The surveying or exploring of Lands as Experience has taught us has pretty generally been the prelude to a Host of those people known in Frontier Countries by the name of Squatters-some of whom have within my observation so obstinately maintained their Ground as not to be removed without some peril and much Expense to Government.64 As the result of Virgin"s inquiries, Sargent learned that this enterprise was under the leadership of Israel Ludlow-prince of Miami surveyors and land speculators-who was surveying the lands to the west of the Miami for the benefit of holders ( mostly specula, tors) of United States military land warrants. Sargent thereupon in, formed Ludlow that he considered it his ""duty to prevent the survey of all lands ... save those parts which have or may be alienated", until the contrary was signified to him by the Federal Government. The letter containing this warning was sent by Sargent to William Maxwell, printer of the Centinel, with the expressed desire that it be published. This was done,65 but, undoubtedly with malicious intent, the editor printed beneath it an item which appeared to be a very harmless bit of news, but which, if true, completely nullified Sargent"s actions. It was a notice that Oliver Ormsby had arrived a few days before with the happy information of Hthe arrival of His Excellency Governor St. Clair at Marietta who has again resumed the adminis, tration of his Government within the Territory."" Sargent had no authority as governor when St. Clair was in the Territory. As might be expected, Sargent"s ire was aroused, and he served notice to the public in an open letter to the printer that ""the Sec, retary of this Territory announced the arrival of his Excellency Gov, ernor St. Clair at Marietta ... authentic information of which and his resuming his official duties was not received until the last even-­ ing. .,., He then informed Maxwell that his previous announcement of St. Clair"s arrival was premature, and advised the editor to ob-­ serve greater accuracy in the future. 68 The advice was not heeded, nor was the sarcasm lost, and the affair developed into a newspaper

64Sargcnt to Randolph, January 2, 1795, Sargent MSS. 95Cmtinel of the North-Western Territor1 (Cincinnati), December 20, li94. etaJ!Jid., December 27, 1794. 146 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS controversy in which both sides charged deception and falsehood. The only significance of these incidents, in this treatise, is that they indicate that Sargent felt himself in an embarrassing position. If he had been in touch with the people and the news of the day, he would have known of St. Clair"s early arrival and would have been spared this :final humiliation. Proceedings actually were com, menced in the courts charging Sargent with usurping the powers of the governor, and he extricated himself from this predicament only through the action of the governor himself who ordered the suits dropped.81 It was high time for St. Clair to take charge. In the spring of 1795 he arrived in Cincinnati to the universal joy of all the inhabi-­ tants. Maxwell wrote in the Centinel, ''It is with pleasure we an-­ nounce to the public the arrival of His Excellency Arthur St. Clair, Esquire ... at this place on Monday last. Happy period-At which tyranny and despotism must once more lay down the arm of cruelty and oppression. Let the patriotic lovers of rational liberty again re-­ joice. ""68

67St. Clair to Sargent, April 28, 1795, in Smith, Life and Services of St. CLu~, II, Hl. '8Centinel, May 16, 1795. CHAPTER V POLITICAL REFORM

1 Movement for County and 'Towns hip Administrative Autonomy.

!HE QUESTION that naturally presents itself to the thoughtful reader, after a perusal of the preceding chapter is, Did all this T bickering and quarreling accomplish anything? The answer is, most emphatically, that it did. The object of that discussion of the relations between Sargent and his subjects was to portray two opposing attitudes. The object of the present chapter is to describe the results. These results may be summarized in the statement that the history of the territorial period of Ohio.. s political development witnessed the gradual triumph of the principles of democracy culminating in the attainment of more complete self,government in the form of state, hood. That there was room, at the beginning of the settlement of Ohio, for such development is quite apparent to one who clearly understands the autocratic nature of the government originally created for the Northwest by the Federal Government. Therefore, the Ordinance of 1787 must receive some attention. The Northwest Ordinance1 has long been justly recognized as one of the outstanding mile--stones marking the course ·of American constitutional development. Although a product of factors that went deeper than its framers knew, it is, as Edward Channing has well said, ~~a statei:pent of principles, of ideals, which are to be lived up to and which, in a great measure, have been realized. '" 2 The framers of this constitution for the territories deserve no less praise than do their contemporaries, the framers of the Constitution for the States, in embodying such statesman,like social principles as the guarantee of the right of equality in the inheritance of intestate estates, the pledge of the freedom of religion, the encouragement of education,

1 For the text of the Ordinance, see Theodore C. Pease (ed.), uws of the N orthu:est Territory, 1788-1800 (Illinois, 1925), 123-30. 2Edwa.rd Channing, A Hirtory of the United Stater (New York, 1927), III, 547. 147 148 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS the exclusion of slavery, the freedom of river navigation, and the promise of admission of new states on terms of equality with the old ones with all the rights of self --government reserved by the Con-­ stitution to the old states. But there was another principle in the original Ordinance, more vital and inclusive than all these, that does not bear the same liberal stamp, being, as it was, the product of the more pressing financial needs of a penniless government and a pro:6.t--seeking land company. This was the provision for a highly autocratic frame of government for the inhabitants prior to their receiving the blessings of self .. government on their entry into statehood. This latter principle was a very important one for it provided the basis for the governmental structure designed for the every--day life of the people who were to make their homes in this part of the West. It was the principle of any property owner, who, finding himself in :financial straits, and seeking to protect his investment, thinks that the best way to guar-­ antee political order is to provide for it himself and not to leave it to irresponsible tenants, or, as Richard Henry Lee put it, in 1787, to ""uninformed and perhaps licentious people. ''3 To this end, therefore, the members of the last Confederation Congress, eager to do as much as their contemporaries and rivals of the Constitutional Convention, to bring about the stability which they, themselves, had for so long been powerless to effect, grasped the opportunity presented to them by circumstances to set up a highly conservative and centralized scheme of government. During the first stage of government, the Territorial Legislature, made up of the governor and judges appointed by federal authority, and dominated by the veto of one of its own members, viz., the governor, was limited to the adoption of laws from the codes of the older states. Nor did the attainment of a population of five thousand free adult males, by which graduation into the second stage was made possible, mean much of an advance, for, though a popularly elected house of representa-­ tives was provided, it was still subject to veto by the governor, as well as by a council appointed by the federal authorities from a list of nominees selected by the lower house. Appeals from local

8Q11'lted jn ibid., 5 4 l. FRONTIER OHIO 149

courts were vested in a supreme judiciary created by Congress, whose judges were likewise federal appointees. Thus, during the second stage of government the people of the Territory were to exercise very little more control over their rulers than during the first stage. In the sphere of local township and county government, as in the general or territorial government, the spirit, as well as the letter of the Ordinance of 1787, sought to minimize local autonomy by setting up a highly centralized system of colonial administration quite incompatible with those frontier conditions of '\vhich its authors knew comparatively little. In this respect, most curiously, the govern-­ ment of the Northwest Territory revealed a surprising degree of centralization. The control of local police administration in each county was in the hands of the County Court of General Quarter-­ sessions of the Peace, whose members, the justices of the peace, were appointed and commissioned by the governor.4 Leaving out of con, sideration for the present the judicial functions of individual justices and of the court as a whole, it is well to call attention to the many administrative powers exercised by the justices sitting as a court. This court had complete control of the townships and its officials. It divided the .county into townships whenever this seemed desirable, and it appointed the necessary constables, overseers of the poor, clerks, f ence--viewers, supervisors, surveyors, viewers of highways, and appraisers of damages caused by strays. 5 It supervised the general administration of poor relief and the laying out of new roads," and controlled the granting of licenses to owners of ferries,7 tavern, keepers and traders.8 This court also had complete control of the local machinery of taxation. It appointed the county commissioners who, together with the assessors, estimated the county expenses and levied the county rates. 1 These estimates and rates were subject to review by the court,

4 Pease, Laws of the Northwest Territory, 4-6. 5Jbid., 37-41, 49, 74, 75, 216, 236, 349, 402-04, 453-58. 6Jbid., 216-32, 452-67. 7Jbid., 287-88, 357-60; Salmon P. Chase (ed.), Statu.tss of Ohio and the Northwestern Territor'J . ... (Cincinnati, 1833 ), I, 288. 8Pease, Laws of the Northwest Territory, 61-66, 193-97, 256; Chase, Statutes of Ohio, I, 293-95. 9 Pease, Laws of the Northwest Territory, 69-73, 201-16, 307-10, 467-94; Chase, Sutu.te.r of Ohio, I, 298-99, 299-304, 324-27. 150 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS which also heard individual complaints. The actual appraisal of the value of the property in each township was left to constables appoint, ed by the court, the latter also appointing the tax collectors. The receiving of the monies was in the hands of a county treasurer appointed by the governor. The poor rates were administered by overseers appointed by the court. These rates were subject to the review of township meetings, but according to Theodore C. Pease, it is doubtful whether such meetings were ever held, owing to the fact that the poor law authorizing them was not :fitted to frontier conditions, being taken f ram the Pennsylvania statutes.10 It was not long before the frontiersmen began to feel the pinch of such a system. It has already been shown how in each of Ohio's :first three settlements ""squatter" governments controlled local police functions before the National Government took charge, and that one of the first reforms proposed to the governor of the Territory was the bill of George Turner and John Cleves Symmes to place control of these police functions in the hands of the inhabitants of each settlement. Such frontal attacks upon vested authority were, of course, bound to fail. It was rather by a process of sapping and mining that progress was eventually to be made. One of the first points of advance that are noted was the simple process of nomination as applied to that office most closely in contact with the people, viz., the justice of the peace. To be sure, the words of the Ordinance stood conspicuously in the way of such popular control by specifically asserting that the governor should have power to appoint ""such magistrates and other civil officers in each county or township as he shall find necessary for the preservation of the peace and good order in the same."" On occasion, however, the governor, because of his lack of knowledge of local situations, made appointments in accord with the will of the people of certain neighborhoods, as in the case of the appointment of William McMillan of Cincinnati and William Goforth of Columbia as justices of the peace. Both of these men were popular leaders; the former having been chosen a local magistrate by the :first ""squatter"" government.11

10Pease, Laws of the Northu:ut Territory, xxxi. 11Sc:e ante, page I 3 O. FRONTIER OHIO 151

It apparently soon became quite customary for the governor to consult these local interests before making his appointments, indeed, one perhaps should say that it became customary for the people to offer their choices without being requested to do so. For instance, in January of 1799, ~~a number of inhabitants situated ... between the waters of Eagle and Strait Creeks, and thereabouts [ now in Brown County] . . . being at a great distance from a Magistrate, or Justice of the Peace"" petitioned for the appointment of Alexander Martin, ""an honest, well,meaning man, and a citizen here amongst us whom we have selected for that purpose. ""12 This request was signed by thirty--three men, a goodly number, indicative of the fact that, no doubt, a large majority of the neighborhood had taken part in this extra--legal political manoeuvre. Another petition, in the same year, to the same effect is even more significant, for it refers to the earlier practice as a precedent. The petitioners were inhabitants of the region in and around Lebanon, now in Warren County. They pointed out that, since no person had as yet been commissioned justice of the peace in the neighborhood, they had assembled to recommend to the governor the appointment of Jeremiah Morrow. They were en, couraged in this proceeding ~~by the Governor in many instances, indulging the people with the privilege of appointing by sufferage .,.,13 for o ffi ce. It was this custom of consulting local interests that lent force to a definite popular movement for the creation of new counties throughout the Territory. The creation of each new county meant, of course, the appointment of an entirely new staff of local officials, judges, sheriff, constable, tax assessors, surveyors, commissioners of various sorts, and so on. Obviously they would have to be chosen from within the area of the new county with the result that the governor would have the responsibility of sounding, or responding to, local opinion. Governor Arthur St. Clair"s well--known resistance to this type of reform, as evidencec by his veto of the Legislature "s 1 bills in 1799 creating new counties, ' was a powerful factor in spread, ing the discontent among the masses, for it ran counter to the pro,

12Charles Cist (comp.), Cincinnati Miscellany. • • • ( Cincinnati, 1844 ), I, 123. 'llJ6id., 82. 1'Arthur St. Clair to the LegisL"lture, December 19, 1799, in William Henry Smith, Th# Life and Public Ser:,,icer of Arthur St. Clair• ••• (Cincinnati, 1882), II, 477. 152 OHIO H!STORlCAL COLLECTIONS

nounced and natural frontier tendency for local autonomy. St. Clair"s resistance to statehood later probably could not have aroused such universal and effective opposition had the people not already become acquainted with his autocracy through his opposition to the formation of new counties. Indeed, statehood itself was desirable because, among other reasons, it promised new counties and popular control over local offices, and particularly the location of county,seats. Elective control of all offices was an issue in the campaign of 1802 over statehood and was incorporated in the state constitution drafted as the result of that campaign.ll> Another method of refarming this over,centralization was to get as much control as possible over the administration of taxes. The second stage of colonial government, attained in 1799 '\Vhen a Terri, torial Leg1slature was created, brought the people considerable relief on this score because the election of an Assembly by popular vote insured the passage of a more desirable taxation program and exerted a salutary effect on the :financial aspects of general legislation. The consent of the Assembly was required for all taxation measures. It could be expected that the Assembly would be more familiar \vith local conditions and desires. Popular discontent with previous tax measures found expression as soon as the first Assembly met. On October 3, 1799, a petition of citizens of Franklin township in Hamilton County complained of Hthe oppressive effects of the laws now existing relative to highways and county levies. ""16 The whole petition is not printed in the Journal of the Assembly and so the specific grievances are not known, and a comparison of the County Levy Acts of 1795 and 1799 fails to reveal any essential change in taxation. The only change seems to have been relative to highways, for, in the case of the highway bill of 1799, those who petitioned for new roads were not subjected to any special expense for the preliminary surveys if the proposed road was found to be a necessary one. The Act of 1792 had required petitioners to bear this expense regardless of whether the road was actually con, structed. Furthermore, the Act of 1799 required only two days' road

15See po.rt, pages 247-48. 16Joumal of the House of Represmtati:·es of the Tr.rritory . ... (Cincinnati, 1800), 1 Gen. Assemb., 1 Sess., 30. FRONTIER OHIO 153 service a year in contrast with ten days., service in the Act of 1792. The form.er also permitted the payment of the county road levy in extra labor at the option of the payer. From this evidence, it is clear that the people"s desire for the reform of road legislation was met in some degree. Tax reform, however, was still in the future, for the Territorial Land Tax Act and the County Levy Act of 1799 were to be enforced by the usual machinery appointed by the Court of Quarter--sessions, which, as noted, was established at the beginning of settlement. Complaints, therefore, continued to pour in, and on November 19, 1800, a number of citizens of Hamilton County petitioned the Legis, lature that assessors and collectors of taxes ··may be appointed in the several townships by the voice of the inhabitants thereof.""17 The petition was not referred to the usual committee of petitions and grievances, but instead to a special committee consisting of Joseph Darlington and John Ludlow. On the day following, another petition from inhabitants of Hamilton County was presented, praying that the appointment of constables, overseers of the poor, supervisors of highways, assessors and collectors "be given to the inhabitants of the townships respectively. ""15 This also was referred to Darlington and Ludlow who, six days later, reported that the petition was "reason, able and ought to be granted. ""19 A special committee was thereupon appointed, composed of Return J. Meigs and Ludlow, instructed to draw up a bill redressing these grievances. After much debate, such a township bill was passed by the House on December 8, but the Council did not have time to act upon it, because of the un, expected prorogation of the Legislature by St. Clair.20 In the mean, time, on December 4, the township of Waterford in Washington County petitioned the Legislature suggesting the many inconveniences of their remoteness from the seat of justice at Marietta and praying to be authorized to make appointments of township officers and to hold township meetings. 21 But the people did not despair. Victory was, indeed, not far

17Journal of the House of Representatives of th~ Territory . ... (Chillicothe, 1801 ), 1 Gen. Assemb., 2 Sess., 49-50. 15Jbid., 51. 19Jbid., 76. OOJbid., 112. ZlJbid., 96. 154 OHIO HISTORICAL CoLLECTIONS away; for at the next session the township bill of the previous session was summoned back from the Council, repassed by the House, and became law on January 18, 1802.22 Its terms provided that annually on the :first Monday in April all free male inhabitants of twenty,one years or over who paid a county or territorial tax, were to meet at the call of the constable and elect by ballot a township clerk, three or more trustees or managers, two or more overseers of the poor, three fence--viewers, two appraisers of property, a sufficient number of supervisors of roads, and one or more constables. This act did not, however, bring about complete local adminis, trative autonomy; that did not come until statehood. It took the control of the appointment of local administrators out of the hands of the Court of Quarter,sessions, to be sure, but it left with the Court such important matters as the supervising of tax returns, the determination of what new roads should be built, and the laying out of new townships. These powers were reduced somewhat by the failure to enact a county levy act in 1802, which left only the terri, torial land tax to be administered by appointed officials.23 The last remnants of these powers exercised by the judges disappeared with the coming of statehood when the court was abolished and its re, maining administrative functions were turned over to popularly el~cted county commissioners.~ But those who were privileged to live in the towns were for, tunate in being able to go a step or two beyond the progress to, ward self,government made by the rural townships. This was by virtue of acts of the Territorial Legislature incorporating certain towns, the first one of which was Marietta. The Township Act was but the application, in a general way, of what had already been applied in specific cases in acts incorporating certain towns in the Territory, beginning with Marietta. On Septem, ber I, 1800, a meeting of Marietta citizens appointed a committee to petition the Legislature to incorporate the town into a body politic and corporate ""vested with power to regulate the internal police.,.,

22Chase, Statutes of Ohio, I, 344-46. 23Jlnd.., 324-47. 2'The completion of the reform of the local administrative machinery of the Territory is treated in the discussion of the first State Constitution, see post, page 248, and in the discussion of the measures of the first State Legislature, see post, page 2 51. FRONTIER OHIO 155' of the community, including such privileges as providing for fire protection, flood control and health matters. 25 The Legislature com, plied with this petition by an Act of December 2, 1800, providing for an annual town meeting to elect the council, clerk, treasurer, asses, sors, overseers, highway supervisors, fence--viewers, and collectors. 20 The act gave the town council more extensive powers in levying taxes for local projects as well as the privileges mentioned above in regard to fire, flood and health, advantages still denied to the town, ships in the territorial period. The other larger towns of the Territory were quick to solicit the same privileges-Athens being incorporated in the same year and Cincinnati, Chillicothe and Detroit a year later.21

2 Movement for County and Township Judicial Autonomy. Thus far analysis of local political reform has been limited to administrative affairs. The same tendency toward greater local democracy is to be observed in the movement to bring the local judiciary more into harmony with local needs. This movement cen, tered around the two county institutions of the Court of Quarter, sessions and the Court of Common Pleas, although the justices of the former often served also as judges in the latter. The attempt to reform these courts was directed mainly toward increasing the local jurisdiction of single judges and justices so that it would extend to cases involving larger property values. Conventional opinion in the East was distrustful of placing the judgment of any but the most petty of property disputes in the hands of local justices who were, in the main, quite untrained in legal principles. To conservatives, one of the most distressing of the liberal tendencies of the Confederation period manifested in the eastern states was the passage of legislation popularly known as Ten, pound, Six,pound or Five,pound Acts by which the jurisdiction of the single judges and justices in civil suits was increased from cases

ZHistory of Washington Count1, Ohio (Cleveland, 1881 ), 48;. 215Laws of the Territory of the United States, Northwest of the Ohio River. . . . (Chillicothe, 1801-02), 1 Assemb., 2 Sess., 3. 27Jbid., 1 Assemb., 2 Sess., 46; 2 Assemb., 1 Sess., 18 S, 177, 200. 156 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

involving the traditional forty shillings to a larger amount. Judges Turner and Symmes, fresh from the ranks of these eastern liberals and dominated, as landholders, by a desire to adopt such democratic reform.s as would attract settlers, brought these liberal views to the frontier and soon proposed a twenty,dollar law, :first in 1790 and later in 1795. The occasion for the presentation of this measure by Turner and Symmes was the convening of the Legislature by St. Clair in October, 1790, at Cincinnati, for the purpose of enacting more adequate judicial legislation. Winthrop Sargent had proposed a meetir1g of the Legislature at Marietta where the conservative wis, dom of Judge Rufus Putnam might have proved a buh.vark of strength in opposing the frontier ideas of the other two judges, but, as has been pointed out, Turner and Symmes found adequate reasons for remaining in the region of the Miamis. It had early been perceived that the Act of August 23, 1788, establishing the County Courts of Quarter,sessions and the County Courts of Common Pleas, failed to meet the needs of the Territory in several important respects. In the first place, it was not elastic enough to meet the growing needs of the frontier because it provided for the appointment of too few justices of the peace and judges of the common pleas, the former having in their individual capacity jurisdiction over petty criminal cases, the latter over petty civil cases. Secondly, the courts met too infrequently, thus causing many undesirable delays of justice. In the third place, the size of St. Clair County and the primitive state of transportation in that remote region made the court at Kaskaskia inaccessible to some inhabitants under any circumstances. When the Legislature met in October, St. Clair proposed laws to remedy these defects. He suggested increasing the maximum number of justices of the peace in each county from :five to nine and of the judges of the pleas from :five to seven, and increasing the number of meetings of the Court of Common Pleas from two to four a year. The governor"s proposal also provided that the Court of Common Pleas in St. Clair County be held four times a year in the three districts into which the county was divided.28

28Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 189, note 1; Pease, Laws of the N o~thwut Territory, 35-37. FRONTIER OHIO 157

These reforms, as far as they went, were in the right direction and, therefore, met the approval of Turner and Symmes, but it was !he desire of the latter to carry the reform one step further by increas, ing the unappealable civil jurisdiction of individual judges of the pleas from cases involving :five dollars to those involving twenty dollars. Turner, in supporting this proposal, made a very able expo-­ sition of his reasons for the bill-a typical statement of the needs of the frontier. The main purpose of the bill, according to Turner, was to meet the needs of the masses of the frontier inhabitants, few of whom, after emigration from the East, ""have any money left, after defraying the expenses incident to a long journey_,, The suste, nance of most families, after their arrival at their new homes, de, pended largely upon a daily supply of milk. This meant that the most important of the settlers., meagre possessions was a cow and a calf, the medium value of which was twenty dollars. Consequently a great deal of litigation over land titles and · other matters would center around the possession of a cow and a calf. Hence, if the owner of the cow and the calf received an adverse decision in which this property was forfeited, he would suffer great want before a :final decision was made in the county court. Furthermore, there were the added difficulties of the expense of carrying an appeal and of attending at the more or less remote county seat. To the objection that the law would place too heavy responsibility on judges both ""illiterate and ignorant of the law,,, Turner replied, ""We may hope to find [ in them] plain good sense and integrity. ,,29 St. Clair,s objections to the bill showed that he and Turner differed on fundamentals. Turner depended on the frontiersman ,s resourcefulness-""plain good sense.,, St. Clair distrusted the fron, tiersman; it was the governor whom Turner quoted when he admitted that the judges might be both ""illiterate and ignorant of the law."" To trust these judges to this extent, according to St. Clair ""would unavoidably introduce such uncertainty and so many contradictory decisions that all property would be afloat."'30 It would render the superior courts useless and hence deprive the people of the wisdom

29George Turner to St. Cl:ur, October 2;, I 790, St. Clair MSS. (in Ohio State Library, Box I, envelope 3. 3ClUndated, unaddressed memor:mc!u:n, ibid., Box 8. 158 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS of those better qualified to settle their disputes. It would make de, cisions too summary in some cases because ""all the delays [of the usual procedure] ... are in favor of Debtors." ""If the Debtor could have availed himself of the usual Delays, his Family would longer have enjoyed the benefit of the Cow and Calf, and his Industry might have put it in his power to pay before a Judgment would have passed against him_.,., Furthermore, the people should be encour­ aged to check their ""litigious disposition,.,., St. Clair continued, instead of being indulged therein. 31 This controversy, so striking in its contrasts, and so typical in its revelations of frontier conditions, soon passed to other phases of the question. St. Clair objected strongly to that part of the proposed law that authorized the judges to determine these cases, when neces, sary, by rules of equity. He argued that, 4,"although it may not be contrary to the letter, it is contrary to the spirit of the constitution [Ordinance] . . . to erect an equitable jurisdiction.,, To Turner, the apostle of the frontier, on the other hand, equity was 4,"as much the birth,right of the citizen as the common law itself.... It is essen, tial towards :filling up the measures of justice-£or which neither the common nor statute law, can in all cases provide ..,, Another element of relief to the frontiersman provided by Turner"s bill was the option given to any of the parties in such litigation to submit the case to a jury of six. This would be a step toward judicial reform, by allowing what had previously been denied, viz.; trial of small causes, by a jury of neighbors; and six,man instead of the customary twelve,man juries would minimize the burden of the innovation in its demands on the frontier population. St. Clair objected to this feature, in actions involving such small values, be, cause it might prevent a plaintiff from bringing up a case for fear the defendant would cause a jury to be summoned, and if the case were settled adversely for the plaintiff, the costs of the trial, being assessed on the plaintiff, would probably be more than the action was worth in the first place. Turner, however, considered the jury an assistance to the judgment of a single magistrate in cases of any difficulty, and believed that the proposal would grant "4,to the parties

31Memorandum dated June 18, 1791, ibid., Box 8. FRONTIER OHIO 159 at variance a favour, which in similar cases has hitherto been denied."" He admitted, of course, that twelve--man juries in such cases would be objectionable for three reasons:

1st, That in this territory, it would not be an easy matter, at all times, and in all places to find twelve lawful men-2nd, that it would double the expence of a jury-3d, that it would also double this part of the citizens duty, and materially interfere with his private avocations, and the improvement of the country. St. Clair's objection to the reform of the local courts prevailed, and the issue did not become important again until 1795. At that time, however, with the revival of frontier hopes as a result of the defeat of the Indians, came a decided revival in hopes for reform. In the Centinel of the Northwestern 'Territory for January 31, 1795, a writer signing himself HDorastius, "" in fulminating against the tyranny of the system of government provided by the Ordinance of 1787, named two or three of the laws of which freemen complained. One of these, he claimed, was Hthe law :fixing the sums to be recovered before a single magistrate to amount only to :five dollars [which] has caused the courts of quarter sessions, in ... Hamilton [held in Cincinnati] to last :fifteen days or upwards"" to the great inconvenience of suitors, jurors and witnesses. He complained that ""performing the business of the county has obliged the people to attend as jurors, witnesses &c. to the great danger of their farn.ilies."" ""The present crisis calls aloud to all,"" he added, and urged citizens ""by petition and remonstrance to make known all our grievances . . . to the general government. '" 32 In the next issue of the Centine l "" A Citizen and Friend to the Rights of Man"" issued a call to ""all good citizens of the county of Hamilton"" to assemble at Charles A very"s house in Cincinnati on the 11th "4 f or the purpose of farming a petition to send to the Legislature at their next meeting ... to obtain redress of the many inconveniences, resulting from some of the present existing laws of the Territory.""33 A week later the citizens were requested to meet to sign this petition at four separate places in the county:

32Centinel of the North-Western Territory (Cincinnati), January 31, 179;. 33Jhid., February 7, l 79S. 160 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

North Bend, Cincinnati, Columbia and HFrazee ~s Station over the Little Miami. ""34 When the Legislature met in May for the purpose of making a general revision of the law code of the Territory, this petition which, with two others, ""prayed for certain new laws, and alterations in others,"" was presented and laid on the table. 35 The other two petitions were probably to the same effect for the first was a ""Petition of the judges and justices of the common pleas and general quarter sessions of Hamilton,"" and the other was ""from the grand jury of that county in general quarter sessions of the peace . .,., The presentation of these petitions was followed by a proposal by Turner to adopt nineteen laws, one of which was Ha law to extend the jurisdiction of a single judge to $20. ,..,38 On June 3 Symmes moved for a considera, tion of Turner"s proposition, and both sides renewed the discussion of 1790.3T St. Clair could not be prevailed upon to accept the views of the judges. He did, however, make some concessions by consent, ing to ""a Law for the more easy and speedy Recovery of Small Debts"" adopted from the Pennsylvania code.38 This extended the jurisdiction over property cases under five dollars to the justices of the peace individually. Actions between :five and twelve dollars might also be tried by them as well as by the individual common pleas judges, but either plaintiff or defendant could appeal the decision to the Court of Common Pleas, a privilege not allowed in cases under :five dollars. This law '\Vas, in substance practically a Twelve,dollar Law, and, therefore, marked some advance. Such concession, however, was not enough and, the popular demand continuing for this reform, the result was the invention of a subterfuge by which the requirements of the law were evaded. In the trunk of Sargent MSS. at the Ohio State Historical Society at Columbus there is an unsigned, undated ""Memorandum of Laws . . .

MJhid., February 14, 1795. 35Minutes of the Legislature of the Territory of the United States North West of the Ohio, Winthrop Sargent MSS. (in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Library), 39. These minutes have been printed under the heading "Legislature of the Northwestern Territory, 1795,,, in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Puhluations (Columbus, 1887-), XXX (1921 ), 13-53. 38Minutes, Sargent MSS., 39-40. :r.1hid., 43-44. "Observations on Extending the Jurisdiction of a Single Magistrate in the Trial of Small Causes, by Governor St. Clair, in the Legislature," in Smith, Life and. Services of St. Clair, II, 36i-71. a8Pease, i..aws of the Northwut Territory, 143-49. FRONTIER OHIO 161 for the consideration of Coll. Sargent.""30 It is in the handwriting of Jacob Burnet, whose interest in legal reform was keen.'0 In the suggestion numbered seven, he wrote, ""The law for the easy and speedy recovery of small debts is either misapprehanded or abused by some of the magistrates, as it is a common practice with some of them to take Cognizance of demands to any amount by dividing the sum due and instituting several Suits, each under twelve Dollars. .,,c. Thus did frontier ingenuity discover a way to reform laws without formally changing them. With the meeting of the first Territorial Assembly in 1799, the pressure '\Vas renewed for further extension of the jurisdiction of single magistrates. On November 7, the events of 1795 were repeated when two petitions were presented to the House, one from the grand jury of Hamilton County and another from certain citizens of Hamilton County, praying for an ·extension of the jurisdiction of single magistrates in civil cases to fifty dollars." The next day, a third petition from Hamilton County was read, praying for the same extension ""under certain restrictions. ""43 These petitions served to accelerate the action of the House. On October 1 the House had appointed a special committee composed of Elias Langham, Aaron Cadwell and Darlington to bring in a bill ""to regulate the courts of judicature and extending the jurisdiction of magistrates in certain cases.""" The committee reported rather promptly, and on November 13 the bill was under debate. As drafted by the House, it was a thirty,dollar act-attempts to raise it to forty and to reduce it to t\vel ve failing by large majorities. 45 It was amended by the Council into an Eighteen,dollar Act and as such was accepted by the House.46 In the campaign of 1800 for the election of representatives to the second Territorial Assembly, the desire of the people for further

28Undated, unsigned memorandum, Sargent MSS . 1 .._ Jacob Burnet was responsible for practically all legislation that originated in the Council of the Legislature which met annually from 1 799 on. See "Burnet•s Letters," in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio Transactions ( Cincinnati, 1839 ), 82-107. -ilJacob Burnet also referred to this practice in his Notes on the Early Settlement of the North-U.'esuf'n Territory (New York and Cincinnati, 1847), 311. 42Journal, 1 Assemb., 1 Sess., 83. t..1Jbid., 84. '"Ibid., 29. 4SJbid., 9S-97. 46Pease, Law$ of th• Northwut Territory, 389-401. 162 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS reform in this respect again became manifest ..... A Farmer"" complained that it is a very heavy tax upon the inhabitants of this county to be called from one extreme to the other . . . to support or defend their rights, to serve as jurors, and other duties now enjoined on them, when more than one,half of the same business might be performed before a magistrate & jury in the neigh, borhood where the difference originates, and with one,fourth of the expence.47 In the second session of the first Assembly which met after this election, the Act of December 9, 1800, authorized actions not exceed, ing twenty dollars before single magistrates.48 Inch by inch, progress was being made. From :five dollars to twelve, from twelve to eighteen, from eighteen to twenty, but here the progress stopped. In the :first session of the second Assembly, further attempts were made to extend this jurisdiction, but they were unsuccessful. On November 27, 1801, a petition from inhabi, tants of Hamilton County to the Assembly prayed a further exten, sion.49 The House had a bill for this purpose under consideration and an attempt to pass it failed by the rather close vote of 10,7 .00 At this session the same problem presented itself in a different aspect, viz., that the remoteness of the county courts worked a hard, ship on witnesses, jurors and others compelled to attend. On Decem, ber 26 inhabitants of New Market in Ross County asked .... that more timely notice be given to persons summoned to serve at courts as grand and traverse jurors and also that compensation adequate to their services be allowed. '"51 Some relief in this direction was obtained by bringing the justices of the peace to the rescue. By the Act of January 13, 1802, for the taking of testimony for court use, it was provided, among other things, that if either plaintiff or defendant thought it necessary to have the testimony of any person living more than twenty miles from the place of trial, that person's deposition might be taken before any justice of the peace and used in the trial as evidence. 52 Another method of making judicial process more accessible to the people was by the creation of new counties, for in each case

47The Western Spy and Hamilton Gazette (Cincinnati), August 27, 1800. 48Chase, Statutes of Ohio, I, 307-09. 49Journal, 2 Assemb., 1 Sess., 17. fl.>Jbid., 154-55. 51Jbid., 89-90. ~Chase, Statutes of Ohio, I, 3 40-41. FRONTIER OHIO 163 there was brought into existence a new set of courts and magistrates. Still another step which increased the accessibility of judicial process and relieved the people of some of their burdens was the Act of December 3, 1800, "~authorizing judges of the general court to ap-­ point commissioners to take special bail and to administer oaths. ,"63 This, of course, concerned only cases before the General Court which was the supreme judicial body of the Territory, whose judges were appointed by the President of the United States. The commissioners appointed in each county by the judges were empowered to take bail for the appearance of any person at coming terms of the General Court. They also were authorized to take affidavits in any court action and to administer oaths. A significant feature of the law was that part which validated the action of the judges in appointing such commissioners prior to the passage of the law.:;"'

3 Judicial Structure. Having considered the agitation for reform in the framework of county and township government, one may turn now to the attempts to improve the framework of the upper ranges of government, i. e .• that of the Territory as a whole. The political services which are to be considered here are in general of three types. In the first place, there were the administrative problems created by the necessities in the establishment of new counties to accommodate the settlers in their expansion. This involved, of course, the appointing and commissioning of judges, selection of county,seats, the determination of county boundary lines and other miscellaneous duties. In addition were the far more complicated problems of bringing order out of the chaos of land difficulties involved in the conflicting claims in the old French settlements of Vincennes, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, etc., in the

63Jbid., 290-91. MThe completion of the reform of the local judicial machinery is treated in the discussion of the first State Constitution, see post, page 248, and in the discussion of the measures of the first State Legislature, see post, page 251. The movement for the granting of suffrage to all tax­ payers and freeholders cannot be properly cl:i.ssified as administrative or judicial. However, it should be noted that it was an issue as early as 1798 when the so-called squatters beyond Symmes' patent desired the suffrage in territorial elections, denied to them by St. Clair on technical grounds. It was finally extended to them by an Act of the Territorial Legislature on January 23, 1802. See ante, page 68. Such suffrage reform was finally embodied in the Constitution of Ohio drawn up in November of that year. See post, page 24 7. Suffrage in local township affairs was, of course, granted to all taxpayers by the Township Act of January 18, 1802. See ante, page 154. 164 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Indiana and Illinois country.GS In the second place, there were the judicial problems resulting from the necessity of keeping the Terri, torial Supreme Court, or the General Court, as it was officially designated, in step with the appellate needs of the population. Finally, there was the universal desire for self,government expressing itself in the continual agitation for the second stage of territorial govern, ment described by the Ordinance of 1787, or for statehood. All of these services might, of course, be reformed by the simple device of the division of the old Territory (which, it must be remem, bered, originally included all that country now in the :five states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin) into two or more smaller territories. Such reform was espoused from the very outset by St. Clair and continued to be a point of agitation by territorial leaders throughout this period. The :first proposal to divide the Territory into t\vo or more territories was made by St. Clair in January, 1790, after he had completed his :first survey of conditions in the Northwest. In a letter to his friend, Jam.es Ross of Pittsburgh, he suggested a division of the Northwest into three territories, giving as his reasons facts which are extremely helpful in enabling one to understand the situa, tion. In the :first place, wrote the governor, the Territory was alto, gether too large for administration by one set of officials, especially because of the inadequacy of river transportation, the only means of travel in the complete absence of roads. The rivers were ""at some Seasons extremely rapid, at others very difficult from the lowness of the Waters, and generally incapable of being used in the Winter."" In the second place, the governmental needs varied in different parts because of the heterogeneous nature of the population, which was composed of French, English, Indians, and Americans, one or the other predominating in different regions. Finally, there was the necessity of vigilance among these frontier peoples because the Terri, tory was ""a frontier to the [Spanish] on one side and to the british on the other_,, The division proposed by St. Clair contemplated three territorities, each centering around a convenient river valley around

55For a clear and concise treatment of this situation see Clarence Walworth Alvord, Th• Illinois Country, 1673-1818 in "Centennbl History of Illinois" (Springfield, Illinois, 1920), I, 4li-22. FRONTIER OHIO 165

C

,.. Ma.p No. JY. Division Schemes. loca..Tions, XJ}ncinr\Qti; Y:Chillicoth.e; Z.,/\1o.rie.U-~ ~r1mo.n.der- i!' l'l9o.

SJ:C~i~ Fl"°~ ~r'"l""~,-°T M'~!'>(~)(Lt-TT• .-"To~~.DE-C., 1'7:)e>).

L.JC:,.,,_ bo.,.n&,._r1 de-~ire-~ by sr.cl..:,rl17!~ (--doTI"ed).

l:~ica." ho ... "~"1 Cle:°"t"'o. H7 Ob(a.iT\~ \:,' Wo.1ne ,17?J5~µt:i.&/,ed}

.st~irs pr-oro:!>~ g•r-r-y"'•"d..- in 1aoo.(Ld"rer To ~,-;:i.o".fe~.~•aoo). . &.,. .. da.r, cr_,.H ~, r"Jio."-T~,.,.·,To\"'"~ AcT of- ,soo.

8o.-..,,a.o...-:, °t STa.T~ of O\,;o ~r~o.1"4!-d th 180'?.. (doTre-d. lin~s}. 166 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS which settlements would probably develop, viz.,. the Muskingum, thr: Great Miami, and the Wabash.56 The question naturally arises as to why it was ten years before any such division was accomplished. In ans'\vering this it is only necessary to remind oneself of what was pointed out in the second chapter concerning the great expectations of eastern politicians and statesmen of the speedy acquisition, by conquest or negotiation of the entire Ohio Valley. In that event, optimists like St. Clair expected that the rush of settlers and the subsequent sales of public lands would amply repay the added expense caused by the creation of two new territorial governments. However, the Ohio Valley, instead of becoming a great source of wealth to the United States, soon became the object of considerable expense as the result of the defeats of Josiah Harmar and St. Clair in 1790 and 1791 and the enormous expenditures contingent upon An, thony Wayne,s campaign. Reform in the framework of territorial government by a division or by any other device was, the refore, quite impossible. The e:ffect on St. Clair was tragic. It ruined his dreams of heroic service to the nation by great strokes of progress in the West. Opportunity to return to Pennsylvania politics was fast slipping away. He, therefore, began the process of becoming resigned to the inevitable by accepting the defeat of his division proposals and seek, ing to make the best of a bad bargain. This is reflected in a letter to Sargent in November, 1790, after the defeat of Harmar, the tone of which was entirely different from the optimism expressed in writing to the secretary of war a little more than a month earlier. Since division was impossible, the governor chose Cincinnati as Hthe most proper place for the Seat of Government,, for the time being, be, cause the governor ""must I believe be for a long time to come almost always passing from Place to Place unless a division of the Terri, tory should take Effect. ,,57 The Treaty of Greenville in 1795, wrought by more able hands than St. Clair,s, brought about a settlement of the Indian situation

56St. Clair to Ross, January 21, 1789 (1790). St. Clair MSS., folder 3, 1773-1789, pp. 216, 218. See Map no. IV C for this division scheme. 67St. Clair to Sargent, November 27, 1790, Sargent MSS. FRONTIER OHIO 167 that was, however, only moderately satisfactory to eastern states, men, since it transferred but a minor fraction of the Ohio Valley from the Indian tribes to the United States. The effect on territorial reform by division was, therefore, problematical. Such reform was nearer but by no means directly at hand. Naturally the person first to perceive the effect of Wayne'ts Treaty on the need for division was the acting governor, Sargent, who was doing most of the hard work of the governor,s office. In a letter to the secretary of state in September of 1796, Sargent called the government's attention to the fact that settlement south and west of the treaty line was increasing by leaps and bounds with the consequent necessity of requiring more of the govemor'ts attention to its increasingly complicated administrative needs. Furthermore, the people in this eastern section, stimulated by the prospects of a large population were beginning to agitate for advance into the second stage of government. 58 This would bring a representative legislature, and, quite obviously, in the primitive stage of transporta, tion, the vast Territory could hardly be expected to send represen-­ tatives to a single seat of government. Another factor added its stimulus to the need for a division in the form of· that part of the Jay Treaty providing for the delivery of the trading--posts long held as hostage by the British. Just what this meant in the routine of governing the Territory is indicated in this same communication by Sargent to headquarters at Washington, in which he detailed his difficulties in organizing the new and strange country around Detroit into a county called Wayne, and in inaugu, rating the work of settling its complicated land problems. The situa, tion was made doubly delicate by the necessity of gaining the allegi, ance, respect, and trade of the people in and near Detroit in the face of the well,known hostility of the British and the Indians that ultimately culminated in the difficulties of 1811 and 1812. In addi, tion there were the problems presented by the posts of Michilli, mackinac and by the Grand Portage. The former was "~a place of great Consequence to the Fur and peltry Trade,, whose ""Im. and Exports are from the best information I have had nearly as valuable

58Winthrop Sargent to Secretary of State, September 30, 1 i96, ihid. 168 OHIO HISTORICAL CoLLECTIONS through the Medium as by the Falls of St. Mary''s."" Here, in addition to the ordinary civil problems, it was necessary to increase the annual bounty of the Indians, which was too small. At the Grand Portage where ""every Inch of Ground . ·.. has been enclosed [by the British N..orthwest Company] that might admit of building stores &c under various and frivilous pretenses," it was quite necessary for the United States to determine whether the international boundary would leave the Portage in its own jurisdiction. In addition to these matters, there was the old problem of settling the land claims of the inhabi, tants of the French settlements of Kaskaskia, Cahokia, Vincennes, and other villages in the interior. It is rather amusing to list the many embarrassments resulting from this delay in dividing the Northwest Territory. Sargent, in a petition to the Senate in 1794, praying for compensation for acting in the office of governor for so many years while receiving only the salary of the secretary, gave as the reason for his request ""that the Duties of the Secretary are very much nullified and increased by the Division of the western Territory into Districts and Counties,,, thus requiring increased attention. 59 Turner was sent out to the Illinois and Wabash country in 1794 to hold the General Court for the first time since 1790, and became involved in such executive usurpa, tion at Kaskaskia and Vincennes in creating county,seats, in meddling in Indian affairs, and in making appointments, that he was rebuked by St. Clair. 80 A session of the Legislature summoned by St. Clair to meet at Marietta in September of 1794, failed because of the impossibility or unwillingness of Turner and Symmes to ascend the river.81 When Sargent went to Detroit in 1796 to establish American rule, he took the records of the Territory with him, with the result that, when St. Clair unexpectedly returned to the Territory, an undignified quarrel broke out over the lack of cooperation between the two officials, an affair which embittered their relations from that time on.82 In the spring of 1795 Symmes responded to St. Clair,s summons for a meeting of the Legislature at Marietta only to find

69Papers concerning Sargent's claim for services as acting governor during St. Clair's absence, ibid.. 00Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, Il, 34 S-4 7, 348-SO. 81Address to the Legislature, May 29, 179S, ibid., 3 S S-56. 92See correspondence between St. Clair and Sargent in 1796. Ibid., 404-06, 413-17, for letters from St. Clair; Sargent MSS. for letters from Sargent. FRONTIER OHIO 169 that St. Clair had gone to Pennsylvania during the winter and was unable to get back on account of illness. 63 When the Legislature :finally met, St. Clair apologized for the trouble he had caused by stating: The great extent of the Territory, the distance between the places of our respective residences, the difficulty of assembling at any point at a given time, while the only accomodation is by the river, which can not always be ascended, and often not without danger from the savages, must necessarily render our appointed meetings precarious, and will, I hope, excuse my requesting your attendance at that time, without previous notice. 64 In 1796 St. Clair was obliged to leave the Territory and return to Pennsylvania in order that Sargent"s work at Detroit and Michilli, mackinac might be legal because the secretary could exercise the functions of governor only in the absence of the latter from the

Territory. G5 Again in 1797, for the same reason, St. Clair was pre, vented from returning to the Territory because Sargent had been ordered by the Government to the Illinois country. 68 But the chief embarrassment was occasioned by the difficulty of holding the Territorial General Court often enough, especially in the remote counties. The Act of August 30, 1788, as amended by that of November 4, 1790, required an annual meeting of the Gen, eral Court in each county.fl'f As St. Clair said, ~•while that Law con, tinued in force few or no Circuits were made. ,,es This was one of the reasons why St. Clair had advocated a division into three terri, tories in 1790. He wrote that the judges ""have to meet from such distances of place, that the smallest accident may prevent a session,

63John Cleves Symmes to Dayton, June 17, 1795, in Beverley W. Bond, Jr. (ed.), The Correspondence of John Clever Symmes. 64Address to the Legislature, May 29, 1795, in Smith, Life and Ser.Jicer of St. Clai,., II, 356. 65Letters from St. Clair to Sargent of August 13, 28 and September 6, 1796, ibid., 404-06. When St. Clair heard that Sargent had gone to Detroit, he decided to proceed to that place to make valid Sargent's acts. When he heard that Sargent had gone on to Michillimackinac, he g:,.ve up trying to follow him and went to Pittsburgh, giving as his excuse the necessity of his attendance of the public land sales. 66St. Clair wrote to the secretary of state from his home in Pennsylvania in September, 1797, that if he returned to the Territory, some difficulties might arise from his being in the execution of the functions of Governor in one part of the Country while I should be performing them in another because the power of the Secretary, in that respect, does depend by law upon the absence of the Governor from the Territory. St. Clair to the Secretary of State, September 11, 1797, St. Clair MSS., Box 8. 8'1Pease, Laws of the N orl.hwe.rt Territory, 11, 34-35. e&st. Clair to Secretary of State, December 2, 1799, St. Clair MSS., Box. 8. 170 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS and that hangs up all the Business for perhaps twelve months. As a result defendants have taken advantage of these delays by removing all their cases into the upper Courts. .,.,. A situation so manifestly unsatisfactory could not long exist. The Government, being unwilling to indulge in the expenditure entailed by division, exponents of reform were obliged to propose less sweeping measures. One of these was a proposal by St. Clair of an increase in the number of judges of the General Court. Another was offered by the Bar of Cincinnati when it petitioned Congress, late in 1789, for a repeal of the statute of limitations, which required that actions must be commenced in court within from two to six years of the time of the origin of the action.10 This latter was, of course, opposed by St. Clair who distrusted such radical departures from time,honored legal customs, but he was forced to acquiesce in 1795 when the judges of the General Court themselves, in their legislative capacity, successfully espoused the repeal in order to relieve the congestion of their own courts. n Another reform in the same direction was a proposal to remove the requirement that two judges should hold a court, leaving it to a single judge, if necessary. Congress by Act of May 8, 1792, authorized such procedure,72 but it was opposed by St. Clair because it would mean that great land speculators like Symmes and Putnam would exercise complete con, trol over cases in which they were interested, because practically every land case in Hamilton and Washington Counties involved one or the other of these men. 13 St. Clair was ultimately successful in his position when the Act of August 1 5, 179 5', restored the requirement that two judges con, stitute a General Court in Washington and Hamilton Counties, although one judge might sit in cases in all the other counties then formed or to be formed. 14 This, however, did not escape a protest from the attorneys of Cincinnati who denied the right of the Legis,

68St. Clair to Ross, January 21, 1789 (1790), ibid., folder 3, 1773-1789, pp. 216 218. 70Ibid. ' 'll.Pease, Laws of Northwest Temtory, 2SS. 72Richard Peters (ed.), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of .A.meric«. (Boston, 1848), I, 286. 13See St. Clair's letters on this subject to the Secretary of State, of December 14, 1794, and December 2, 1799, St. Clair MSS., Box 10, no. 10 5; Box 8 ( no number). 7'Pease, L,zws of Northwest Territory, 157. FRONTIER OHIO 171 lature to override the Act of Congress of 1792, giving the power to one judge.Ts

Still another measure which relieved the situation was the Act of June 6, 1795, which increased the number of terms of the General Court from one to two in Washington and Hamilton Counties, and 1 permitted such an increase in the other counties ""if occasion require. "" • But these were all mere expedients. The fundamental need was for a division of the Territory. Sargent kept hammering away at this is his reports to the Government. In August, 1797, he wrote to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, ""This Government has actual-­ ly become too unwieldy for all the attentions of any one even the greatest man. ""n He pointed out that trouble was brewing in Detroit among different factions of the citizens and called for close federal supervision, and difficulties in the Illinois country required his imme-­ diate attendance. But it was not until early in 1798 that Congress, at last, began to show signs of realizing the deplorable situation in the Northwest. In January, 1798, during the meeting of Congress, Senator James Ross of Pennsylvania wrote to St. Clair that all those with whom he had conversed concerning division thought it should be provided for in the present session. However, the difficulty of getting measures adopted which would increase government expenditure would pro~ ably prevent such necessary action.18 This was the time of the French war scare and Congress and Federalist politicians were too busy creating a navy and increasing the army to waste money on govem-­ ment of frontier people. Nothing, therefore, was done at this session of Congress. At the next session, in the fall of 1798, more progress toward a division was made. Congress was beginning to sense the situation, and Ross, the Territory"s staunch defender in the Senate, wrote to Thomas Worthington of Chillicothe that ""there is a serious

""This protest is to be found in the Sargent MSS. 'MPease, Laws of the Northwest Territory, 1S7. 'T7Sargent to Secretary of State, August 14, 1797, ihid.. Sargent had just returned from setting up the new counties of Adams and Jefferson. 78James Ross to St. Clair, January 10, 1798, St. Clair MSS. 172 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS disposition here to promote the prosperity of your country and to incur all proper expense for that purpose. ''711 In accounting for the interest of Ross in the Territory, it is probably well to emphasize that reform in the Territories, in so far as Congress was concerned, was impeded, no doubt, just as much by the lack of a leader for the reform measures, as it was by the parsimony of Congressmen. Senators and Representatives, as a rule, were acquainted with the conditions and needs of their own con, stituency and little else. The territories were, therefore, at a dis, advantage until they obtained their own delegate or some Congress, man found cause to be interested in the Territory. Such an interest Ross of Pittsburgh found in his land investments in southeastern Ohio.80 It is quite logical, therefore, that on January 15', 1798, Ross was made chairman of a special Senate committee ""to con, sider whether any division or other alteration ought to be made in the government of the Territory."81 Two different proposals of reform were considered by this committee, one to divide the Terri, tory into two or more territories with a separate judiciary in each, the other to increase the number of territorial judges without any further alteration in the territorial government. Because of the greater economy of the latter measure, Ross felt that it had the better chance for success.82 A bill for the enlargement of the court was, therefore, introduced into the Senate on February 11.83 It increased the number of judges from three to six, raised their salaries and authorized appeals to the Federal Supreme Court. Ross' part was well performed and he was able to get the bill through the Senate; but in the House, where the Northwest had fewer friends, it failed.84 With the meeting of the next session of Congress, 1799, 1800, forces were at last brought to bear in such a way as to make the efforts for reform successful. New factors had entered the situation, the most important of which was the expressed desire of the people

79Ross to Worthington, February 9, 1799, Thomas Worthington MSS. (in Ohio State Library). 80Ross was one of the founders of Steubenville. See ante, page 82. His voluminous corres­ pondence with Worthington is largely concerning land matters in Ohio for which the Chillicothe leader was his agent. 81.A.nnals c;f the Congress of the United States . •.. (Washington, 18Sl ), S Cong., 3 Sess., 2202. 82Ross to Worthington, February 1, 1799, Worthington MSS. 83.-fnnals, S Cong., 3 Sess., 2217. 8'Jhid., 2221; Ross to Worthington, March 6, 1799, Worthington MSS. FRONTIER OHIO 173

in the western counties for a division of the Territory. The reason for this was the attainment by the Territory of the second grade of government and the convening of the :first Territorial Legislature in 1799. Such an advance in status might please the more thickly popu, lated and the more American part of the Northwest within the Wayne Treaty line, but the western counties had no desire to share in the expense, and their French majorities cared nothing for the share they were being given in their government. Sargent had predicted this quite accurately in 1796 when the Americans of the Ohio were beginning to agitate for the second stage. Sargent wrote that the people of Detroit, Vincennes and the Illinois country, ""would . . . if left to their own Election infinitely prefer remaining a Colony of the United States. If they should at all comply with a requisition for Delegates to a general assembly of the Territory [ the second stage of government], it would be with very Great Reluctance, because of the expense and very great Fatigue"" resulting from the great distances they would have to travel to Cincinnati. 85 By 1800 these inhabitants had already experienced considerable inconvenience, in connection with the two sessions of the Territorial Legislature during 1799. During the winter of 1799--1800, therefore, a petition of protest to Congress was drawn up by the people of Vincennes. It was sent to St. Clair in February and forwarded by him to William Henry Harrison, territorial delegate, who submitted it to Congress in March. The petition stated that the inhabitants live in a country 800 miles in length and 400 in breadth; that many of them have to go 600 miles to a Judicial Court; that immigrations are numerous; on which and other accounts they prayed a division of the Territory ... such as would throw them and the people of the Illinois country back into that kind of government from which the Territory at large has just emerged [i. e., into the first stage of colonial government].86 As St. Clair wrote to Harrison, ~~It may seem to Congress a strange request, but if their local situation is considered, their great distance, and the little connection or even intercourse, and the difficulty of that intercourse, it will not appear to be an unreasonable one . .,., Furthermore, he stated, the financial condition of the western

85Sargent to Secretary of State, September 30, 1796, Sargent MSS. 88Annals, 6 Cong., 1 Sess., S83; St. Clair to Harrison, February 17, 1800, in Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 489. 174 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS country was so primitive that it was estimated that the taxes that were required from these people to support the representative would actually ""exceed the amount of the specie circulating."" Under these conditions the petitioners regarded the second stage as an ""intolerable grievance. ""91 This time the Territory had in Congress better representation than ever. Where before there had only been Ross in the Senate, there was now an official territorial representative or delegate in the House to attend to the business of his constituency. This delegate, Harrison, upon his arrival at Washington, had immediately taken up territorial reform where Ross left off. In the first week of the session he got a committee appointed, of which he was chairman, to report whether any alterations were necessary in the judicial establishment of the Territory.68 On January 3, 1800, Harrison re, ported to the House Ross" bill which the latter had gotten through the Senate a year before,69 and which was now read twice and, on January 14, taken up by the House in Committee of the Whole preparatory to being passed.90 At this juncture, Harrison heard from the Indiana country, and the news was such as to cause him to make a radical change in his plan of procedure. It will be remembered that Ross"s bill was one that simply enlarged the personnel of the General Court and fell short of the desire of the governor in not increasing the personnel of the administrative department by creating a new territory. When, therefore, Harrison heard that the Indiana people no longer desired to share the new responsibilities required by continued incorporation in the Northwest Territory, he wrote to his fellow,Virginian, Nathan, iel Massie of Chillicothe, that he planned in a day or two to have the bill to increase the number of judges recommitted to the committee so that he might bring in a division bill to erect that portion of the Territory below a line drawn north from the mouth of the Great Miami into a separate government. This, he wrote, ""Vanderburgh [of Vincennes] informs me will be very agreeable to the people

fflJbiJ.. 88Annals, 6 Cong., 1 Sess., 193, 197-98. 88Ibid., 24S; Library, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. 90Annals, 6 Cong., 1 Sess., 374. FRONTIER OHIO 175' below '& can do no injury to those above but on the Contrary will be an advantage. '1"91 On January 30, therefore, on Harrison"s motion, Ross" bill was recommitted to Harrison"s committee, which was instructed to bring in a report on the division of the Territory into two distinct govern, ments divided by a line north from the mouth of the Great Miami River.82 On March 3, the report was made,93 but the wishes of the people on the Wabash for a return to the :first stage of government, however, were not entirely satisfied. It recommended that ""the western part may be permitted to go into the same stage of govern, ment as is now in use in said Territory [the second stage]." This meant that the people of the new territory would still be ""plagued"" with the expense of a legislature. Although the House passed the bill in this form, the Senate moulded it more into conformity with the desires of the people, by providing for a return to the first stage of government, with the stipulation that the Territory might again enter the second stage prior to the attainment of a population of five thousand adult males, if a majority of the freeholders wished it.~ This compromise, although meeting the wishes of the inhabitants of the Wabash and Illinois country, left the opportunity for the develop, ment of the desire for self,government which was sure to come when the French settlements in the Indiana and Illinois country had be, come sufficiently Americanized. For the time being, however, these settlements might continue, to use Sargent"s words, sufficiently ""up, right and docile in their Dispositions-square in their mind and manners and tolerably contented and happy but not enough however industrious. ""95 Thus was born Indiana. Thus also was reform brought to the Ohio country. In the judicial branch the General Court was now able to serve an area more in conformity with its powers. In the executive department, the problems of the Indians, land claims, civil and military appointments in remote regions, now no longer drew the governor"s attention away from the problems of the upper

91Williarn Henry Harrison to Massie, Ja..'luary 17, 1800, in David M. Massie, Nathaniel Massie, a Pioneer of Ohio• ..• (Cincinnati, 1896), 156. fnA.nnals, 6 Cong., 1 Sess., 507. 93Jbid., 1320-21, Appendix. See Map no. IV. 94U. S. Statu.tes at Lr,ge, II, 58-59. 95Sargent to Secretary of State, September 30, 1796, Sargent MSS. 176 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Ohio. And in the legislative department there was now a General Assembly, representing a more or less homogeneous community, un, disturbed by an unenthusiastic and unsympathetic ""foreign.,., element. The ""Ohio.,., Legislature could now devote its attention to constructing its own legislative fabric, to enjoying its own quarreling and elec, tioneering in its own way. The struggle for reform was not over. It now entered upon a new phase as the people of the Ohio country bestirred themselves to obtain the utmost of territorial reform, i. e., statehood. CHAPTER VI THE STATEHOOD CONTEST-CINCINNATI PHASE

1 The Cincinnati Origins of the Statehood Movement.

TATEHOOD, to the frontiersmen, meant the utmost of self, government attainable within the Union. They were sensible S enough not to want more than that. It meant that legislating, i. e., the exercise of the ""police powers,,, was removed from the jurisdiction of any veto, executive or Congressional. The veto of the Supreme Court, seemed, of course, quite remote. It meant complete release from the executive appointment of all the minor officers, from the judges of county courts to the tax collectors and justices of the peace in the to\vnships. And, :finally, it meant a participation in federal councils on terms of equality with the rest of the states of the Union: absolute equality in the Senate and more or less pro, portional in the House and in the election of the President. The desire for statehood was, of course, the natural fruit of frontier experience, and originally manifested itself where the first white settlers set foot on the farther side of the Ohio in the country near what is now Steubenville. One should never forget that the first movement for statehood beyond the Ohio was a spill,over of the statehood movements of the Revolutionary War.1 In March, 1785, squatters from Pennsylvania and northwestern Virginia,. finding Pennsylvania and Virginia none too cordial to their W estsylvania statehood venture, moved across the river to more congenial soil and summoned a convention to form a state constitution under the Ordinance of 1784.2 The desire for statehood in Ohio, therefore, was born of a situation similar to that which produced the first conven, tions for self,government at Watauga in 1769; in Transylvania in 1775'; in the state of Franklin in 1784; and in Kentucky in 1784.

1Frederick J. Turner, "Western State Making in the Revolutionary Era," in A.mmcan Historical Re:,iew (New York, 189S-), I (189S), 70-87; 2Sl-69. ltfhe text of the advertisement for this convention is in William Henry Smith, The Lif• tmJ Publu Ser:,icu of Arthur St. Clair. • • • ( Cincinnati, 1882 ), II, 5. 177 178 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

This Ohio convention apparently met and created the machinery that led to the election of state officers. But its constituency was soon wiped out by a federal army operating from Fort Mclntosh.1 It was not long in reappearing. When the first permanent frontier beyond the Ohio was established in 1788 and 1789, the desire for statehood appeared immediately, and then in the most vigorous region of trans,Ohio settlement, viz., Cincinnati. It is to Governor Arthur St. Clair himself that one is indebted for testi, mony of the :first appearance of this agitation. He had been in the Territory a little over a year when he wrote to his friend Ross that the western people ""have already got it into their heads to pass by the second stage of the temporary Government which was con, templated for that Country, and go forward at once to show that their numbers entitle [them] to become an integral part of the United States.'' St. Clair, of course, felt that the time was not not yet quite ripe for such action, but he recognized that the event was not far off, and therefore, he found it best to be prepared for it. The governor"s main interest was, therefore, ""so to contrive it as that a Majority of the People in each [proposed state] may be friendly to the Government of the United States."" For this reason he pro, posed that the divisions be so gerrymandered as to annex the politically questionable Virginia Military District to the loyal in, habitants of Hamilton County.4 But this early desire for statehood naturally subsided during the Indian wars, as population was held back and uncertainty pre, vailed even as to the continuance of white settlement. No sooner, however, was this uncertainty dispelled by the victory over the Indians at Fallen Timbers in 1794 than the frontier resumed its normal expanding life, and once again murmurs for statehood began to be heard, first in a crude, incoherent form, but slowly taking on organization and greater effectiveness. Early rumblings of republican zeal were heard during 1794, even before Wayne"s victory. The frontier wilderness was not so remote that it did not catch some echoes of the French Revolution.

3Randolph C. Downes, "Ohio's Squatter Governor," in Ohio State Archaeologial and Historical Society Quanerl1 (Columbus, Ohio, 1887-), XLXXX (1934), 273-82. 4Arthur St. Clair to Ross, January 21, 1789 ( 1790 ), St. Clair MSS. (in Ohio State Library), folder 3, 1773-1789, pp. 216, 218. Sec Map no. IV. FRONTIER OHIO 179

It is not strange that the human products of frontier equality should feel a kinship with brothers in another land who were likewise apostles of a new equalite. The grand jury of Hamilton County dined Judge George Turner and other officials in April, and at this festivity ••many patriotic and republican toasts were drunk. "'16 July 4 was celebrated by a band of ""free hearts and willing spirits"" from the Army and- Hthe City."" Towards evening they sat down to a ""handsome and plentiful dinner"" where was served ""juicy high,flavored venison.,., and •• delicious turtle of the Ohio. .,., The fol, lowing toasts were drunk: ""The Sans Culottes of France and the cause of Liberty triumphant.•• 0 Heads of Departments, may they feed well, physick well, pay well, cloath well and carry well ... 0 A mixture of Lake water with Kentucky whiskey for the use of the Legion.••• In November, ""Dorastius"" delivered himself of a tedious dis, course against the use of the term •·esquire,.,., citing against it the action of England in originating it and of France in abolishing the term.7 By January, the republican spirit of ""Dorastius"" could no longer contain itself. He broke out into another homily, directed against the tyranny of the government of the Territory which he claimed ..to be oppressive, impolitical, and altogether improper, and in its leading principles intirely opposite to those rights and privaledges belonging to free men, & which no power on earth has any just right to deprive them of."' Citing Thomas Paine, the ancient republics of Greece, and the experience of the American colonies, he argued that the requirement of the Ordinance which delayed statehood until the population of one division reached 60,000 was opposed to natural law, a philosophy popular with the frontiersmen. 1.•It may be observed,.,., he said, ••and also proved by incontestable facts, that to constitute a civil government doth not require any particular number of people as this rule demands."' ""Dorastius"' complained against the Militia Law, the Five,dollar Law, the large size of the counties, and concluded, ~•we do no; enjoy the rights of free men ( to wit) that of choosing our rulers and making our laws. . . . Would

5Centinel of the N onh-W,rtern Territory (Cincinnati), April 26, 1794. 8Ihid., July 12, 1794. 7Jbid., November 29, 1 i94. 180 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS it not be better to have a government of our own forming, and to support it in our own mode than to be subject to the present one?",s This tirade inaugurated the movement of protest which led to the petitioning of the Legislature in 1795' for a reform in the law for the trial of small causes.9 Some ardent republican spirits even went so far as to deny the right of the Legislature to meet at all. This is not surprising when it is realized that what was called a legislature in the :first stage of territorial development was made up of four members-a gov, ernor and three judges-all appointed by the President. ""Vitruvius, ,, in supporting this argument, lamented that ""a kind of stupor, and insensibility has seized the minds of the people,,, suggesting that it might be due to fear or to Hthe fact that so many hold offices.,., In denying that the Legislature about to meet had the right to legislate for the Territory, he declared it was usurping the natural right of the people to make laws for themselves. ""We shall be imposed upon, by our farcical aristocracy, as well as by our miserly whiskey drinkers. ,,io These sentiments found a ready echo in the republican toasts of the July 4 celebration in 1795'. On this occasion a toast was drunk to ""the old harlot of aristocracy-May she speedily be dunned out to the tune of Ca ira." Another was drunk to ""the people and elective government of the Territory-May they possess virtue, wisdom and :firmness to assert and maintain the indispensible rights of a free state. ,,u More effective, of course, was the agitation for the advance of the Territory into its second stage of government, the main feature of which was a popularly elected Assembly. But even here it is interesting to note that a movement to attain this object quickly transfarmed itself into one for statehood. According to the Ordi, nance, the second stage was to be attained ""so soon as there shall be :five thousand free male inhabitants of full age.,., in the Territory and proof thereof had been given to the governor. The center of this movement, in the beginning, was Hamilton County, whose rapid

8J!Jul., J:muary 31, 179S. 9See ante, pages 1 S9-60. 1oc,mtinel, March 28, 179S. llJbid., July 11, 179S. FRONTIER OHIO 181

growth was apparent to none more clearly than to itself. In June 1795, John Cleves Symmes, in complaining of the action of Congress in seeking to nullify all the previous laws of the Territory because they were not adopted strictly from the codes of eastern states, said that it was too late for the governor and judges to make a revision of the laws because it would not be long ""before the freemen of the Territory will rise in numbers to 5000, when the Government will be formed & the people make their own laws."'"'12 The leadership of Cincinnati in pushing this measure may be gathered from a par, enthetical remark of Winthrop Sargent"'s in his letter to the secretary of state in September of 1796, in which he wrote, ""The period can not be far distant when the Territory (or Hamilton county for them) will claim their house of general assembly." Notwithstanding the objections to this step, he continued, ""I have no Doubt that the Ambition of a few men of the County :first mentioned may and will make it the Govemor"'s Duty at a very early period to endeav, our to convene a General Assembly. "''13 When Sargent wrote these words, he undoubtedly had in mind the actions of a meeting of protest held in Columbia earlier in the year. At a meeting of a number of inhabitants held at the house of William Stanley on January 25, pursuant to public notice, Judge William Goforth was placed in the chair and a committee appointed ""to examine the said Ordinance and enquire into the grievances of the citizens.'' At a meeting held a week later the committee reported, in Goforth's rambling style, several columns of grievances prefaced by the declaration that ""the citizens of the North,Westem Territory, do by virtue of the aforesaid Ordinance sustain a deprivation of the rights of freemen; and that by the movements of the executive and legislative departments, they have been neglected, aggrieved and insulted." One of these insulting deprivations of the rights of free, men was the denial of the right of representation in Congress, which they claimed as a right guaranteed them by the Constitution of the United States, in setting down the basis of representation in Congress as one to every thirty thousand citizens. Other deprivations listed were the danger of judicial tyranny from Symmes, who, as

12John Cleves Symmes to Dayton, June 17, 1796, in Beverley W. Bond, Jr. (ed.), Tiu Con-espondence of John Cleves S7mmes (New York, 1926), l 71. l.SWinthrop Sargent to Secretary of State, September 30, 1796, Winthrop Sargent MSS., (in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Library). 182 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

"'the greatest land jobber on the face of the earth,.,., was interested in all the cases he judged; the infrequency of the meetings of the Legislature; and dependence of all offices on the governor"s pleas ... ure; and the general disrespect of the governor for the people.u. The meeting, however, in accepting this report and ordering it to be published, passed a resolution that, although their grievances were great, they should put up with them without further protest because in a few months the second stage of government would be reached and the people would make their own laws. The agitation in I 796 did not get a chance to develop into a statehood movement because of the expectation by the people of cooperation from the governor in assisting them into the second stage. However, this strong expectation was a premature one. Sar... gent and St. Clair were opposed to the second stage, or at least made no effort to ascertain whether the Territory contained the number of free males which would entitle it to the change. The year 1796 passed by without action, and, with the return of St. Clair to the Territory in 1797, it began to look as though nothing would be accomplished in that year. By November public opinion had reached such a point that the people were ready to take the initiative themselves, if the governor refused to act, a contingency that seemed about to be fulfilled. Confronted thus by difficulties, the people, in agitating for the second grade, quickly saw that the only alternative was the entire elimination of the governor. The result was the creation of a Committee of Corresponden~e originating in a series of popular meetings at Cin'cinnati, the first of which was probably held on November 7, 1797. In nine days the people met again at the Court House in Cincinnati, with Goforth in the chair. A committee of seven was appointed to correspond with the other counties of the eastern district of the Territory con, cerning the taking of a census, looking to statehood. The committee was also authorized to submit their plan for a census to a popular meeting on the first Wednesday in December. The members \Vere all good Republicans-Thomas Goudy, William McMillan, David 1 Ziegler, Robert Benham, Robert M"Clure and Goforth. :;

l'Centinel, February 20, 1796. 15Pamphlet Circular, November 16, 1797, St. Clair MSS., Box 8. FRONTIER OHIO 183

This census movement is significant because it is an example, so familiar by now, of the people"s gaining by direct and un... authorized action, what they presumed the government should have done for them. The committee met on November 27 with Goforth as chairman, and decided that the constables of each town... ship in Hamilton County, ""if willing,"" were to take the census at the time they \vere performing their annual function of ""taking in the number of taxable inhabitants. .,., In case any constable should refuse, the committee was authorized to appoint any ""good man"" who would undertake to do the business ""with cheerfulness ..,, As compensation the constables or agents were to receive nine dollars each, which was to be raised by popular subscription under the committee"s supervision.16 At a popular meeting held in Cincinnati a few days later, this procedure was duly approved, and it was decided to urge the same action on the other counties in the eastern district, and a circular letter was addressed to prominent citizens of Adams, Wayne, and Washington Counties. In this letter the committee made it quite plain that statehood was their object, by declaring that ""on applica ... tion to the honourable the Congress of the United States, we shall immediately obtain permission to form a permanent Constitution and State Government for ourselves."" In support of this contention, they claimed that the Ordinance of 1787 pledged admission as a state either upon the attainment of a population of sixty thousand, or, ""so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of the Confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a less number of free inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand . .,., The earlier admission, referred to in the second alternative, Congress was now in reality bound to grant, because the Federal Constitution, adopted after the Ordinance, by granting representation to the states on the basis of one repre... sentative to every thirty thousand inhabitants, had established a principle that should apply to citizens in the territories as well as to citizens in the states, because practically all the inhabitants of the Territory had been citizens of one state or another in 1788 when the Constitution was adopted. To use the words of the com,

l6Pamphlet Circular, November 27, 1797, ibid. 184 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS mittee, since the Constitution had been adopted ""while most of us were citizens of the States in union, and to the formation of which Constitution we gave our assistance, surely then it cannot possibly be conjectured that we have forfeited that right by becoming ad, venturers to this Territory.'" The committee urged their corres, pendents to effect a general meeting of the citizens of their counties to consider these matters and to submit the results to the central committee at Cincinnati as soon as possible.17 Simultaneously, a second letter was drawn up entitled an ""Ad, dress to the Citizens of the different Counties of the Eastern District of the North Western Territory,"' which pointed out that ""the happy period is drawing nigh, when the citizens of this Territory shall again be re,instated into those rights and privileges which they formerly enjoyed as citizens.,., The committee asked their fellow, citizens whether, since they ""have been deprived of those inestimable blessings, which flow from a government chosen by the people, a considerable time, ought all not therefore to exult at the idea, of having a competent number of free inhabitants to entitle us to a full representation in Congress?"' The letter, like its predecessor, described the claim to statehood on the basis of the attainment of a population of thirty thousand. The citizens were further reminded of the dangers they had undergone in taming the wilderness, and of the service they had rendered the United States in subduing the Indians and raising the price of public lands. ""We can therefore," the document concluded, ""with the greatest propriety step forward and demand our rights, being confident that the Honorable the Congress of the United States, will not withhold, but grant them with pleasure. ,,is The attitude of St. Clair towards these proceedings can well be imagined. Upon being invited to dinner by the committee in June, 1798, the governor declined to accept the invitation, unless the committee ""should state to the Governor explicitly, the nature of their organization-the purposes they have in View, and ho\v, and by whom they were appointed; together with the measures that 17Circular Letter, December 6, 1797, ihid. 18Address to the Citizens, December 6, 1797, ibid. FRONTIER OHIO 185 have been pursued for accomplishing the objects that have been contemplated. ''19 This intendeo rebuke was accepted as such by the members of the committee, who replied that "~his Excellency must have had an unjust representation both of our organization and views ..,, Without mentioning statehood, they repeated the earlier claim for full rep re, sentation in Congress, and defended their proposal to hold a census. 20 The reply was, in effect, an abandonment of the committee "s object of attaining statehood. The whole theory underlying the committee's action was flatly opposed to St. Clair"s interpretation of the relationship of colonies to the mother country. The committee was elected, they claimed, by meetings of citizens and acted on their interpretation of their rights as citizens-not discriminating, of course, between citizens of the Territory and citizens of the United States. St. Clair, on the other hand, believed that the people, by removing into the territory, had accepted the terms of the Ordinance and, therefore "~ceased to be citizens of the United States and became their subjects.""21 They forfeited their right to the equal protection of the laws, and could not assume any of the rights of citizens, until the Territory became a state. This conception of St. Clair's was not unknown to the in, habitants, for Goforth, in his list of grievances in 1796, had com, plained that the governor appears to look down upon the citizens of the North,Western Territory, ( they being stripped of their elective powers) he speaking of them, seems cautiously to avoid the common and respectful appellation of inhabitants, or citizens, and with great art, and in a diminutive way makes use of the term Settlers.22 The governor found further excuse for, if not a justification of, this constitutional theory of the frontier in his well,known con, viction that its people were incapable of governing themselves. Although the movement for statehood was a failure at this time, St. Clair immediately took steps to have an enumeration made, in order to determine whether the Territory was entitled to entry into the second stage of government which required a total popula,

19St. Clair to Rohen M'Clure, Secretary of the Cincinnati Committee of Correspondence, June 14, 1798, ihid., Box 13, no. 118. 20committee to St. Clair, June 14, 1798, ihid.., Box 12, no. 23. 21St. Clair to Oliver Wolcott, 1795, in Smith, The Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 383. f-2Centinel, February 20, 1796. 186 OHIO HISTORICAL CoLLECTIONS tion of five thousand free white males. St. Clair"s plan is shown clearly in a letter written by Peter Audrain on November 1, 1798, to the governor, in which Audrain reported that, in obedience to his excellency's orders, magistrates of each township had been instructed to take a census of Wayne County. 23 This enumeration proved that the required population existed, and sometime before December 13 the governor issued a proclamation for an election of members of the Lower House of the Territorial Legislature.24 The first meeting of these representatives was held on February 4, 1799, for the nomi, nation of members to the Council, and in the fall of the year the House and Council met to draw up Ohio"s first representative legislative program.

2 The Gerrymander of St. Clair and the Politicians of Cincinnati and Marietta.

Statehood was still in the future and signs soon began to appear that did not augur well for its speedy consummation. One was the strange recession of the ardor of Cincinnati for the cause. For almost ten years Cincinnati had been the center of this spirit; why should its inhabitants now seek to withdraw? Briefly, the answer is this. The second stage of government meant, as has been seen, dissatisfaction in the Indiana and Illinois country, and, therefore, brought a division of the Northwest Territory by the creation of Indiana Territory in 1800. And division of the Territory by a line close to the Great Miami meant political ruin for Cincinnati, for by placing this self.. conscious metropolis at the extreme southwest comer of the new Territory it was automatically eliminated from ever being the political center, the capital, of the commonwealth. Cincinnati vigorously opposed the creation of Indiana Territory. It all came out rather abruptly in the debate in Congress in 1800 over the bill that created Indiana Territory and transferred the capital of the Northwest Territory to Chillicothe. On May 3, in the midst of the debate in the House, John G. Jackson, Representative

23Peter Audrain to St. Clair, November 1, 1 i98, in Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, ll, 434-3S. kSt. Clair to Joseph Parks, December 13, 1 798, i/,iJ.., 4 36-3 7. FRONTIER OHIO 187 from Virginia, suddenly moved to postpone the bill until the first Monday in December next. His motion, he explained, ""was grounded on a belief that many of the people of that Territory had no knowl, edge or desire that this division should take place,"" a situation of which he had been informed by a ""respectable gentleman"" who resided in the Territory.= William Henry Harrison, the territorial delegate, immediately arose in opposition and informed his colleagues just what Jackson "s motive was. He said:

The information the gentleman had stated came from a person who W3.s interested, residing near Cincinnati, which, although now ; the seat of government, would not continue so in case of a division. He knew the in, formation to be inaccurate; he believed nine,tenths of the people were in favor of it, among whom were a great number of the Legislature.28 How truly this colloquy represented the actual facts in the case is revealed by the series of toasts drunk at the July 4 cele, bration in 1800 at the meeting of ""a number of real republicans"" at Ziegler"s house in Cincinnati. Along with toasts to ""a sudden transmutation of our territory into a state.,, and to the total annihi, lation of Hthe pernicious seeds of aristocracy,"" they drank to ""Mr. Jackson, who made a motion to postpone the division of our territory. ""27 Cincinnatians were thus in a very precarious situation. They did not oppose statehood, indeed, they very much desired it, but they also, quite naturally, wanted their city to be the capital of the new state. If there must be a choice between the two it might pay to delay statehood, if such action would be beneficial in accomplishing the major object. This is precisely what '\Vas causing the growing coolness toward statehood in Cincinnati. Having failed to prevent the creation of Indiana Territory Cincinnati set about effecting a new division of the Northwest Territory. If the Great Miami could be made the center of a state instead of a part of the boundary all would be well. In other words, gerrymandering, of a sort, must be the order of the day. In arrang, ing these gerrymandering plans, Cincinnatians, of course, would have to seek assistance from other sources. This they immediately

2SAnnal.r of the Congreu of tlu United Suus. . . . (Washington, 18Sl ), 6 Cong., 1 Sess., 698-99. 26Jbid.. "'1Th• Wtrstern Sn .me Hamilton Gt&Utte (Cincinnati), July 16, 1800. 188 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS set out to obtain, and the first object of their solicitations was St. Clair. This estimable gentleman had long been in favor of the very kind of a gerrymander that the Cincinnati boosters desired. Back in 1790, as has been noted, when statehood first threatened, St. Clair recommended to the Government a new division whose authors should ""so ... contrive it as that a Majority of the People in each [state] may be friendly [Federalist] to the Government of the United States.'' The Muskingum Valley promised to be Federalist, the Scioto Valley, Republican, and the Miami also Federalist. The above object could, therefore, be accomplished, St. Clair claimed, Hby throwing those two [Mus1{ingum and Scioto] into the same District [by which one would couJnterpoise the other at the worst. ''28 Note the arrangement: The Scioto River would become the boundary line between two states, one centered about the Muskingum River, the other about the Great Miami. This was just what Cin, cinnatians wanted. But note the price that went with it. St. Clair wanted this in the interest of Federalism and later to delay state, hood; Cincinnati was anti--Federalist and in favor of immediate state, hood. Here was a dilemma; how could it be solved? In order to emphasize this incompatibility, it is well at this point to study the motivations of the guardians of the territorial destinies. Both Sargent and St. Clair were followers of the paternal, istic theory of colonial government. To them the existence of a con, servative well,trained group of citizens like Rufus Putnam and his New Englanders could act as a nucleus around which to build a stable community on the frontier. Men of wealth, training, property -such were needed to guide the destinies of a free government. Until there were sufficient of these the territory must be cared for by such ""wise men out of the East" as could be induced to come west. Thus Sargent wrote in 1797, upon the occasion of the revival of the statehood movement in Cincinnati by McMillan and others. ""It [statehood] should be delayed till we acquire another Form than can be [MS. obscure] with men as generally first settlers, or frontier people & until the majority of the Inhabitants be of such

!!SSt. Clair to Ross, January 21, 1789 (1790), St. Clair MSS., folder 3, 1773-1789, pp. 216, 218. See Map no. IV. FRONTIER OHIO 189 character & property as may insure national Dependence & national Confidence . .,., Sargent repeated the thought that he had little faith ""in the national attachment of the people from the Indian Line quite up to the new England Settlements upon Ohio Company Lands [ Hamilton and Adams Counties ]-many of them are not the very best of a neighboring state of Doubtful politics. ""29 Similarly St. Clair wrote in 1799, repeating his suggestion of 1790, that every effort should be made to divide the Territory into such divisions as would keep the people ""in the colonial state for a good many years to come. ""30 Again St. Clair showed his lack of confidence in his ""subjects"" by expressing the sentiment that ""a multitude of indigent and ignorant people are but ill,qualifi.ed to farm a constitution and government for themselves.""3J. Similarly, upon another occasion, the Governor declared that, ""frontiersmen, at best, have no leisure from the calls to provide for their future welfare, to employ their thought on abstruse questions of government and policy. "' 32 It is thus quite easily understood that the cooperation of St. Clair and the Cincinnatians on the basis of their common desire for a gerrymander, nevertheless, would make strange bed,fellows: St. Clair"s purposes and background were staunchly Federalist; the Cincinnatians were militantly Republican. But the cooperation was accomplished and the object now is to trace its amazing development. It is :first to be observed in a gradual rapprochement between St. Clair and the ardent frontier pioneer of southwest Ohio, William McMillan. There had been a time when this Cincinnati booster had been such a thorn in the side of the territorial authorities that Sargent had declared, ""If McMillan had been of my own appoint, ment I would have removed him because as a magistrate he is un, pardonably negligent. "" 33 Sargent had again written of McMillan in 1797 that as an attorney, he was, no doubt Hof much popular Talent ... but it appears to me that neither his principles or his abilities suit him by any means for the office [ of territorial judge]­ he will be very forward amongst those who shall for good reason

!!9Sargent to Secretary of State, August 14, 1797, ihid. 30St. Clair to Ross, January 15, 1802, in Smith, Lifa and Services of St. Clair, 482. 81Jbii1.., 500. 32Jhi.J.. 33Sargent to St. Clair, February 12, 1793, ibid., Box 13, no. 176. 190 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS advance to make of this a new state. ''34 But late in 1799 it began to be apparent that McMillan was beginning to be persona grata to the authorities. Although he was not deemed fit to occupy the supreme bench of the Territory in 1797, in December of 1799 St. Clair, in his letter to Senator James Ross in favor of division or of an increase in the number of judges of the Territorial General Court suggested that, in case the latter alternative should be decided upon, McMillan be appointed to the bench. He had been ""spoken of to me in strong terms by the rest of the bar,,, the governor continued, "I.and I believe they will recommend him to the President. . . . He is a man of application, with a strong and not uncultivated mind ... has a fair reputation, and is in great esteem with the people.,,. A month later St. Clair wrote a letter to President Adams enclosing a request of the members of the Bar of Hamilton County for the ap, pointment of McMillan to the proposed post. St. Clair added his own recommendation, saying that "I.though he had rather leaned to, ward democracy, I can say with truth that he has always been moder-­ ate, and a single session in the assembly has entirely removed the prejudice he had in favar of a single branch of legislation, which he openly and candidly acknowledges. " 36 A failure of the measure to increase the number of judges, however, prevented the appointment from being made. During 1800, the Cincinnati program proceeded apace. In the first place, Cincinnatians had to hold out some direct benefits to the rest of the Miami Valley stretching as far into the back country as Dayton and beyond, for these people had little to gain from the mere fact of Cincinnati's becoming a capital. Secondly, something would have to be done for St. Clair to get him to readjust his views on statehood. And finally, direct negotiations would have to be made with the inhabitants of the Muskingum Valley to unite against the Scioto Valley in order to put over the gerrymander so much desired by Cincinnatians and by St. Clair. In accomplishing the first of these objects, the point of attack for Cincinnatians was Symmes. This gentleman naturally had no love for Cincinnati, which had become the leading city of the West

3'Sargent to Secretary of State, August 14, 1797, Sargent MSS. 35St. Clair to Ross, December, 1799, in Smith, Lif• 4nd Snvices of St. Clai-,, II, 483-14. 38St. Clair to President Adams, January 27, 1800, ibid., II, 488-89. FRONTIER OHIO 191 in the very face of his own deliberate attempt to locate and build the western metropolis or ~~the City.,., as he called it. The weaknesses in Symmes., armour were twofold. One was the precarious nature of his hold upon the popular mind and the other was the even more precarious claim he had to the support of the Federal Government, because of the practically complete illegality of his land titles. To many of his tenants in the Miami purchase, he was ·~the greatest land,jobber on the face of the earth. .,., To the Government he was a trespasser on the public lands. It was up to the Cincinnati politicians to capitalize on these weaknesses. How the Cincinnatians accomplished their purpose is to be ob, served in the statement by ··a Candid Elector"" in the Spy, describing the issues at stake in the territorial election of 1800.37 He complained, in the first place, that the provision by Congress that Symmes should donate to the Territory a township of land for the support of a college had been unjustly obstructed by Symmes, who had offered a township claimed by others and of an inferior quality and loca, tion.38 The writer averred that, consequently, our children who are now growing up in ignorance, would have been receiving the rudiments of education, and preparing themselves to become ornamental and useful to society, and no doubt many a genius that will now continue in obscurity, would have been rescued and prepared for eminent usefulness. . . . Instead of this they find their children growing up like weeds, without the benefits of cultivation. In the second place, voters were asked to consider the plight of the unfortunate people who had bought lands of Symmes beyond his patent and to •· act as guardians of their rights,., against the designs of those who, having received payment from them, ""will be anxious to prolong the time when they will be called on to refund it. .,, The popular effect of the agitation of these issues is quite ap, parent. The first made Cincinnati appear to be the exponent of pub, lie education and the def ender of the public purse, putting Symmes

:r.spy, September 24, 1800. 88For Symmes' si

on the unpopular side on both counts. The second made the Cincin, natians exponents of that policy so near to the pioneer heart, i. e -~ cheaper lands. Symmes had had his Miami Purchase greatly limited by Congress in 1794 for sufficient cause, but he had, nevertheless, continued to sell beyond the set limits.39 The Cincinnati leaders thus set themselves up as favoring the return to the Government of the lands sold by Symmes and a refund to the people of what purchase money had been paid. Although the people would, of course, have to pay the Federal Government they were hoping that the price would be reduced, as is shown by the fact that later, when McMillan was sent to Congress as territorial delegate, he sought to get Con, gress to grant a preemption to these settlers at one dollar an acre. In writing to a friend, he said, ""The senate will raise the price to two dollars; indeed, it was with difficulty that I got it through the house at one dollar.... There can be no doubt but the bill will pass, and I shall get it on terms the most favorable to the purchasers that are practicable. "'40 So much then for placating the Miami back country. The next step is to see how the Cincinnatians won St. Clair over from his Federalist views on delaying statehood. Obviously it would take powerful pressure to effect such a change in this staunch old Feder, alist, but such forces unfortunately did exist-forces merely taken advantage of by the Cincinnatians but not created by them. Briefly the situation was this. By 1800 St. Clair was in grave danger of being obliged to disappear from political life. He who had once had reason to aspire to the vice,presidency of the United States was now in danger of complete political eclipse. In 1788 he had hoped to make the governorship of the Territory the stepping, stone to advancement in national politics, by a S\veeping conquest of the Indians of the entire Ohio Valley, but by 1792 his defeat by the Indians and consequent humiliating subjection to investigation had blasted that hope. One alternative, then, was to return to political life in his own state of Pennsylvania, but the rising tide of Repub,

39See ante, page 6 i. '°Reprint of p:irt of a letter from McMillan to a friend, in SP,, March 2S, 1801. FRONTIER OHIO 193

licanism that swept that state into the support of Jefferson in the election of 1800 closed that refuge. The only remaining alternative, then, was to remain in the Ter, ritory, but even here the govemor"s position was getting uncom, f ortably hot as bickerings in his own party led to a movement among Federalists to replace him with Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecticut. President John Adams had already decided in favor of Tracy in November of 1800, when James Wilkinson wrote to his brother officer, St. Clair, that he had spoken to Tracy on the subject, remon, strating with him on the injustice which would be caused to St. Clair. Tracy assured Wilkinson that he felt the force of these ob, servations, but he ""observed that the place had been offered him by the President, and that if it was to be taken from [ St. Clair] he could see no impropriety in accepting it. ''41 The strength of the Federalist opposition to St. Clair is shown in the statement of Senator Ross that ""the majority of those in opposition to his reappoint, ment were Federalists. " 42 This, then, was St. Clair"s predicament; this \.Vas the force that was to warp his stand on statehood. The governor needed friends and needed them badly. He found them in Cincinnati. There was, of course, no formal conference, no definite agreement between these men of Cincinnati and St. Clair: the give and take simply developed. One :first notices the indefatigable efforts of the Cincinnatians to circulate petitions for signatures urging his reappointment upon the President. Charles Willing Byrd, the secretary of the Territory, wrote to Nathaniel Massie in August, 1800, to acquaint him ""with the nature of a Petition handed about at this time in Cincinnati, . . . to petition Congress, at the next session to continue the old man in office, and to censure the Inhabitants of Ross for their misrepresenta, tion of his conduct. '"43 Indeed Colonel John S. Gano of Cincinnati informed St. Clair in November that, in order to counteract Symmes' efforts to persuade citizens not to sign a petition in St. Clair's favor, he ""Visited every Family in Cincinnati and its vicinity except two-­ and to my Great satisfaction found them well disposed and as a

ilJames Wilkinson to St. Clair, November 23, 1800, St. Clair MSS., Box IS, no. 324. 42James Ross to Worthington, April 1, 1801, Thomas Worthington MSS. (in Ohio State Library). 43Charles W. Byrd to Massie, August 18, 1800, in David M. Massie, Nathaniel MtUsu, a Pi.onur of Ohio• ••• (Cincinnati, 1896), 161. 194 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Proof of their Fidelity upwards of 140 of them signed the petition in one Day . . . sent a man today [to} Hamilton, and Mill Creek and [MS. torn} and Columbia. .,.,.. At the same time, the Cincinnatians, having managed to get their own McMillan elected territorial delegate to Congress, had thus gotten the official voice of the Territory working in St. Clair,s favor among the politicians at Washington with telling effect. Com, ments from both factions testify to the energetic measures of Mc-­ Millan. Federalist Ross wrote to St. Clair after it was all over, ""Mr. McMillan"s conduct was judicious, manly, and decisive. He wrote not only to the Secretary of State, but to the Committee of the Senate who had the nomination under their consideration ..,.,'5 Repub-­ lican Senator Stevens T. Mason wrote Thomas Worthington February 5, 1801, ""Your representative, too, I believe, took great pains among the members out of doors . .,.,,s McMillan himself, of course, let St. Clair know just what he was doing for him. Thus he wrote in Janu, ary that Hall the charges against [you] ... will be easy got over excepting that of having received perquisites of office on Licenses which is considered a weighty objection. '''7 Nor should we interpret too strictly McMillan"s reassurance to St. Clair after the reappoint, ment took place, when he wrote, ""I do not wish you to entertain an idea that the subject of your reappointment was a trouble to me.,,~ The result was th~t Adams reluctantly consented to nominate St. Clair, but, in so doing, he took the unusual step of accompany, ing his nomination with the petitions and documents for and against St. Clair which had been presented to him.48 The opposition was able to get a special committee appointed to consider these papers,50 but this committee, however, reported in favor of his renomination, and this report was accepted by the Senate four days later.51 So it is fair to say that St. Clair was greatly beholden to Cin, cinnati for preserving him in office in 1800. It now remains to demonstrate the price the governor paid. And what a price it ~:as-

«John S. Gano to St. Clair, November IS, 1800, St. Clair MSS., Box 12, no. 69. 45Smith, Li/e and Services of St. Clair, II, 529. 461bia.,. B 1. • 7st. Clair MSS., Box 11, no. 12 3. '8William McMillan to St. Clair, March 6, 1801, ibid., Box 13, no. 126. ~Exacutiva Journal of the Se,wte, 6 Cong., 2 Sess., 363. w1bia.,. 364. MJhiJ., 32S, 376. FRONTIER OHIO 195

complete surrender to the statehood mongers! At the height of the campaign in 1802 over the acceptance of the Statehood Enabling Act of Congress, there appeared in the Spy (August 28 and Septem, her 11) two letters signed by ""An old Inhabitant of Hamilton,., ad, dressed to his ""Fellow Citizens... ., In boxes 7 and 8 of the St. Clair Papers at the Ohio State Library are copies of these same letters in St. Clair.,s handwriting signed ""an old Inhabitant of Hamilton ... ., It seems unkind to bring these letters to light after so many years, knowing how much of a humiliation it would have been to St. Clair to know that his little deception was held up to the public gaze. For, in these letters, the man who wrote to his friend Ross on January 15 that, if the Territory should become a state, ""this country is devoted to misery and ruin,"' 52 and he who had favored the re,division bill because it would ""retard the going into a State government,.,., now wrote that it ""would not have kept us back from being a State a single day."' In these letters, St. Clair sur-­ rendered himself completely to the schemes of the Cincinnati poli, ticians. He even borrowed some of his arguments from McMillan. ""Our bounds,"" said St. Clair, were originally [by the Ordinance of 1784] from a place opposite to the Great Kanhawa to the rapids of the Ohio-the Division that the Assembly pro• posed [ in the Re,division Act] was not greatly different, but more convenient,. and as soon as we have the number within these bounds we can claim to be a State, and in the meantime we shall form a part of the whole territory, but if we go into a state under the [Enabling] Act, we give that right up. St. Clair even descended to the same scurrilous personal abuse so characteristic of his opponents. Concerning some of the Republican candidates for office, he wrote: One of them [probably Byrd] is a Lawyer and an officer of Congress and has not it is believed a foot of land in the County-when his office is done-He can go to Chilicothey as he intended not long ago or anywhere else he pleases and leave nothing behind him-another [probably John W. Brown] is an english Taylor turned Parson to get a livelihood without work, ing who would hardly have been trusted to make a pair of britches in his own Country, and forsooth he must be making a constitution for us.53 Cincinnatfs campaign was moving steadily along. She had bid for the support of the people and had secured the support of the

152Smith, Lif• and Semcer of St. Cl.air, II, SSS. S3That St. Clair's identity was not completely concealed is shown by a letter signed by "A Contributor," in which the author asked why the "Old Inhabitant of H:imilton County" did not suffer his J12me to be known. The name of "The venerable old gentleman" would "Stand him more in account, than one hundred Big Hill tickets or a thousand puffs from the Feds at Pitmans,» Sp,, October 2, 1802. 196 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

governor. But a little more log--rolling was still necessary before the foundations could be called strong enough. The voice of the Territory was the Legislature, the control of which would enable the Cincinnatians to petition Congress for a division of the Territory along the much,desired lines. Having gained control of the Hamilton County delegation of seven, the leaders cast about for more votes to give them a strong majority. They found them in Washington County which was then controlled by the Ohio Company and its officers at Marietta. How neatly Marietta fitted into the Cincinnati scheme of things is shown by the description given by the secretary, Byrd, of ""the game which the people of this place and Marietta are playing for the downfall of Chillicothe. n According to Byrd, the members [of the Legislature] of Hamilton [Cincinnati] are to unite with the representatives of Washington [Marietta} in electing one of the Delegates from Muskingum [Marietta.] to a seat in Congress. In return for this favor, the members from the latter place are to give their influence to those of Hamilton in their endeavors to remove the seat of Government from Chil!i.­ cothe to Cincinnati. They are then to play into each others hands-the Delegate in Congress and the Governor are to use their joint influence to continue the old General in office; to effect a second division of the Territory; and to procrastinate the formation of the District into a separate State as long as possible. 54 Nor is one dependent upon Byrd~s partisan account for es, tablishing the fact of the existence of this plan. As the time ap, preached for the convening of the Legislature, McMillan wrote to Paul Fearing, prominent attorney at Marietta, that in the election by the Legislature of a delegate to Congress ""it is now a Matter of General Conversation that Mr. Smith will offer.~' John Smith was, as one has seen, an agent of Symmes and to allow him to represent the Territory in Congress would, according to McMillan, be detri-­ mental to the Territory as regards the college township and the settlers beyond the limits of Symmes' legitimate grant. For this and other reasons the election of Smith would mean that ""the extremes [Washington and Hamilton Counties] will sustain much injury.,, Therefore, ""both interest and policy require that the eastern and western Counties should unite in political matters.,, Hence~ he in, formed Fearing that, although he had himself intended to run, ""should a Member from Washington [County] be proposed that

54Massie, Ma.r.rie, 61-164. FRONTIER OHIO 197

·we \Vere sure of electing and it should (be] his wish or the wish of his friends that I should relinquish I shall do it most cheerfully.'' Above all, ""unanimity is indispensibly necessary between the upper and lo\.ver Counties . . . and . . . in effecting it no exertions shall be ""·anting ..,, 55 With the meeting of the Legislature in November, this proposed coalition became a reality when the two Houses met for the election of delegates to Congress. Two delegates \.Vere to be chosen, one to fill Harrison's unfinished term and one to succeed him. McMillan and Fearing \Vere elected and, in the light of the above letters of Mc-­ Millan to Fearing and of Byrd to Massie, there can be no doubt that this was the result of a bargain between the t\vo counties. But there is further evidence, for Smith, himself, ·wrote later: There is too much ground to suspect that the convention which took place between my colleagues [ the rest of the Hamilton County delegation} and some members from the more easterly counties were concerted, so far as my colleagues were concerned, in order to secure the election of Mr. McMillan, for the present session [ of Congress] ( of which they had cause to be doubtful) with views of effecting through his mediation, certain partial purposes, neither just to individuals, nor tending to the general interests of the territory." Additional evidence of this same bargain is demonstrated by the manoeuvres in the house bet\veen those seeking the election of but one delegate and those desiring two. An attempt to change the preliminary resolution providing for ""each election" to one providing for ""the election'' failed by a vote of 12--6; with all the Scioto representatives, except the erratic Elias Langham, in the minority, and with the Miami and Muskingum representatives, with the excep-­ tion of Smith, in the majority_:.. McMillan immediately proceeded to Washington to work for the cause-the reappointment of St. Clair and the redress of the grievances against Symmes. Apparently to seek a division of the Territory at this time was considered to be making haste too rapidly. Furthermore, the Legisla-­ ture that was to meet in 1801 had already been elected and its com-­ plexion as '\vas shown, was, as the result of the Cincinnati--Marietta log--rolling, favorable to the Cincinnati schemes. Therefore the coali-­ tion proceeded first to consider the question of the restoration of the

t.5McMillan to Fearing, October 16, 1800, Paul Fearing MSS., (in Mariett:i College Library). 56John Smith to the Editor, Sp-y, December 31, 1800. friHouss Journal, 1 Assemb., 2 Sess., 20-21. 198 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS seat of government to Cincinnati without a division of the Territory. Cincinnati, of course, had been deprived of this distinction by the creation of Chillicothe as capital in the Indiana bill passed in the spring of 1800. Efforts to attain the fulfillment of this feature of their program had been begun earlier in the year. On Aug1=1st 20, Byrd wrote to Massie from Cincinnati that the local politicians were seeking ""to get a Law enacted early in the next session of our Legis, lature to remove the seat of Government to this place . .,,r;s According to the Cincinnati leader, Jacob Burnet, the action of Congress in removing the seat of government to Chillicothe ""was considered by the most intelligent men in and out of the Legislature, as a mani, fest usurpation of authority, inasmuch as the Ordinance had vested the entire legislative power of the Territory in the General Assembly which then stood adjourned to meet at Cincinnati.""59 Burnet was right at least in respect to the feeling of the Legislature, for in their response to the governor"s address on November 5, they had com-­ plained that the right to determine the seat of government ""belongs exclusively to this legislature."' St. Clair, in reply, suggested that they still had the right .... either to continue it there [ at Chillicothe] or remove to a more convenient place. ""00 It soon became apparent that the attainment of Cincinnati"s object would not be possible without some further concession to Marietta. Accordingly, Smith was informed by one of his colleagues, John Ludlow, "cthat the members of this county [Hamilton] had agreed to unite with the members of Washington to hold the sessions in rotation at . . . Marietta and . . . Cincinnati. "'61 In return, ~"the members from Marietta declared and pledged themselves both in public and private conversations, that a house should be provided at their own expence. '" 62 As a result of these conversations, a bill to rotate the capital between Cincinnati and Marietta, beginning with the former, passed the Legislative Council on December 3.63 In the House, an amend, ment adding Chillicothe to the circuit was passed with the Cincin--

68Byrd to Massie, August 20, 1800, in Massie, Massie, 162. 69Jacob Burnet, Notes on the Early Settlen~nt of the North-Western Territory (New York and Cincinnati, 1847), 316. 80Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 512-14. 61Smith to the Editor, Spy, December 31, 1800. 82"A By Stander» to the Editor, ihul., January IS, 1801. 63Journal of the Legislative Council (Chillicothe, Ohio, 1800), 1 Assemb., 2 Sess., 5i. FRONTIER OHIO 199 natt delegation voting in the negative. Another amendment to :fix the capital permanently at Cincinnati failed. Finally, a motion to strike out the enacting clause was passed and the whole sordid business fell through. 64 The reason for abandoning the proposition was expressed by Smith, who objected to it '"'"from the principle of migration it went to establish. ,,ss How strong the pressure had been, however, in Hamilton County is shown by the fact that Benham, one of the delegation from that place, I.I.informed several members of the house, that if he had voted according to his own sentiments, he would have given his vote for Chillicothe; but his constituents had instructed him to vote as he had done . .,,68 It was not, therefore, until the fall of 1801 that the Cincinnati politicians were able to complete their program, viz., the restoration of the capital and the alteration of the division of 1800. This was accomplished by a pair of measures carried through the Territorial Legislature in the fall of 1801 by the Cincinnati--Marietta coalition. The :first was a bill declaring the assent of the Territory to an alter-­ ation of the Ordinance of 1787, and proposing that, subject to the consent of Congress, the boundaries of the states to be formed out of the Territory should be changed from the lines set down by the Ordinance of 1787 to the lines of the Scioto River and a line drawn north from Clark"s Grant.67 This was St. Clair,s old gerrymander, and made Marietta the center of the eastern state and Cincinnati the center of the middle one. The bill was railroaded through the Legislative Council in one day, on December 3, under the able direction of Burnet of Cincinnati.88 Its progress was slower in the House, but it was :finally passed on December 16 by a vote of 12--8, v..>ith the Cincinnati,Marietta coalition forming the majority and the entire Scioto delegation in the minority.69 As soon as the passage of this bill was assured, the bill for the restoration of the seat of government to Cincinnati was started on its way. On December 17 Jacob White of Cincinnati gave notice

MHouse Journal, 1 Assemb., 2 Sess., 108-09. essmith to the Editor, Spy, December 31, 1800. 4l6Smith to the Editor, ibid., February 4, 1801. e7Salmon P. Chase (ed.), Statutes of Ohio and thtJ Northwestern Temtory . ... (Cincin­ nati, 1833 ), I, 341-42. See Map no. IV. 68Journal of the Legislative Council, 2 Assernb., 1 Sess., 16-18. flilHouse Joumal, 2 Assemb., 1 Sess., 68. 200 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS that he would ask consent to bring in a bill to this effect. 70 This was granted by a vote which showed the same alignment of factions, and on December 21 the bill passed the House by the same vote. 71 Thus, the Cincinnati program was completely successful. More than that, the bargain with Marietta had brought the Muskingum city the prospect of becoming the capital of a state. Indeed, Marietta was to share the seat of government with Cincinnati while the old boundaries lasted, on the assurance of St. Clair himself. On the same day that the latter signed the bill giving the assent of the Territory to an alteration in the boundaries, he wrote to Dudley Woodbridge of Marietta, ""it is perfectly understood that, tho, the next Session is to be held at that place [Cincinnatil the succeeding Session is to be at Marietta. ,,n As a follow,up to this division measure, St. Clair proposed to Woodbridge that temporary territorial governments, each with its complement of three judges, be established within the new divisions because of ""the absolute impossibility that our Judiciary System be carried into effect, and that three Judges can distribute Justice, once a year, in every part of this excessively extended country.H73 This proposal would, of course, make both Cincinnati and Marietta capitals immediately. At the same time he proposed that petitions be sent to Congress praying that when statehood should eventually be attained these same divisions be adhered to. Finally, he proposed that ""it would be proper to write to some influential Characters in the front or back'" of the counties of Trumbull, Jefferson and Belmont in order to enlist their active support in all these measures. If any further proof be necessary of St. Clair"s being privy to the Cincinnati schemes, this letter provides it.

'ZOJnl., 6S. This shows definitely the untruth of Burnet's statement that the capital wu removed to Cincinnati because of mob violence in Chillicothe on December 24. Burnet Nou.r, 334. '11Jis4., 77. ffSt. Clair to Woodbridge, December 21, 1801, St. Clair MSS. (in Illinois State Historical Library). '18Jw!. CHAPTER VII THE STATEHOOD CONTEST-CI-IlLLICOTHE PHASE

1 The Chillicothe Program.

TTENTION must now be directed to another group of ambi ... tious politicians and city boosters in that part of Ohio des ... A tined to suffer if the Cincinnati measures were to take effect. This is Chillicothe, leading frontier town of the Scioto Valley, settled under the auspices of Nathaniel Massie and his fellow,Virgin, ians to develop their speculation in the lands of the Virginia Military District. Here consternation reigned as the Yankee alliance of Cin, cinnati and Marietta threatened to wrest from them the recently acquired capital of the Territory, and, more feared than that, the capital of the state soon to be created. Prior to this Cincinnati threat, Chillicothe had been the center of some agitation in the direction of self,govemment, but no more so than had Cincinnati. They had, in 1799, strongly protested against Governor Arthur_ St. Clair"s veto of the Legislature"s acts creating several new counties, alleging that such procedure was unwarranted in "-subjects entirely of a local nature in which the general welfare is not concerned. '"1 This had grown into a quarrel over the veto power in which the Legislature had requested that the governor in the . future sign or veto bills within ten days after receiving them, which St. Clair ungraciously said he was not obliged to do unless the Ordinance was altered.2 The issue of the governor"s right to dismiss a Legislature without its consent soon brought matters to the point where in retaliation, statehood began to be talked of in Chillicothe. The silence of Cin-­ cinnati and Marietta on this point is easily accounted for. On

1 Arthur St. Clair to the Legislature, December 19, 1799; November 24, 1800, in William Henry Smith, The Life and Puhlic Services of A.rthur St. CL#r• ••• (Cincinnati, 1882), II, 477-79, Sl6-22; Legislature to St. Clair, November 19, 1800, in lourntJ. of th• Howe of Re,resentatsvu of uu Territory• ••• (Chillicothe, 1801 ), 1 Assemb., 2 Sess., 47-48; John Smith to the Editor, W•sun, Spy and Hamilton Gautte (Cincinnati), December 31, 1800. 2House Journal, 1 Assemb., 2 Sess., 34, 48, 72, S6-S7; St. Clair to Legislature, NoTem­ ber 2-4, 1800, in Smith, Li/• and Servius of St. Clair, II, S22-23. 201 202 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

December 2, 1800, St. Clair abruptly announced that the Legislature must end its session on December 9, because on that day his term as governor expired, and as yet there had been no renewal of his commission and, furthermore, this was ""not one of the cases provided by law in which the Governor can be supplied by the Secretary.'.. Secretary Charles Willing Byrd was of a contrary opinion, for, on November 26, a few days before St. Clair's announcement, he wrote to Massie that if he believed it to be true that the governor's term expired on December 9, he would himself on that day assume the governor's duties and enable the Legislature to continue in session.' Byrd, however, not giving credence to what came to him only as a rumor, left the Territory a few days later. No sooner was he gone than St. Clair made his announcement, with the result that Byrd was kept from being present and, from calling the Legislature to meet again as soon as its term under St. Clair had expired. This act of St. Clair smacked of jealousy and chicanery, or at best of an overfond regard for adhering to the mere letter of the law. Steps were, therefore, immediately taken by Massie and John Cleves Symmes to bring charges against the governor to prevent his reappointment, but the protests were too petty to have any effect.Ci Even friends of St. Clair condemned his action as approaching deliberate deception in failing to inform Byrd of the situation. His friend, Jacob Burnet, wrote that it was ""somewhat remarkable.,., that the governor chose to conceal his purpose to adjoum the Legislature until it was too late to consult Byrd, whose opinion of his right to act as governor was widely known. According to Burnet, ""it was the prevailing opinion.,., that St. Clair was in the wrong in this matter and that he should have announced his intention of prorogu, ing the Legislature at the opening of the session. Indeed, wrote Burnet, Hit was strongly insinuated, that he withheld the informa, tion, for the express purpose of preventing the interference of the secretary till it would be too late to accomplish the object."~ The significance of this remark becomes more apparent when one realizes

8House Journal, 1 Assemb., 2 Sess., 90. 'Charles W. Byrd to Massie, November 26, 1800, in David M. Massie, Nathaniel Massu, " Pioneer of Ohio . .•. (Cincinnati, 1896), 164-65. 6John Cleves Symmes to Massie, December 29, 1800, ihid., 165-66. 8Jacob Burnet, Notes on the Earl1 Settlement of the North-Western Temtory (New York and Cincinnati, 184 7 ), 3 27. FRONTIER OHIO 203 that, if the Legislature had met with Byrd as acting governor bills would have passed creating several new counties, in defiance of his interpretation of the governor"s powers and with possible embarrass, ing alterations in the complexion of the next Legislature in 1801. The immediate result of St. Clair"s action was the transition of the movement in Chillicothe from agitation for St. Clair"s removal to agitation for statehood. On December 5, three days after St. Clair"s announcement, a motion was made in the Legislature to allow to proceed to a second reading a resolution ""on the subject of electing members to meet in convention for the purpose of farming a consti, tution and state government. ""7 This was defeated by the vote of 10, 7 with all the Scioto delegation present voting in the minority. After the adjournment of the Legislature, however, the Scioto leaders placed the statehood issue before the public in an address ""To the Inhabitants of the Northwestern Territory residing East of a Line that may be Drawn due North from the Mouth of the Great Miami River. .,., This called the attention of the people to the fact that they were entitled to statehood upon the attainment of a population of sixty thousand and that the census of 1800 would enable them to know exactly what the population was. The framers of the address hoped for action on statehood at the meeting of the new Legislature in the fall of 1801, for they recommended that the people Hinstruct their representatives, at their next meeting of the General Assembly, to govern themselves accordingly.""8 By December, 1800, therefore, the new movement for statehood, fostered by Chillicothe leaders, had been definitely launched in the Territory, with the hope of favorable action by the Legislature in 1801. But it should be noted that it had become an issue a bit too late, for the election of the 1801 Legislature had been held in October, 1800, ano statehood had not been the issue. Indeed, the election could well be interpreted as a victory for the Cincinnatians. But nothing could act as a greater spur to Chillicothe"s desire for statehood than the threat which now developed during the early months of 1801 from the Cincinnati,Marietta coalition-a threat of ruin to Chillicothe"s political future. The hazard of the situation was

7Hous• Iounwl, 1 Assemb., 2 Sess., lOS. 8Smith, Li/• and Ser:,ice.r of St. Clair, II, 524-25. 204 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

further enhanced by the political situation in Washington. The Jeffersonians, having barely obtained the presidency and a control of Congress, were by no means in a secure position. The political tangles in New York, Pennsylvania and other states were such as to make their situation quite precarious. Hence the three Jeffersonian electoral votes that Ohio"s statehood were sure to bring were by no means a negligible factor in the plans of the Republican politicians. But if the Cincinnati politicians, perceiving the situation, should couple their gerrymander with an offer of two states instead of one ( and it will be seen that they did so) , certainly the Jeffersonian party could not object, for it would mean six votes instead of three for president, four instead of two in the Senate, and two instead of one in the House. The very thought of this must have made the cold shivers run up and down the spines of good Chillic

9Thomas Worthington to Gallatin, August, 1801, in Letter-book of Thomas Worthington, Thomas Worthington MSS. (in Library of Cdngress, Manuscript Division), 67-69. FRONTIER OHIO 205 quarrel by saying that he feared an open rupture at the pending meeting of the Legislature. 10 But Worthington went farther than merely keeping his superiors informed of developments in territorial politics. He wrote to other political leaders in Congress, informing them that he expected the Legislature to declare in favor of statehood, and at the same time inquired what were the prospects of favorable action by Congress in this. In November, Worthington wrote to Senator John Brown of Kentucky, saying that he expected the question of statehood to be taken up by the Legislature when it met that month. Since the lack of a population of 60,000 made it necessary to obtain the consent of Congress in this action, Worthington asked, ""Do you suppose that this Consent could be readily obtained? Will you be so kind as favour me with your opinions on this subject Generally?',11 After the Legislature had met in November, 1801, Worthing, ton became more anxious as to the success of statehood. He, there, fore, wrote a long letter to Senator Abraham Baldwin of Georgia, brother of lviichael Baldwin, one of the Chillicothe leaders, in which he reported that the friends of statehood were organizing in the Territorial Legislature in order to bring the people of the Territory the right to ""exercise the privileges of an Independent state/, that the statehood party was opposed by ""all who hold offices (with few exceptions) under our executive, our Governor himself and all good federalists who fear that our state will give three republican votes at the next election for president-send you two republican senators & a Republican representative in Congress.,, Worthington assured Baldwin that many people desired a change of government, and that the people in general were financially able to support a state govern, ment. Worthington expressed himself as ""almost certain,, of a popu, lation of 60,000 but hoped ""that Congress will not hesitate if we should want a few of the number necessary to receive us into the Union.,, As to the sentiments of a majority of the Legislature, he was more doubtful, but he promised action ""from the minority,. and ""petitions on the subject from every quarter of the Territory."" He protested against the gerrymandering interest of the Cincinnati

10,.Vorthington to Nourse, November 18, 1801, il,id. llWorthington to Brown, September 1 S, 1801, ibid., 73-74. 206 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS and St. Clair factions in furthering the division bill then pending in the Legislature, a scheme ""intended finally to effect a Division of the Eastern state in the Terry and thereby prevent for a long time the admission of any state on this side of the Ohio into the Union . . . . "Worthington enclosed a copy of the division bill for Baldwin"s perusal.12 Worthington also enlisted the Jeffersonian press in his campaign for statehood. A few weeks before he wrote his letter to Baldwin, he wrote to William Duane, editor of the Aurora, an important Jeffersonian organ in Philadelphia, ""to give you a concise statement of our present situation ti proposals."" He described in great detail how ""we have patiently bore the yoke untill the present period fi {have] ... it now in our power to emerge from a state so truly repugnant to the feelings of every republican:' He portrayed St. Clair"s tyranny, enclosing copies of certain of the govemor.. s addresses to the Legislature, charging him with having taken fees illegally to the extent of $1000, and he deplored the fact that the situation in the Territory was "4illy understood"' by the country at large and by Congress where 4."we have every reason to believe our republican brethren cannot be gratified in seeing us under an oppressive Govemt,"' if they but knew the real conditions. He concluded with the sugges, tion: Should you believe a people oppressed in their Government & an oppres, sive Govr within the government of the United States as demanding the atten, tion of Congress & should think proper to make your paper the medium of In, formation you will meet the grateful thanks of thousands & discharge the duty of a Virtuous republican. Worthington promised to furnish Duane with news from the West and enclosed five dollars for a year's subscription to the Aurora.11 At the same time this indomitable organizer set about to demon, strate to the politicians in Washington that the voice of the people in the Ohio country was opposed to the Cincinnati schemes. In doing this, he was aided by the fact that the latter's efforts were not based on popular support but on political intrigue. It will be remem, bered that William Henry Harrison, in the debate in Congress on the Indiana measure, had stated that he ""believed that nine,tenths 12Worthington to Baldwin, November 30, 1801, il>i.d., 98-100. UWorthington to Duane, November 10, 1801, i!Jid., 90-93. FRONTIER OHIO 207

of the people were in favor of it."" Whether or not this is precisely accurate, it is true that Cincinnatians did not appeal to the people of the Territory as a whole, for the reality of their political desires could hardly bear much popular scrutiny. It is interesting to note that in the election of 1800, Hamilton County, with a population of 14,692, elected its seven representatives to the Legislature by a vote of 162,285 to each in a :field of thirty,fi.ve candidates. The reason for this was that all voters in the county had to come to Cincinnati to vote, because the Election Law of 1799 made the county court,houses 1 the only polling,places. ' There '-"a.S, therefore, a V1Jgm :field for Worthington to work on. Moreover, he left no stone unturned to capitalize upon his will, ingness to base his cause upon the people "s will, and in so doing he was aided by the fact that in 1800 the Election Law had been altered to make it possible for every township to be an election district.15 This meant that in the next election the majority of the people would vote for the :first time. For a keen and able organizer this was sufficient material to ensure success in a drive for state, hood, i. e., self,government, and to defeat an opposition that '\Vas in alliance with a. governor who had always been opposed to statehood, and who had only been converted in secret. The chicanery upon which the Cincinnatians relied was in no instance better revealed ( and that most publicly), than by the publication of a letter written by St. Clair in 1799 to his Federalist superior, Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, explicitly stating that delay in statehood was the object of his proposed gerrymander of the Territory.1° This letter had been written by the governor before he had definitely allied with the Cincinnatians, and, although de, signed to be kept secret, had been shown to Worthington by Harri, son, who had worked himself into the confidence of Pickering by

14Eleventh Census of the United States, 1890, Population, part I, table IV, p. 35. Figures on votes cast are :from the Sn, October 22, 1800. USalmon P. Chase (ed.), Statraes of Ohio and tke Nonhwest Territory (Cincinnati, 1833 ), I, 304-06. 19The letter itself has not been found, but its existence is referred to by Arthur St. Clair to Ross, December, 1799, in Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair~ II, 480-84. 208 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS posing as a Federalist.i1 But this exposure by Harrison would have been of little use for political purposes had not Harrison been in possession of another letter from St. Clair written directly to him, representing the purpose of the gerrymander to be, not the delay of statehood, but more efficient territorial administration.18 To Worth, ington this was duplicity of the rankest type, and he and his political cohorts shouted it from the house,tops to illustrate the hypocritical tactics of their opponents. At the same time they set about to sell their own cause to the people, as well as to show Congress that they, and not the Territorial Legislature, expressed the wishes of the people-truly a tremendous task, but a legitimate one, considering the circumstances under which the Legislature was elected in 1800. The first step was a vigorous and effective protest against the gerrymander that had been· put through the Legislature by the Cin, cinnati,Marietta coalition. After the final vote on the passage of the bill in the House in December, Massie arose and gave notice that he and other members of the House would move for leave to present such a protest.19 Leave was granted and the protest was presented on December 2 3, signed by the seven members who had voted against the bill, including Edward Tiffin, Worthington and Massie. They claimed that any alteration in the boundaries, as a result of a resolu, tion of the Territorial Legislature, would violate that part of the ~~solemn article of compact"~ of the Ordinance of 1787 giving the divisions therein named the right to become a state upon the attain, ment of a population of 60,000. Only one of these divisions was represented by the Territorial Legislature. Not only that, but the proposed gerrymander was unjust to the middle division (Indiana), because most of the land in it was held by the Indians with little prospect of a cession, thus leaving the burden of taxation on a pro,

17Timothy Pickering had shown the letter to William Henry Harrison, believing him to be a friend, and Harrison had im!!!ediately divulged its contents to Thomas Worthington and Nathaniel Massie. Massie to James Madison, n. d., in Massie, Massie, 184-87. That Harrison was really a Republican is demonstrated by his part in this affair and by his subsequent career. That he was wooing the Federalists is shown by his appointment by John Adams, in 1800, as first governor of Indiana Territory and by the letter of C. S. \'Vau in Philadelphia to James Findlay in Cincinnati, January 11, 1800, describing him as a Federalist. Isaac J. Cox (ed.), "Selections from the Torrence Papers, II," in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio Quarterl1 Pubii­ cation (Cincinnati, 1906-), II (1907), 99-100. 18Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 489-91. 19Jiouse Journal, 2 Assemb., 1 Sess., 68. FRONTIER OHIO 209

portionately small number of property owners.30 This protest received wide publicity by being printed conspicuously in the Scioto Gazette.st The opposition now proceeded to organize a political machine and to draw the people openly to their support, a device to which the Cincinnati intriguers naturally hesitated to resort. A public meeting was called at Chillicothe at which Worthington and Michael Baldwin were appointed agents ~'to attend at the present session of ... Congress"" to prevent the latter"s acceptance of the gerrymander, while a standing committee, with Samuel Finley as chairman and Joseph Kerr as secretary, was appointed 'to organize the people in the Territory by circulating petitions against the Cincinnati measures for the agents to use in Washington. This committee, furthermore, issued specific instructions to Worthington and Baldwin as to their mode of procedure. The agents were formally directed to oppose the gerrymander and to lay before Congress the remonstrances of the people and all other pertinent documents. 22 The committee then proceeded systematically to collect signatures to petitions against the gerrymander and these were forwarded by the secretary to Worth, ington and Baldwin. :a The energy of these organizers was amazing. While the agents were proceeding with their plans in Washington, efforts of the Scioto organization to systematize and popularize the opposition were getting immediate results. While Kerr was sending out blank petitions and receiving signed ones in Ross County, the grand jury of Adams County drew up a document branding the governor and Council as nuisances.24 By February 27, a petition from the inhabitants of Fair.field County had reached Washington praying that the Terri, tory Hmay be admitted as a State into the Federal Union on an equal footing with the Original States. "" 25 At about the same time, inhabitants of Jefferson County sent a petition, with seven hundred signatures, denouncing the Act of the Legislature and sounding a new note, viz., that the Legislature was not really representative,

2K1Jhid., 81-8 3. nscioto Gazette (Chillicothe), December 26, 1801. 22Samuel Fin!ey to \Vorthington, December, 1801, Thomas Worthington MSS. (in Ohio State Library). •Scioto Gazette, January 16, 1802. 2'Robert Oliver to Griffin Greene, December 29, 1801, Griffin Greene MSS. (in Marietta College Library). ~Annals- of the Congress of the United States. . . . {Washington, 1851 ), 7 Cong., 1 Sess., 814. 210 OHIO HISTORICAL C0LL:t!CTI0NS alleging that f our,fifths of the people of the Territory were unrepre, sented.• In Belmont County, a meeting was held early in March at St. Clairsville ""in order to take the voice of the people respecting a state government, for which the people almost unanimously agreed."" Petitions containing 490 signatures were forwarded to Washington. 27 Most interesting and extremely significant was the gradual move, ment of the back country of Hamilton County away from Cincin, nati"s interests and towards the interests of the Scioto politicians. It has been noted that John Smith, who was the right-·hand man of Symmes, and the most influential leader in the back country, had sided with the Scioto representatives in the contest over the seat of government and in other matters. It has also been noted that Symmes resisted the efforts of the friends of St. Clair to get people from the back country to petition in favor of the governor's reappoint, ment, and that John S. Gano found only ""a few that was firm in the [bac1<_] Country that appeared Rejoiced at the news of McMillan going to Congress.""28 St. Clair's veto, in 1799, of bills to erect four new counties in Hamilton County did far more to alienate support than all of William McMillan "s efforts to remedy their situation in Congress. St. Clair.,s denial, in 1798, of their right to vote for terri, torial representatives,= and his veto, in 1799, of the bill to increase the number of voting places, were potential if not actual grievances. so In 1799 inhabitants of the upper Mill Creek, at the mouth of which Cincinnati is located, petitioned the Legislature that the county,seat be moved up the creek so as to make it more central.31 Again in 1801, it was the two non,Cincinnati members of the Hamilton County delegation to the Legislature who joined with the :five Scioto members in their protest against the Cincinnati gerrymander. These two were Jeremiah Morrow of Lebanon and his neighbor, Francis Dunlavy.32 Finally, it is clear that the benefits of a division which would make

28Scioto Gazette, March 13, 1802. ZtJbiJ.., March 20, 1802. 28See ante, pages 193-94. 29St. Clair to Joseph Parks, December 13, 1798, in Smith, Life and s~rvices of St. Cwr, II, 436-38. 30St. Clair to Legislature, December 19, 1799, ihid., 4 76-77. UHouse Journal, 1 Assemb., 1 Sess., 71. 32See ante, page 208. FRONTIER OHIO 211

Cincinnati the capital of a state would be much less real to the inhabitants of the back country than to those of Cincinnati. It is quite apparent, then, that the political sentiment in the interior of Hamilton County was at least potentially opposed to the Cincinnati interests and in favor of the Scioto interests, and only re, quired an occasion like the Scioto protest to crystallize it. It is not sur, prising, therefore, to read of the offer of William Ludlow of Mill Creek to deliver the non,Cincinnati part of Hamilton County to the cause of statehood. In his letter of December 22, 1801, to Tiffin, Lud, low showed that there was almost as much agitation in Hamilton against the gerrymander as there was in Ross County. Ludlow wrote that, although he did not have the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with Tiffin, he was convinced that he would not be ""unfriendly disposed"" to the subject of the letter. Coming immediately to the point, Ludlow said, ""The majority of Hamilton County at this juncture, feel themselves much alarmed at the prospect of haveing this Territory Divided."" He roundly condemned the action of the Hamilton County delegation in voting for the gerrymander. Such action, he said, would throw us back several years under the present monarchic system that we have Lorded over us. Our necks are already considerably galled in sustaining the yoke as long. as we have: And now to have six or seven years addition [ al] bondage laid upon us it will be similar to a Rheoboam scourge more than we can patiently sustain. The Republicans of Hamilton County were at last ""awakened from their lethargy. .,., Meetings had been held throughout the county to consult as to the most effectual mode of action. The meeting of Mill Creek township had requested Ludlow to ask Tiffin ""to kindle the flame"" in Ross County. The townships in Hamilton County were circulating petitions against division, and Tiffin was urged to use every effort to delay Congressional action until these petitions could be sent on to Washington.33 Only once did any of this Hamilton County anti,Cincinnati sentiment :find its way into the partisan Cincinnati press. ""A Citizen.,., had the temerity to call upon his f ellow,citizens to ""rouse from your stupor and lethargy'' because statehood ""is now about to be removed far from us.,., by division. The only benefit to be gained from a

33Wil!iam Ludlow to Tiffin, December 22, 1801, ,vorthington MSS. 212 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS division would be to the people of Cincinnati and Marietta, not to the people as a whole. ""It behooves us as good citizens and good republicans, to exert ourselves in forwarding a petition to the general government, for this alone can save our country.,,34 The Scioto Republicans were quick to grasp the significance of this movement in Hamilton County. Naturally they decided to make the most out of it that they could. Tiffin showed Ludlow,s letter to Massie and then sent it to Worthington at Washington. Massie thereupon wrote to Worthington: It appears from Mr. Ludlow's letter that there will be considerable opposition from Hamilton. So much the better. I would recommend that on your arrival, if you :find there is any doubt about an act being passed to express the disapprobation of the General Government, endeavor to have the business postponed a short time, until the Hamilton petition can arrive. They must have their proportionable weight.is Two weeks later news of the situation in Hamilton County was so favorable that Massie quickly perceived its tremendous signifi., cance, and wrote to Worthington, ··you will receive a large packet of petitions by this mail, and chiefly from Hamilton County. From the latest information, that county is more than one ... half opposed to the measure [ the gerrymander], and it appears that the more the subject is examined, the more it is deprecated. I am very sanguine that at the next session [ of the Territorial Legislature] the tone of members will greatly be changed in favor of a state government.,,36 The fact that the bill to increase the number of voting places had passed the Legislature at the last session,37 thus giving the masses of the frontiersmen the chance to vote for the first time in the next election, may have been implied in this last remark of Massie,s. Thus the Chillicothe organizers were pouring a flood of petitions into Congress from every quarter of the Territory. Heartened by this increasing evidence of the universal feeling of the people of the Territory in favor of statehood, and encouraged by the hope of aid from his Republican friends in Washington, Worthington arrived at the seat of government determined to execute his trust with the

34Spy, December 26, 1801. 35Nathaniel Massie to Worthlngton, January 3, 1802, in Smith, Life and Servicer of St. Clair, II, SS2. 36Massie to Worthington, January 18, 1802, ibid., S60. 37Chase, Statutes, 304-06. FRONTIER OHIO 213 same diligence and efficiency for which he was already well kno'\vn. as His success was immediate for, as stated above, the Jeffersonian Congress wanted statehood as much as the Chillicotheans did. Only three days after his arrival he wrote enthusiastically to Massie, '"So far as I can determine have reason to believe we shall obtain our utmost wishes yet exertions must not be slackened. ''39 After three more days of work '"outdoors,'' he had had a personal interview '\vith President Thomas Jefferson, and had even been assured by prominent members of the House and Senate that, with the proper pains, St. Clair could be removed from office. By this time Worthington had acquired the support of William B. Giles, the indefatigable leader of the Jeffersonians in the House, and he reported this fact at once.'0 Giles and his fellow, Jeffersonians immediately took command of the situation. On January 20, Paul Fearing, the territorial delegate, undoubtedly sensing the outcome, did his official duty by presenting to the House the resolution giving the consent of the Territory to the Cincinnati gerrymander.41 When Fearing moved to refer the law to a select committee, Giles observed ''that the law would place the people of that Territory in a very disagreeable situation" and called attention to the petitions signed by over a thousand of the inhabitants of the Territory against the law. According to Giles, the law would perpetuate the office of governor and the Territorial Legislature. Giles' confederate, Thomas T. Davis of Kentucky, being also in touch with the Republicans, then moved that the Law be referred to the Committee of the Whole for immediate discussion, and the matter was made the order of the day for the following day. Thus, in the very face of Fearing and the action of the Territorial Legislature, the Act was railroaded before the House, and on January 2 7, it died an ignominious death, when the resolution proposed by Giles was passed: ''Resolved . . . that the act . . . ought not to be assented to by Congress. "'2 Thus, within a fortnight of Worthing, ton"s arrival in Washington, he had accomplished his primary purpose.

3.5Worthir.gton had the added prestige of having for several years handled efficiently the Wt.-St~rn hnd business of n:any important easterners, Federalist as well as Jeffersonian. As a close friend of Massie, he had further adv:intage of the latter's business connections in Virginia. 39VVorthington to Massie, January H, 1802, in M:issie, Mauie, l i9. '°Worthington to Massie, January 1i, 18 0 2, ibid. ilAnna.!.r of Congress, i Cong., 1 Sess., 42i. 42Ibid., 465-66. 214 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

But the progress was not to stop here. Events moved on with amazing rapidity toward statehood. Two days after the rejection of the Act of the Territorial Legislature, Giles moved that the census of the Territory be referred to a select committee with instructions to report whether measures ought to be taken for enabling the people of the Territory to form a state government for themselves, and to be admitted into the Union. The resolution was accepted, and Giles became chairman of the committee. Additional petitions against division and in favor of statehood were referred to Giles" committee." Worthington was fairly swept off his feet. On January 2 5', he informed Massie that the Division Act would be rejected and that, therefore, no more petitions were needed on that score. But he had to request that the central committee give him ••officiar" instructions to work for statehood," because the original instructions and petitions dealt only with the gerrymander. Things were moving so much faster in Congress than the Scioto leaders expected, that Massie "s delay in sending the necessary powers and charges against St. Clair occasioned rebukes, not only from Worthington, but from John Powler, repre, sentative from Kentucky. Fowler complained to Massie that the leaders in the Territory were not as industrious as the occasion warranted. He warned Massie, ""The people in your Territory has warm friends in the Republican party of this Congress, and are willing to accommodate you to the utmost of your wishes, under these circumstances it behooves you to be active. ""45 Back in Chillicothe, the new powers and petitions were imme, diately authorized by the local committee. 46 Some members, like Massie, of states., rights proclivities, had constitutional objections to the right of Congress to grant an enabling act, but these were thrown to the winds when the chairman, Finley, in sending the po\vers to Worthington, apologized for not sending them earlier. Finley said that the power to work for an enabling act had not been included in their original instructions because it was considered necessary to make preliminary representations to Congress. Now, however, the

43Ibid., 470-71. It should be noted that Paul Fearing was not placed on this committee. It had been the usage of parliamentary courtesy to place the delegate on all committees entrusted with territorial matters. +lWorthington to Massie, January ZS, 1802, in Massie, Massi8, 187-88. 4.ISJohn Fowle: to Massie, January 29, 1802, ibid., 188-89. 46Report of Giles' Committee on Statehood, American Stats Pape~s, Miscellaneour (Wash­ ington, 1834 ), I, 329; Samuel Finley to Worthington, February 12, 1802, in Worthington MSS. FRONTIER OHIO 215'

Committee, having made such representations, thought ""proper to submit the mode of calling a convention, the purpose for which it shall be called, the time and the place where it shall convene, to that honorable body [Congress} to whom, we conceive it of right be, longs."'47 The Chillicothe committee now set to work with remarkable rapidity to get more petitions for statehood to be sent to Congress. By February 22, Finley was able to write to Worthington that the committee had obtained ""upwards of One thousand subscribers . .,., The petitions had been sent to Fowler and John G. Jackson, Represen, tatives of Kentucky. Finley wrote that the people of Fairfield County had had a meeting on the subject of statehood and ""without a dissent, ing voice.,., signed a similar petition. The same thing was happening in Adams County, whose people have ""but one voice fi that is for a State Government . .,., As for Ross County, ""Petitions will be for, warded by every mail'., until the desired object should be attained." While these petitions were being circulated and forwarded to Washington, Congress was occupied with the chief party measure of the session, viz.;, the repeal of the Judiciary Act. As soon as this had been disposed- of by the House, Giles, on March 4, brought up the Ohio enabling bill which he presented in his report from the special committee appointed to receive the petitions and to report thereon. The report stated that the population of the proposed State of Ohio \.Vould soon be 60,000 which fact would of itself, according to the terms of the Ordinance, enable it to become a state. It was advisable, however, for Congress to enable it to come in earlier, mainly because the political situation of the Territory was such that ... great and increasing disquietude existed ..,., The report recommended that certain propositions be added to the enabling act subject to the approval of the state. One of the propositions exempted public lands f ram state taxation for a period of years after their sale to individuals because such taxation might conflict in embarrassing ways with the lien which the government held on these lands until they were completely paid for. Other propositions provided for the granting of section sixteen in each township for schools, the granting of salt

-4.'=Finley to Worthington, February 22, 1802, ibid. 48Jbul. 216 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

springs for the use of the state, and the granting of one-tenth of the net proceeds of lands for roads!11 The debate on the enabling bill was, of course, mainly partisan, the Federalist members supporting Fearing in opposing it. The Fed, eralists raised the states, rights objection, maintaining that the Or, dinance of 1787 did not give Congress the power to make provision for a convention to frame a state constitution, but left it to the people of the proposed state to originate and carry out the process of state making. The added financial burden caused by statehood and the supposed incompetence of frontier people to frame an efficient constitution lent weight to the argument that the enabling act was a usurpation of power by Congress and was, therefore, a violation of rights. They further contended that Congress was flying in thP face of facts in rejecting the official wish of the Territory as expressed by the Territorial Legislature in the Division Act and in accepting the work of a committee that did not officially represent the Terri, tory. Fearing also claimed that it did not represent even the popular will of the Territory. He said, ""If this committee at Chillicothe speaks the voice of the W estem Territory, the Congress have the right contended for, but this the citizens of the other towns and counties will not admit. ,,r;o The Jeffersonians had little difficulty in refuting such arguments, and on April 9 the bill was passed by the House. It was accepted by the Senate on April 28 with a fev1 amend, ments, which were accepted by the House on April 29 ."1 Worthing,

ton,s task Vi.7as completed.

2 'The Power of the Patronage.

Before leaving the subject of the phenomenally successful drive of the Chillicotheans, attention must be directed to a less savory, but nevertheless important, factor that accounts for their succe...~. This is their use of the patronage. Indeed, much of the significance of this movement of political organization in early Ohio would be lost if the tremendous influence of the patronage as wielded by Worth,

"'AmeTican State Pape,-s, Miscellaneous, I, 325-29. IS()Annals of Congress, 7 Cong., 1 Sess., 1103. 51Ihid.., 296-97, 1252. FRONTIER OHIO 217 ington and his colleagues were not recognized. Worthington"s access to the leading members of the Jeffersonian party in Wash, ington, built up, as one has already observed, by his correspond, ence and personal interviews, placed him in a position to receive applications and make bargains with the county politicians through, out the Territory. This subject will now be taken up by counties. In Jefferson County (Steubenville), Worthington wrote to such leading politicians, as, by virtue of their not having been appointed to county offices, were Republicans and in strong opposition to St. Clair. One of his correspondents, James Pritchard of Jefferson County, who was later speaker of the State Senate (from 1804 to 1806), replied in summing up the political situation in the county, that he would be ""much gratified"" if St. Clair should be removed from office and a Republican named in his place before· the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. If this were not done, it would increase the chance of a Federalist victory in Jefferson County, because, since the govemor"s ""pets are Chiefly in office, it will give them a greater weight.,, In case St. Clair should be removed ""a small revolution in this county will be necessary especially with the Sheriff Prancis Douglass and John Ward the prothonotary but this you may keep to yourself. ,,:s:s It is sufficient to say that Jeffer, son County offered little opposition to Worthington"s plans. In respect to Belmont County (St. Clairsville), the follo\ving excerpt of a letter from James Caldwell, leader of the local opposi-­ tion, shows the efforts that were being made to bring it into line. Caldwell wrote, ""You mentioned my acting as Collector [ of internal revenue] for this & Jefferson Counties. I would do it with pleasure did not the Acts of the Territory incapacitate any person holding an office under the U. States from holding one under the Territory."" To dispose of this technical difficulty, Caldwell proposed that ""if the Busniss can be done in the name of William Cooke a young man who does Busness for me at this place I shall be glad to serve you. ,,a One cannot, therefore, clear the Chillicotheans of chicanery in their methods. In Washington County (Marietta), attempts to evade the law

52James Pritchard to Worthington, March 23, 1802, Worthington MSS. 153James Caldwell to Worthington, May 22, 1802, ibid. 218 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS were likewise the order of the day. Here the leader of the opposition was Return Jonathan Meigs, Jr. In a letter to Worthington, Meigs stated that Philip Greene, and Daniel Converse, who had previously been carrying mails between Morgantown, Virginia, Marietta, and Zanesville, and who now wished to renew their contracts and extend their route to Chillicothe, desired to have "" some active and responsible person.,., join with them in making a contract to carry the mails to Cincinnati, so that between the three of them all the mail,carrying between Morgantown and Cincinnati would be in their hands. Meigs, therefore, suggested that it might suit Mr. Joseph Tiffin to get some person to contract [for him] with Mr. Greene ti Converse as it may not be proper for Mr. Tiffin as he is postmaster [in Chillicothe] to contract with the P. M. Genl. Yet the busi, ness may be so arranged as that Mr. Tiffin may have the direction and Benefits of carrying from Chillicothe to Cincinnati.G& Whether or not matters were ""so arranged,, for "~Mr. Tiffin,s Benefits,"" Worthington, nevertheless, undertook to recommend to Postmaster,General Gideon Granger that Converse be given the con, tract for carrying the mail from Marietta to Cincinnati, although, according to Meigs, Converse himself had desired it only to Chilli, cothe. Worthington strengthened Converse"s bid for his office by offering this suggestion for the Republican zeal of Granger to feed on. I am also Informed the Editor of the paper published at Marietta wishes to obtain the same contract, with a view to Disseminate the [Fede-ralist] political principles of that place by Sending his paper to the different parts of the Terry-the Cty of Washington in which Marietta lies, is the only Federal Cty in the Terry except Trumbull should be so. So far as I can at present determine 2/3d of our convention will be republican. Your Kind attention to Mr. Converse will be gratefully ackd.158 This Republican pressure on Washington County served the purpose of stimulating the leaders of the party there to attempt to build up a machine that might eventually overthrow the Federalist control of the county. The Republican leaders in Washington County were Meigs and Griffin Greene. Meigs was a young lawyer of Marietta, and was very anxious for office. He did not share the Federalist antipathy to statehood and, in the contest between the Scioto interests and the Cincinnati,Marietta coalition in December of 1801, he identified himself with the statehood party and was

54Return J. Meigs, Jr., to Worthington, June 1, 1802, ihid. 55Worthington to Granger, June 12, 1802, in Letter-book of Thom:i.s Worthington, \Vorth­ ington MSS., 114. FRONTIER OHIO 219 later present in Washington with Worthington and Baldwin." Greene was a little less agile than Meigs in getting into the Republican ranks, for he had apparently accepted favors from the Federalists. However, he was a friend to Meigs and by appointing him (Greene) postmaster at Marietta early in 1802, the Republicans at Washington gained a willing ally. Greene had apparently made certain approaches to the influential territorial Republicans, for on January 21, 1802, Symmes, who was also in Washington, wrote to him: Nothing has presented since I came to this City whereby I could serve you, Sir, but in recommending you to the Post,Master,General, as a proper person to fill the office of Post Master at Marietta in this I succeeded & Judge Meigs informs me that you have received the appointment. I wish it may be of use to you-Mr. Granger asked of me whether your politicks were federal or republican I answerd, that I could not define your politicks but even supposing that you might have been federal in times past, yet I had such an opinion of your honor and integrity that I would pledge myself to him, for the faithful performance of every duty required [MS. torn] as postmaster _n These two men, Meigs and Greene, were responsible for the building up of a Republican organization in Washington County which, in January, 1803, was successful in defeating the Federalists. In the campaign for the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention, they ·managed to place a ticket, which included both their names, in the field in opposition to the Federalist ticket," but they '\Vere, of course, defeated. However, after paying a visit to the Constitutional Convention, they renewed their efforts in the cam, paign in January, 1803, for the election of the first State officers, with such effect that Meigs was able to inform Worthington that, ~~the Republican Ticket in this county has wholly carried by large ma jorities---except the Sheriffs. . . . The county of Washington will not (I hope) trouble the State again with the bitterness of its federal, 5 ism. "" • When the staunch old Federalist, Benjamin Ives Gilman, heard of the election of the two Marietta Republicans, Wyllys Silli, man and William Jackson, to the Legislature, he exclaimed, ""Greater

MMeigs to Ephraim Cutler, December 8, 1801, in Julia P. Cutler, Life and Tim•s of Ephraim Cutur ( Cincinnati, 1890 ), S8-61. For a sketch of the Ufe of Return J. Meigs, Jr., see John W. Campbell, Biovaphical Sketches with Other Literary Remains . ••• (Columbus, Ohio, 1838), 65-91. 57Symmes to Greene, January 21, 1802, Greene MSS. 68 Cutler, Lif1!. of Cutur, 66. 5e.Mcigs to Worthington, January 31, 1803, Worthington MSS. 220 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

disgrace never fell on a people.''60 Meigs, however, assured Worth, ington, ""Whatever may have been your Ideas respecting Mr. Silliman heretofore-you may confidently rely on his Republicanism-and on his cordial co,operation with republican measures. " 81 The net result for Republicanism in Washington County, when all the appointments had been made, was that the Republicans had practically all the plums, Meigs became one of the three judges of the State Supreme Court, Silliman became president of one of the three circuits of the Court of Common Pleas, and Greene and Joseph Buell, another Republican, became two of the three associate judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Washington County. The only office of impor, tance gained by the Federalists was the appointment of Dudley Woodbridge as third judge of the Common Pleas. 62 In Trumbull County a similar story can be told. Few cases of place--hunting can exceed in sordidness the manipulation here. Both St. Clair and Worthington had placed Trumbull in the doubtful column, and George Tod, a young lawyer of that county, had been unfortunate enough to lend himself to St. Clair"s schemes by be, coming his secretary. Indeed, both Tod and his fellow,leader, Samuel Huntington, had embraced the gerrymandering scheme of the Cin, cinnatians with a zeal that can only be :fitly described by the following letter written by Tod at Chillicothe to Huntington shortly after the passage of the gerrymander: In the early part of this session of the legislature, a law was passed declaring the assent of the Territory to an alteration in the boundaries of our future states; which has been forwarded to Congress for their consent thereto. Should this proposition be acceded to, the Scioto instead of the Great Miami will be the boundary between the Eastern and middle States. The public mind in this part of the Territory [Chillicothe] has been exceed, ingly agitated on the subject. I felt very anxious for the passage of the law and consequently was gratified with its success .... Should Congress agree to the alteration, the several offices which necessarily must be made for the good government of the Erie Territory, must be filled. I have occasionally wandered beyond the confines of Chillicothe in my search after proper characters. Mr. Meigs has gone to [the] City [of] Washington, for the express purpose of securing to himself the appointment of Govr. Genl. Putnam the aristos wish to promote; but he may be considered out of the way of others, as he, it is said, has no desire for the place. Thinking of

60Benjamin I. Gilman to Fearing, February 14, 1803, Paul Fearing MSS. (in Marietta College Library). 61Mcigs to Worthington, Worthington MSS. GSElliott Howard Gilkey (ed.), The Ohio Hundred Year Book ( Columbus, Ohio, 1901 ), 46 i, 494, 49S. FRONTIER OHIO 221

Meigs.. qualifications, my thoughts took wing, and perched upon my friend [Huntington?] (I hope you will pardon their innocent wanderings.) J sat myself down and wrote a lengthy letter to our friend G. Granger, who is at Washington, on the subject, and submitted to him, the propriety of taking our Governor or the first judge from the Ia~e shores. I should be sorry to have Meigs succeed, for various reasons. I trust Mr. Granger will do everything in his power to advance our interest, as well as yours; and I feel the spirit of prophecy waking in me; and this spirit tells me your schemes shall succeed. You will not I hope be averse to my project. I will endeavor that the nego, tiation shall be conducted, so as to produce no injury to yourself should the attempt fail of success.63 Thus, in case of the success of the gerrymander the stage was all set for the distribution of the ""benefits"" in Trumbull County. But as soon as it began to appear that the Chillicotheans were to be successful in preventing the gerrymander, it was necessary that some scurrying and shifting would have to be done-and ""orders"" to that effect quickly came from ""headquarters."" Thus in June, 1802, Tod received a letter from Timothy Phelps of Suffield, Connecticut, friend and neighbor of the powerful Republican spoilsman, Granger. Tod was infarmed: We Republikans in Cont. [Connecticut} are anxious that your new State (about to be admitted into the Union) should be purely Democratic­ or in other words purely Jefferscnian . . . in Conversation with the Post M. Genl. yesterday, I find much Dependance ( to Effect so Desirable an Ob, ject) is placed on you-by what I can Learn, your future prospects in life Demand your Exertions to the utmost of your Abilities-I have some fears on my mind that your office from the Governor [sic] will damp your ardour in Support of Democracy-but if your convection is a Sound Renovating Change of heart, or a true Conviction that the Leaders of Federalism have led you astray by their fals pretention, then I am certain that you will not for the Sake of an office, turn like the dog to his vomit." Such a decree from such a source could scarcely go unheeded. A short time later, Huntington, who had taken St. Clair"s advice and had gotten himself elected to the Constitutional Convention, now profited by Granger"s ""advice"" and found his way gracefully into the Republican camp. Before going to the Convention, he received from Tod, who was acquainted with the situation at Chillicothe, a letter in which Tod gave his friend some very sound advice. Tod wrote: Follow my advice. Suffer them [ the leaders of the Convention] to believe you are one of them, you will lose nothing, be assured. . . . Be 63George Tod to Huntington, January 14, 1802, Samuel Huntington MSS. (in Western Reserve Historical Society). "Timothy Phelps to Tod, May 21, 1802, George Tod MSS. (in Western Reserve His­ torical Society), no. 122. 222 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS therefore, judge, really what you are, a true republican. You will suffer me to predict that you assuredly will be made a judge of the supreme court. You need not think me trifling; if they think you ( as I have no doubt they will) a republican, all is safe.tJG How much to heart Huntington took this advice is shown by his reply to Tod, written after the Convention had been in session two weeks. Huntington said, HThe office you mentioned had been suggested to me by some of the Republican Members-they have since offered one something better_,, At the close of the letter he added, "~The Gentlemen to whom you introduced me have been very polite, especially Col. Worthington-they will not allow you to be a Republican-you must contrive to convince them of their mistake-I believe I have paved the way."66 Little need be added except to say that both Huntington and Tod became judges of the Supreme Court-the former in 1803, the latter in 1806, and that Huntington, like his colleague, Meigs, later became a United States Senator and governor of the State of Ohio. Hamilton County (Cincinnati), of course, had to be remembered. Here, where the strength of the Cincinnatians was so strongly felt, the opposition leaders, led by Byrd, had strong claims for consideration. In Cincinnati itself, in the enemy's camp, the Republican burden was home by Byrd. Ever since his elevation to the office of secretary of the Territory late in 1799, Byrd had been the close ally of his friends and fellow,Virginians, the Scioto politicians. He had served the Scioto cause in the fall of 1800 by keeping his relative, Massie, in, formed of the Cincinnati manoeuvres to undo the ill effects of the division bill of that year. He had stood ready to take over the govern, ment of the Territory in the interests of the Scioto men at the expira, tion of St. Clair,s term in December, 1800, and had only been pre, vented from doing so by a misunderstanding. During 1801, by iden, tifying himself with the Republicans in their public demonstrations, he became the hope of the masses and was mentioned early in 1802 as a candidate for governor of the State of Ohio. Byrd also served the Republican cause by refusing to convene the Territorial Legis, lature prior to the assembling of the Convention, and was rewarded

815From the Huntington MSS. quoted by William T. Utter in "Saint Tammany in Ohio: a Study in Frontier Politics,,, in Mississippi Y alley H istoru:al Ravuw ( Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1914-), xv (1928), 323. 88Huntington to Tod, November 18, 1802, Huntington MSS., no. 109. FRONTIER OHIO 223

by the indorsement of the Republicans at Big Hill as a candidate for election to the Convention. In the election he ran in :fifth place, thus standing with the leaders of the ticket. During the summer and fall of 1802 he kept himself conspicuously before the public by his con-­ tinual friction with St. Clair, culminating in his letter to Jefferson demanding the governor,s removal.61 Byrd, naturally, in view of all these services, felt that he had earned a place in the distribution of the loaves and fishes. In May, 1802, therefore, we :find him informing Massie that he (Byrd) had been mentioned to succeed St. Clair as

governor, but, he added, ""Perhaps they intended only to flatter me. ,"98 However, he selected the position of federal judge in Ohio as his pref-­ erence, and after the close of the Constitutional Convention, wrote to Worthington: Since I had the pleasure to see you I was told that Colonel Huntington was another candidate for the office of judge of the Federal District Court in this State. But information of this nature affords me neither surprize or concern; because I am impressed with a belief that the mission with which the Convention has clothed you together with your general character will ensure success to any applicant who shall be favored with your recommenda, tion. If my wishes on this subject should be accomplished by means of your friendly interpo~ition, it is my intention to purchase in the vicinity of Chillicothe a few hundred acres of land which I suppose by advancing the cash I may buy on tollerable good terms.69 Byrd,s suggestions apparently did not fall on deaf ears for Worth, ington soon wrote to Massie from Washington that he had called on Jefferson, who "~introduced the subject of Mr. B,s appointment and from what I can understand little difficulty will exist on that subject. ,,ro Byrd was, of course, appointed. Besides Byrd,s appointment, Hamilton County received the following rewards: Smith became United States Senator; Morrow, Representative to Congress; Dunlavy, president of the '\vestern circuit of the Court of Common Pleas, and Thomas Gibson, auditor. Of course, the minor offices such as the County Court of Common Pleas were filled with Republicans. The Scioto group (Chillicothe) was naturally not without its rewards. Tiffin became the practically unopposed choice of the

67Charles W. Byrd to Jefferson, October IS, 1802, Thomas Jefferson MSS. (in Library of Congress, Manuscript Division), Vol. 126; Spy, May IS, September 18 and 2S, 1802. 68Byrd to Massie, May 20, 1802, in Massie, Massie, 205. 99Byrd to VVorthingtcn, December 4, 1802, Worthington MSS. 70Worthington to Massie, December 2 5, 1802, in Massie, Massie, 221. 224 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS electorate for governor. Worthington became United States Senator; Massie, who was not an o:ffice,seeker, became speaker of the Senate; Baldwin, speaker of the House, and William Creighton, secretary of state. But the most flagrant case of all this office juggling was in Adams County and is traceable to the authorship of Byrd, instead of Worth, ington. During a large part of the year 1802, St. Clair was absent defending himself in Washington, thus leaving Byrd as acting gov, ernor and in control of appointments. Taking advantage of the absence of St. Clair,71 a petition had been circulated in the staunch Republican county of Adams for an increase in the number of Justices of the Peace. Although Byrd complied with the wishes of the leaders of Adams County,72 it was soon discovered that this was not enough and that additional commissions were necessary. The reason for this is found in a letter written by Israel Donalson of Adams County to Massie, in which Donalson wrote, ""I find all we have accomplished will stand us no stead unless an addition could be affected Viz two more justices of General quarter Sessions & one more Judge of common Pleas as of the former they [the Federalists] have decided Majority.'"73 Without apparently the slightest compunctions, Byrd again complied, writing to Massie that commissions had been made out ""agreeable to request; so that in the Quarter Sessions there will be hereafter a majority of the Court opposed to the Governor's party.""'l'' Upon his return to the Territory, St. Clair removed some of Byrd's appointees. This developed into a controversy75 which culmi, nated in both officers appealing to Jefferson. Byrd complained of various petty embarrassments, none of which had much substarice.78 St. Clair, however, asserted that some of the judges whom Byrd had commissioned in Adams County were men whom St. Clair had pre, \

71The fact that Byrd was acting governor during the crucial months from March to the middle of August accounts for the general movement of all factions to gain favors from him. He found reason to deny the petitions of his Cincinnati opponents for a convening of the Legislature ( See ante, page 222) but, in the matter of the patronage, he made of himself a willing instrument for his friends. 72Byrd to Massie, June 7, 1802, in l\fassie, Massie, 209. ~Israel Donalson to Massie, July 15, 1802, ibid., 215. 74Byrd to Massie, August 7, 1802, ibid., 216. 75For St. Clair's letters of complaint to Byrd, see St. Clair to Byrd, August 17, and September 1, 1802, St. CL-lir MSS. (in Ohio State Library), Box 11, nos 133 and 134. 76Byrd to Jefferson, October 15, 1802, Jefferson MSS. FRONTIER OHIO 225 viously removed from office ""for contumely,"" and had, furthermore, been commissioned during good behaviour, ""contrary to the estab.­ lished Rule from the :first organization of the Government. .,., St. Clair also asserted that Byrd had appointed ""a host of others"' as justices of the peace in Adams, Ross and Hamilton Counties, ""nearly all of them unnecessary, and some of them of Characters which should for, ever have excluded them from the Magistracy. ""77 Nothing ever came of the complaints of either Byrd or St. Clair because within a month, the governor had been removed for other reasons. 78 The incident serves, however, to show that every Republican stood ready to claim his share of the patronage. It had, furthermore, the immediate advantage of serving to help tum the election of delegates to the Convention, at least in Adams County.

77 St. Clair to Madison, October 11 1 1802, St. Clair MSS., Box. 11, no. 112. 'lBThe immediate cause of St. Clair's dismissal was his indiscreet remarks to the Consti­ tutional Convention, in which he declared the Enabling Act a nullity. Smith, Life and St1rviur of St. Clair, II, 594. For the unsuccessful attempt to remove St. Clair earlier in 1802, see Randolph C. Downes, "Thomas Jefferson and the Removal of St. Clair in 1802,» in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Puhlications (Columbus, Ohio, 1887-), XXXVI (1927), 62-77. The reason a successor to St. Clair was not named was explained in the Philadelphia Aur01"a which said, "An appointment might be conceived to intend a recommendation from the federal executive, an attempt to influence the opinions of the people in a future choise.» Quoted in Scioto Gazette, January 8, 1803. CHAPTER VIII THE MAKING OF THE STATE

1 'The Last Stand of the Cincinna.tians.

HE WINNING drive of the Chillicothe interests for a state bounded by a line north from the Great Miami, culminating in T the Statehood Enabling Act of April, 1802, threatened with final extinction all hopes of Cincinnati to become a great political center. But Cincinnatians were not to surrender without a struggle. How implicitly they relied upon the gerrymander, as proposed in the Act passed by the Territorial Legislature on December 16, 1801, is shown by the casual observation, in August, 1802, of Henry Cadbury, a land speculator, in advertising for settlers in a town planned by him on the Ohio twe1ve miles below the Great Miami. One of the ad, vantages of his town, Cadbury announced to be ~•the probability (from its central situation) of its being the seat of a county town, when the proposed division of the territory takes place. ""1 The fact that this was written after the passage of the Congressional Enabling Act was known, reveals a state of mind that is ample explanation of the reason why Cincinnati politicians continued to work for the gerrymander in the face of apparently certain defeat. They refused to accept the finality of the Enabling Act, finding it easy to expect its repeal or revision by recollecting the ease with which the gerrymander had been passed. Indeed, if an account had not already been given of the reasons for the unwarranted success cf their measures in the Territorial Legislature of 1801, the final collapse of their program for the gerrymander in the face of the victorious Jeffersonian drive led by Thomas Worthington, wouJd appear inex, plicable. So confident were they of success that they did not realize that the artificiality, the shallowness, the inconsistency, the very desperation of the strategy of their last stand revealed too obviously

1 The Western Spy and Hamilton Gautte (Cincinnati), August 21, 1802. 226 FRONTIER OHIO 227 the weakness of their house of cards. It was built on the foundation of political intrigue and the disfranchisement of the masses. Small wonder, then, that with the stirring of the people, under the circum, tances described in the last chapter, it should collapse completely. A fundamental weakness of the position of the Cincinnati, Marietta,St. Clair coalition was the overestimation of their own strength and the resultant underestimation of the character and strength of their frontier opponents. They saw, in the majority of the people, an uneducated, incoherent, incompetent mob. Governor ~hur St. Clair wrote to Paul Fearing that the ""people are all so poor ... that they can barely live in a very wretched manner; but, of [for] the few towns, there is scarce a habitation to be seen better than Indian wigwams . .,., The majority of the people were newcomers who were so engrossed in the necessary work of establishing a new order in the wilderness, that even the men of talents ""have no leisure from the calls to provide for their future welfare, to employ their thoughts on abstruse questions of government and policy. ""2 Dudley Woodbridge of Marietta voiced the same sentiments when he wrote to Fearing that, although those who were opposed to the division bill were numerous, _""few however will be freeholders or [those] who have any :fixed residence, they are made up of that class principally that are ·vulgarly called squatters.":.: The reason that these men could speak so lightly of the masses was that they allowed their naturally conservative predispositions to deceive them because of the support their measures received from St. Clair"s official circle and from the semi--sovereign but unrepresen, tative Legislature. The gerrymander bill not only met the governor~s ~~hearty approbation," but it caused him to work publicly and dili, gently in its support. In writing to James Ross, St. Clair stressed that the bill was passed unanimously by the Council and by a two, thirds majority of the House.' The ease with which subsequent measures went through the Legislature, made for a false sense of se, curity. At the re--assembling of the Legislature, after the passage of the gerrymander, the bill restoring the seat of government to Cincinnati

2 Arthur St. Clair to Fearing, December 25, 1801, in William H. Smith, Life :znd Pu.blit; Services of Arthur St. Clair. • • . ( Cincinnati, I 882 }, II, 550. 3Dudley Woodbridge to Fearing, Jant!ary 14, 1802, Paul Fearing MSS. (in Marietta College Library). ~st. Clair to Ross, January 15, 1802, in Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 555. 228 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS was passed by the same two-thirds vote.5 Two days later a motion to send a copy of the Scioto protest against the division bill to Fearing failed by the usual vote.8 On December 28 a petition from the in, habitants of Hamilton County in favor of the gerrymander was presented.7 On the 29th the governor sent a message to the Legislature complaining of the riotous assemblies of inhabitants of Chillicothe that were demonstrating against the passage of the Division Act and the bill restoring the capital to Cincinnati.s The Legislature immediately authorized a special joint committee to investigate the disorders.9 The subsequent failure of this committee, as well as the refusal of local magistrate Samuel Finley to bring the culprits to court at the demand of St. Clair,10 increased the self-righteousness, if not the self,con:fidence of the Cincinnati,Marietta,St. Clair faction. On January 5 N 1athaniel Massie"s resolution for the appointment of a committee to prepare an address to Congress asking for ""immediate admission into a State government"" was disagreed with,11 or to use Massie"s own words, ""was soon kicked out of the House, it was hardly treated with com, 12 mon politeness. "" · Colonel Robert Oliver of Marietta wrote from Chillicothe to his neighbor, Griffin Greene, ""I know not what will be the end of these things but am persuaded that the assembly will never sit at this place again.""13 Jacob Burnet convinced himself ""that the convenience of four,:fifths of this Country,,., required the accept, ance of the gerrymander by Congress/' After Congress had rejected the gerrymander and had passed the Statehood Enabling Act, St. Clair still believed that ""a great part of Hamilton, all of Washington, and ... a great majority of Jefferson,.,.. were against accepting the offer.15 A most amusing example of how easily the proponents of this measure allowed themselves to be deceived into making gross mis,

5lournal of the House of Representatives of the Territory. • • • (Chillicothe, 1801 ), 2 Assemb., 1 Sess., 77. 6Ihid., 83. 7J'1id., 93. 8Jhid., 98. 91hid., 100. 10Scioto Gazetta (Chillicothe), January 2, 1802. llHowe Journal, 2 Assemb., 1 Sess., 115. 12Nathaniel Massie to Worthington, January 18, 1802, in David M. Massie, Nathaniel Massie, a Pioneer of Ohio. • • • (Cincinnati, 1896), 183. 13Robert Oliver to Greene, December 29, 1801, Griffin Greene MSS. (in Marietta College Library). 14Jacob Burnet to Fearing, December 17, 1801, Fearing MSS. lGSt. Clair to Samuel Huntington, July 15, 1802, in Smith, Life and Services of St. C/4ir, II, 587. FRONTIER OHIO 229

representation of fact is seen in the case of Burnet. This gentlemaI1, of generally unimpeachable honesty, not only was convinced that the people of the Territory really desired the gerrymander but also was able to demonstrate that the bill divided the Territory into three equal divisions. He claimed to have information from Major Israel Ludlow, the surveyor, who was best acquainted with the western parts of the Territory, that it was about eighty miles from the Miami to Vincennes and seventy--fi.ve miles from Chillicothe, thus making the proposed middle state less than 150 miles wide. Of the other two states, Burnet said that the upper one was ""by actual measuremenf't 147 miles wide, and the lower ""by computation"" 160 miles wide.111 The utter absurdity of this representation of equal divisions may be seen at a glance by referring to Map IV. The middle division, instead of being 15 0 miles wide, as Burnet said, was in reality 240 miles wide; the distance from the Miami to Vincennes was 145 miles instead of eighty. Further evidence of the weakness of the conservative position is shown by their method of making representations to Congress in support of the Division Act. Unable to gain popular support by means of subscriptions to petitions, they assumed an air of dignified condescension relying solely on the official act of the Legislature. As Woodbridge said, they considered it unnecessary to petition Congress as they believed that ""it rather carried the appearance of our being doubtful wheather our Legislature were clothed "\vith sufficient Authority to take the step they did. "'11 St. Clair who was not quite as supercilious about the matter as Woodbridge, was will-­ ing to circulate petitions, but not in the promiscuous manner of his opponents. He preferred a petition signed by ""the principal people"' of Washington and Hamilton Counties; people, as he said, ""somewhat known abroad. "' 18 St. Clair denounced the ... gentry"" of Chillicothe ~"as persons who have private views, and only use the people as means to accomplish them,"" and as ""generally more active than those who have only the public good in view.'' He repeated

16Burnet to Fearing, December 17, 1801, Fearing MSS. 17Woodbridge to Fearing, January 14, 1802, ibid. 18St. Clair to Woodbridge, December 24, 1801, in Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 549. 230 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

his preference for ""a representation from the most influential and best,k.nown characters.""19 However, this false sense of security of the Federalists soon began to weaken, as the opposition adopted more practical measures. On December 24, the leading proponents of the gerrymander met at Chillicothe to devise ways and means to counteract the e:fforts being made by Thomas Worthington and Michael Baldwin. Present at this conference were St. Clair, Burnet, and other ··members \vho were friendly to the measure.'" They decided that other agents should be appointed to go to Washington to counteract the activities of Worthington and Baldwin. To represent the interests of Cincinnati, it was agreed that William McMillan should, .... if he could be pre-­ vailed upon,.,., be sent from that part of the country. In addition to this, it appeared to St. Clair that it would be very useful to send another gentleman from the upper part of the country, and, since Fearing was already in Washington representing the Marietta interests, St. Clair proposed that George Tod of Trum-­ bull County be sent, because, since he was a Republican, ""his political principles would, in the present case, render him more useful than some others, or than he otherwise could be." Tod, an ambitious young lawyer from Connecticut, belonged to that group of Con, necticut Jeffersonians of which Gideon Granger was the leader. Tod had come to Chillicothe as the agent of the Connecticut Land Com, pany to obtain from the Legislature a postponement in the payment of the territorial land taxes in the Connecticut Reserve. St. Clair immediately saw the possibility of using the young man for his own purposes, and hence, made him his private secretary, as well as deputy attorney--general in Trumbull County. The governor now proposed to enlist his influence in support of the gerrymander. St. Clair found that Tod ""did not think it an improper measure,"" and the governor promptly pointed out how many advantages would flow I to the Western Reserve from an immediate formation of t'\vo tem-- porary governments proposed. These advantages were of a political and economic nature, in which Tod and his employers, the Con, necticut Land Company, would share. St. Clair boasted, ""I could easily see that it made a sensible impression upon him, and there,

19St. Clair to Fearing, December 25, 1801, ibid., 550. FRONTIER OHIO 231 fore, dropped the subject, and left the hint I had given to work for itself in his mind.'"20 How willingly Tod and his fellow--politicians of Trumbull County lent themselves to this scheming has been point, ed out in the previous chapter. As preparations got under way to send McMillan and Tod to Washington to counteract the efforts of Worthington and Baldwin, rumors began to come in that all was not well in Washington with the gerrymander, especially because (thanks to \Vorthington's ef, forts) it was supposed by all, friends as well as opponents, to be designed to delay statehood. This was too much, and the Cincinnati politicians prepared to play their last card. Knowing that the new Republican Congress was quite anxious to admit new Republican states, they decided to seek to beat the Chillicotheans at their own game by explicitly (though not too publicly) offering to Congress the opportunity of adding two new states to the Union instead of one, with boundaries like those in the Division Act. On February 4, in flat contradiction to the understanding between the Cincinnati and St. Clair factions during the previous two years, as well as with St. Clair"s very explicit declarations to Ross and Fearing in December, 1801, Burnet wrote to Fearing expressly authorizing him to work for statehood. In his letter, Burnet said, that since the first inquiry of strang, ers to territorial affairs would be as to the effect of the gerrymander on the early attainment of statehood and, since Jefferson and his party were anxious to ""increase their influence"" by the establish, ment of a state government, ""I think you may safely assure them that the measure is not intended and that it will not in its effect interfere with the accomplishment of the favourite object,"" because the middle district has, at present, a sufficient number of inhabitants to become a state. At the same time Burnet expected that this assur, ance would satisfy the radicals in the Territory who objected to the gerrymander because of its supposed conflict with statehood.~ Nor was Burnet the only representative of the Cincinnati f ac-­ tion to make this remarkable concession. Eight days after Burnet wrote, McMillan likewise wrote to Fearing, saying that, since most

20St. Clair to Woodbridge, December 24, 1801, ihid., 547-49. For George Tod's relation to the Connecticut Land Company, see Directors to Tod, November 4, 1801, George Tod MSS. (in Western Reserve Historical Society), no. 147. 21Burnet to Fearing, February 4, 1802, Fearing MSS. 232 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

of the opponents of the gerrymander opposed it ~~upon the Ground that it would retard a State Government,"" an act of Congress author, izing statehood in any district, upon its attainment of a population equal to the ratio of representation in Congress (3.3,000), Hwould be so far from retarding the formation of one State Government that it would give rise to two at least in as short and I think a shorter period.""22 Two state governments instead of one! Indeed, the Cincin, natians were out,Heroding the Herods of Chillicothe. Thus was revealed the cloven hoof of the Cincinnatians. From February on, there was no longer any appreciable opposition to statehood, the Federalists being f creed to support the issue of two states instead of one. Before the summer was over, the most amazing development of all took place when St. Clair himself adopted the new Federalist views, as has already been pointed out.23 But these promises of Burnet and Fearing that the gerrymander would not delay statehood were too late because the Act had already been rejected by Congress, although the news had not yet reached the Territory. When the news did arrive, the project to send Mc, Millan and Tod to Washington was dropped,24 and the Cincinnatians were forced back to methods of opposition that might well be termed the methods of despair, viz., an attempt to get the people to reject the Enabling Act. The particular form of opposition now adopted by the Cincin, natians was an appeal to the Territorial Legislature and a denial of the right of Congress to have anything to do with the process of becoming a state. It was strong doctrine, indeed, to say the least, but it was adopted with strange unanimity by the three Cincinnati leaders, Burnet, McMillan, and St. Clair. This quasi,revolutionary doctrine contrasts strangely with the cordial support given to all the measures of Congress by the Chillicotheans whose principles were really closer to the frontier than those of their rivals. But the most surprising feature concerning this local doctrine of Congressional usurpation was the respectability of its adherents. While petitions were circulating in Cincinnati for the calling of

22William McMillan to Fearing, February 12, I 802, ihid. 23See ante, page 1 9 S. IIBurnet to Fearing, February I I, I 802, Fearing MSS. FRONTIER OHIO 233 the Legislature to take matters in hand,25 three prominent Mariettians were voicing their sentiments without compunctions. ""For my part,.,., wrote Fearing challengingly, ""I should be glad to see a convention formed by our territorial legislature, with delegates from all the eastern divisions, and to enter into a State under the Ordinance. ,,2e Likewise, Woodbridge, stung by the success of the Chillicotheans with Congress, expostulated to Fearing, ""If Compacts which we once deemed Sacred can be Violated by an ex parte decision [by Con, gress] what are we coming to. "'27 And to top it all, the prince of the aristocrats, Rufus Putnam wrote that he considered the Enabling Act of Congress as a violation of the com pact between the United States and the Territory and liable to lead ""to consequences the most pernicious to the Liberty, peace and hapiness of this country." Con, gress might propose or authorize the formation of a state constitu, tion, ""but any interference beyond that we conceive intrenching on our right. "'28 But the most unexpected member of this strange coterie of exponents of radical doctrine is one ever in adversity and incon, sistency, St. Clair. This doctrine of the supremacy of the Territorial Legislature was advocated publicly by the governor in his address of November 3 to the Constitutional Convention, certain parts of which provided the immediate occasion for his removal by President Thomas Jefferson. 29 He argued that the passage of the Enabling Act by Congress was an interference with internal affairs over which Congress had no control. HThe act,.,., he said, ""is not binding on the people, and is in truth a nullity. .,., The Territorial Legislature had sole control over internal affairs and is .... no more bound by an act of Congress than we would be by an edict of the first consul of France."' How completely, how vicariously the governor had given himself to his new allies! With these words he laid his head upon the block and was quickly dispatched into political oblivion. The distinguished adherents of this doctrine were not without arguments that had a certain ring of plausibility. They claimed that, under the terms of the Ordinance, the Territorial Legislature and

2SCharles Byrd to Massie, May 20, 1802, in Massie, Massu, 206. 28Paul Fearing to St. Clair, May 1, 1802, in Smith, Life and Ser:,kes of St. CLAr, II, S83. 27Woodbridge to Fearing, May 4, 1802, Fearing MSS. 28Rufus Putnam to Fearing, March 24, 1802, ihid. •smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 29S-97. 234 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS not Congress \.vas legally the supreme authority in the determination of the local affairs of the Territory during the second stage of the government. In other words, the Ordinance gave Congress the right to permit the Territory to form a state, but it did not give Congress the right to say when the Convention should meet, or the right to change the boundaries of the Territory by cutting off the Detroit area, or the right to prevent the state from taxing public lands untii :five years after their sale, or the right to alter the suffrage quali:6.ca, tions from f eeholding to taxpaying, or the right to prescribe in detail the method of electing delegates to the Convention. As Burnet explained it : No power had been given to Congress, in the Ordinance or else, where, to interfere with the local legislation of the Territory, after the establishment of the second grade of government. The formation of a state constitution belonged wholly to the people of the Territory, and their legislature; neither of whom had been permitted to take any part in the movement. When the people of the district amounted to sixty thousand in number, they were authorized to form a constitution on republican principles, and become a member of the Union. Prior to that time, it was understood, that Congress had power to permit the formation of a state government; but that when that permission had been granted, their power was exhausted. As to everything else, connected with that subject the Legislature and people of the district had the exclusive right of prescribing and acting.30 This position, it was alleged, was supported explicitly by the :fifth Article of the solemn compact in the Ordinance of 1787, which it was declared, must ""forever remain unalterable, unless by comm.on consent..,., This Article provided that when any of the named divisions reached the population of 60,000 the state should be admitted into the Union with complete liberty to form its own constitution and state government. Furthermore, it might be admitted earlier, when there were less than 60,000 inhabitants, because Congress, by plac, ing the ratio of representation in Congress at 33,000, enabled them to fulfill the qualification named in the Ordinance, viz., Hso far as it can be with the general interest of the Confederacy."" In other words, whether the Territory had 60,000 people or not, the people of the Territory had the sole right to provide for a constitutional

::Ojacob Burnet, Notes on the Ea,-ly Settlement of the North-Western Territory (New York and Cincinnati, 184 7 ), 362-64. FRONTIER OHIO 235 convention. This right of self.·action the Federalists claimed Congress had broken. In order to further disqualify Congress, the Cincinnati lawyers found certain legal flaws in the Enabling Act that rendered it in.­ operative. The objection was raised by Burnet that the election for delegates to the Convention could not be held --as it cites a La\v of the Territory for the regulation of the Election which has been repealed.''31 Technically, Burnet was right, for the Enabling Act provided that members to the Convention be elected in the same manner as provided by the territorial law entitled --An act for the election of representatives to the General Assembly."'32 This act had been passed in 1799. The Enabling Act should have cited --An act amending'' the Act of 1799. This Amending Act, passed in 1800, had repealed that part of the Act of 1799 which provided that elections should be held at the county court.-houses, and authorized instead the creation of election districts within each county.33 According to Burnet, it \Vas, therefore, obvious that the Act of Congress \vas in... effectual. The Territorial Assembly was, he claimed, free to proceed as it pleased. 34 Further objections to the Enabling Act cited by Burnet were, first, the illegal exclusion, by Congress, of the Detroit country, or Wayne County, from becoming a portion of the state, and second, the unfairness of the so.-called ""Propositions,., added to the Act. Con.­ ceming the Detroit country, Burnet claimed that the Ordinance de.­ dared, --in express terms,.,, that it should remain a part of the state formed on the south of it until its inhabitants numbered 60,000. Burnet also claimed that the people of Detroit \Vere of the same mind on the statehood question as he was. 35 Concerning the -·Propo.­ sitions," Burnet contended, along with others, that the provision exempting the public lands from state taxation until five years after

31Byrd to Massie, June 7, 1802, in Massie, Massie. 3:.'Theodore C. Pease (ed.), The Laws of the Northwest Territory, 1788-1800 (Spring­ field, Illinois, 192 5 ), 404-14. 33Salmon P. Chase (ed.), Statutes of Ohio and the Northwestern Territory . ... (Cincin­ r.ati, 1833), 304-06. Z4This contention by Jacob Burnet was reported by William Goforth to Thomas Worthington, who replied in a long letter demonstrating to Gofonh that Congress meant to refer to the Law of 1800, and that it was quite inconceivable that the Law of 1799, which had been repealed by the Territorial Legislature, could be reenacted by Congress. Thomas Worthington to Goforth, July 26, 1802, in Letterbook of Thomas Worthington, Thomas "Worthington MSS. (in Library of Con­ gress, Manuscript Division), 118-21. :l5Burnet, Notes, 336; Spy, November 3, 1802. 236 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS their sale to individuals deprived the state of the constitutional right to be admitted on equal footing with the original states, to say nothing of a valuable source of revenue.36 Burnet apparently gained some converts to these views, for, on June 12 at Dayton, an association was formed ""to enquire into the expediency of entering a State Government . .,., In a circular letter ""To the Inhabitants of the Northwest Territory,.,., signed by Ben, jamin Van Cleve, the association endorsed the gerrymander, de, nounced the Enabling Act as unconstitutional, expressed sympathy for the inhabitants of Detroit, and asked that the Legislature be "" called immediately, to pass a law to take the enumeration and call a con, vention, regulating the election for members to the same, the time and place for the meeting, &c . .,., It alluded to the fact that, in the Enabling Act, the requirement that the election of members of the Convention be at the county court--houses, according to the Act of 1799, made it impossible for voters to vote for members to the third Territorial Assembly on the same day because the Territorial Law declared that the latter were to be elected by the electors at the district voting,places under the Act of 1800.37 The fact that this circular letter so closely followed Burnet"s points, and the fact that Burnet repro-­ duced an extract of part of this letter in his Notes, although under a different date, leads one to believe that there was a definite relation between the meeting and the Cincinnati lawyer.38 But it was all to no avail. The calling of the Legislature was prevented by Charles W. Byrd, who, as acting governor and ally of the Scioto interests, would take no chances with the possibilities of the gerrymander. He stood strongly by the Enabling Act, writing to Massie that he would not call the Legislature because he was Hjealous of the Council,"" which he believed, would prevent the ac, ceptance of the terms of the Enabling Act.39 Byrd had good reason to fear the Council because, from its first meeting in 1799, it had been dominated by the powerful personality of Burnet, who was now counting on his powers over it to carry his last efforts through. Bur-­ net was greatly chagrined at the refusal of Byrd to call the Legis--

38Burnet, Notes, 338-39. :nspy, June 26, 1802. 38.Burnet, Nous, SOI. 38Byrd to Massie, May 20, I 802, in Massie, Masu, 206. FRONTIER OHIO 237

lature. As Byrd wrote to Massie, •·The Governor"s Party are highly exasperated, and Burnet has frequently declared in large companies, that the most violent tumults in the Territory, such as were never before witnessed in any Country, would be the certain consequence. ""'0 With this hope gone, there was only one thing left for the Cin, cinnatians to do, viz., to go straight to the people and win a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention over to their views -truly a forlorn hope. They, therefore, accepted the Convention as called by Congress and strove to influence the voters to elect men who would reject the off er of Congress and pass propositions providing for two states. McMillan and St. Clair were the leaders of this last phase of the campaign. The former, under the pseudonym of •·Frank Stubblefield,"" published :five letters in the Spy, each letter over three columns in length, and each so utterly dull that even modern scholars :find them difficult reading, to say nothing of the frontier voters for whom they were intended. 41 These letters were written to persuade those, who were voters for members to the Convention, of the dangers from the possible domination of the Convention by members associated with the Scioto interests. One of these letters attempted to show the danger of the introduction of slavery into the State by these men, all of whom came from slave states. Another sought to show the jobbery by which Jeffersonian politicians led by William B. Giles were using the Territory for their own political advantage, while loading the State vvith the burden of the ·•Propositions . .,., An, other described at length the injustice done to Detroit. By far the most interesting letter of the series is the one by which McMillan demonstrated that the gerrymander was not calculated to delay statehood. It has been pointed out how he had already in, formed Fearing, privately in the spring, that the Division Act might even hasten statehood for both divisions. Now, behind the rather thin disguise of a pseudonym, he made public the reasoning behind this, presuming, of course, that the two eastern divisions had been

40Byrd to Massie, June 20, 1802 ibid., 210. ~Sp1~ August 28, September 4, 11, 18, 2S, 1802. Benjamin Van Cleve, in commenting on the views of the Cincinnatian said, "Perhaps the best essays were six numbers over the signature of Frank Stubblefield in the West.em Sp, attributed to Mr. McMillan." Beverley W. Bond, Jr. (ed.), "Memoirs of Benjamin Van Cleve," in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio Quarterly Pu.hlication ( Cincinnati, 1906-), XVII (1922 ), nos. 1 and 2, 71. The editor of the "Memoirs of Van Cleve," in commenting on these letters of "Stubblefield,» says that they were written in opposition to statehood. He is obviously mistaken. 238 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS entitled to statehood all along, and that the gerrymander was passed merely as an ""accommodation."" The reasoning is extremely technical. McMillan claimed that, by the Ordinance of 1784, for the temporary and permanent government of the western lands, these lands were divided into proposed states, one of which extended from the Falls of the Ohio to the Great Kanawha and had the Miami Valley as its center. It had been stipulated by that Ordinance that the boundary of this state was to be unalterable after the sale of any land in it, except with the consent of its inhabitants, and that it might become a state after the attainment of 20,000 population. Subsequently, in 1785, the location of Clark's Grant n1ade the first condition operative, viz., the unalterability of the boundary, so that legally that boundary still existed. Therefore, ""the Census taken in 1800 ... showed that we had a population entitling us to two states.,., since the division center... ing about the Miami and Muskingum Valleys each exceeded 20,000. Certain special interests had caused the passage of the Ordinance of 1787 and the Enabling Act of 1802, the divisions in both of which violated the contract of 17 84 and, hence, were illegal. On the basis of this reasoning, the people of the Territories of 17 84 had the right in the coming Convention to make provisions for statehood accord, ing to their own terms. 42 St. Clair, of course, threw himself strongly into this campaign to win over the Constitutional Convention and wrote the letters already described, in favor of two states, using the pseudonym of "".i\.n Old Inhabitant of Hamilton. .,., He further sought to use his fast waning official power as governor in the interests of the cause. On his return to the Territory in July, believing that Hamilton, Washington, and Jefferson Counties were opposed to the offer of Congress, he sought to concert their opposition into some sort of unified action. Believing Trumbull County a possible convert to his schemes, he wrote to Samuel Huntington, suggesting some uniformity; in the measures pursued ""should your people be of the same way of think.ing.""0 It was in Washington County, however, that the most effective measures of opposition were consummated, where, according to Fearing"s sug,

42-rhis same view of statehood appears in Van Cleve's "Memoirs." Bond, "Memoirs of Van Cleve,» loc. cit., 70-71. See Map no. IV for divisions proposed by the Ordinance of 1784. 43St. Clair to Huntington, July 15, 1802, in Smith, Life and Seruices of St. Clair, II, S87. FRONTIER OHIO 239

gestion, a county convention was called to meet the crisis." How effective this measure really was is shown by the fact that on August 4, delegates from Marietta, Gallipolis, Belpre, Waterford, Athens, and Zanesville gathered at Marietta and nominated a county ticket of members to the Constitutional Convention which was subsequently elected.45 In spite of the futility of all this scheming that seems so obvious to the modem observer, the Cincinnati tactics kept the opposition worried down to the very end of the campaign. As late as October, Massie felt that the danger of the gerrymander was not over. He wrote to Worthington that he greatly apprehended that the gerry, mander party was gaining ground. He feared that, if the Cincinnati leaders succeeded in electing their candidates, there was grave danger that they could, by uniting with the Marietta leaders, effect a measure making division ""a condition in the Constitution. ,,46

2 The Republican Victory. The coalition might have spared their efforts for concerted action, as well as their hopes for the gerrymander, because the Re, publican tide was rapidly gaining the momentum which was to sweep the friends of the Chillicothe brand of statehood to overwhelming victory in the October election. Organizations similar to that cen, tering in Chillicothe in the campaign of the previous winter and spring, which had been formed to defeat the gerrymander and to get the Ena:bling Act through Congress, now spread like magic through, out the Territory in the campaign to elect members to the Constitu, tional Convention. Furthermore, the fact that voting was to be by local districts, instead of at the county--seats, was enfranchising most of the people of the Territory for the first time, and made victory for the Republicans certain. The most interesting feature in the use of this political machinery is the rise of the Hamilton County Republican organization. The political situation in Hamilton County had been greatly confused by

44Woodbridge to Fearing, May 4, 1802, Fearing MSS. 45Julia Perkins Cutler, Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler• ••• (Cincinnati, 1890), 65-66. 46Massie to Worthington, October 1, I 802, in Smith, Life and Services of St. Clair, II, 591. 240 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS the schemes of the Cincinnati politicians. The general public, as dis, tinguished from the politicians in and around Cincinnati and Colum.. bia, whose boosters had so vociferously clamored for self,government from 1794 to 1798,'7 had since then become generally quiescent be, cause of the attractions offered them by McMillan and Burnet. Oc, casionally public demonstrations were held, and at these the toning down of the popular demands is noticeable. Thus, at the festivities held on July 4, 1800, by ••a number of real republicans.,., at the house of that sincere democrat, David Ziegler, toasts were drunk to ••a sud, den transmutation of our territory into a state,.,., as well as to •·Mr. Jackson, who made a motion to postpone the division of our terri, .,.,,a t ory. Although, as loyal Cincinnatians, the local Republicans were pledged to support the St. Clair,McMillan program, nevertheless, they did not fail to demonstrate their republican zeal whenever occasion arose. On March 20, 1801, a meeting of Republicans gathered at Mennesier" s Hotel at Cincinnati to celebrate the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson and the new national regime.49 On July 4, Republi, can celebrations were held at Cincinnati and Columbia with the usual festivities. At the former, presided over by citizen John C. Symmes, a toast was drunk to "The North Western Territory and the Byrd that hovers over it... ., At the latter presided over by William Goforth, one was drunk to St. Clair with the addendum ··may it be his glory to have been instrumental in metamorphosing the present anti,revolu, tional heterogeneous government of the territory in to that of a free state. .,.,50 It is apparent then that, in spite of a tacit acquiescence in the St. Clair,McMillan program, there was a strong undercurrent of Republican feeling in favor of statehood.51 It was not long before this undercurrent came to the surface. As soon as it began to appear, in the winter and spring of 1802, that statehood was destined to come to Ohio, less as a special benefit for the politicians and lawyers of Cincinnati than as an accommodation to

47See ante, pages 1 i8-86. '8Spy, July 16, 1800. 4.9Jbid., March 2S, 1801. OOJbiJ.., July 8, 1801. 51In national affairs William McMillan himself retained his Republican convictions, for in the election of 1800 he favored the election of Thomas Jefferson. "Jacob Burnet•s Letters," in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio Transacti-Onr (Cincinnati, 1839), part 2, I, 132. FRONTIER OHIO 241 the desire of the people in general, and that the majority of the people of Hamilton County were really in favor of the Chillicothe brand of statehood,52 the Republicans of Cincinnati proceeded to organize. The :first evidence of this is the Republican Corresponding Society of Cincinnati which, during the last week in April, 1802, met to draw up a program in support of the Enabling Act of Congress. They were glad, their communication to the Spy read, that Congress is ""about to lay the axe to the root of all our little territorial aristocra, cies,'" and they ans\vered several of the objections wbich Burnet and others were raising to the Enabling Act.r;.1 To the objection that the ""Propositions.,., would put the State on an unequal footing with the· other states, they answered that the Convention might reject the '"Propositions.,., if it wished, and go into a state government notwith, standing. To the objection that it was unfair to exclude Detroit from the State, they replied that it was so isolated that to be repre, sented would be too expensive, both to the State of Ohio, and to De, troit itself. To the objection that the Territorial Legislature, and not Congress, had the right to call a Convention, they replied that the matter lay between Congress on the one hand and the people of the State on the other. ··our present legislature was appointed to give laws to the territory during the temporary government, and no longer . .,., The Legislature should not ~~interfere in any way with the business of a state to which they do not belong,.,., inasmuch as it does not represent the state, first because it represents Wayne County (De, trait) and land west of the Miami ( now in Indiana) not in the pro, posed state, and second, because it is composed of a governor and a Council who are not chosen by the people. The Cincinnati society served as a model for the organization of similar societies throughout southwestern Ohio. The fact that the Election Law of 1800 was to enfranchise most of these people for the first time, in the election of members to the Convention, lends signif, icance to this movement for the creation of Republican societies. On July 3, Thomas Brown, chairman of the Republican Correspond, ing Society for the township of Anderson, submitted a long letter on

52See the William Ludlow letter) ,mtc, page 211. li3Spy, May 1, 1802. 242 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS the issue of slavery in the campaign.54, On July 4, Thomas M'Farland, chairman of the Cincinnati society, was made chairman of the annual Republican celebration at which a toast was drunk to ""The Repub, lican Societies throughout the Territory-may their efforts be crowned with complete success. ,,ss On July 31, ""The Friends of Humanity~, wrote two columns against slavery and addressed it to the ""Members of the several Republican Societies in the Northwestern Territory."58 By the second week in August there were at least seventeen such so, cieties in Hamilton County.51 In order that the efforts of these societies might not suffer from a lack of coordination, delegates from seventeen of them met in con, vention August 13 at Big Hill for the purpose of nominating a county ticket of candidates to the Constitutional Convention and also a ticket for members to the Third Territorial Assembly.a After nom, inating their ten candidates for the Convention and seven for the Assembly, it was resolved Hthat the different societies will exert their utmost endeavors to promote the election of the above gen, tlemen. .,, At the same time, in order to settle the question raised by Burnet and others as to the mode of electing members to the Convention, it was resolved that ""we, as the delegates of the different societies, agree to hold our election for the convention in districts, at the same time and place that we elect our legislators, agreeably to the amendatory act [ of 1800] of the legislature of the territory.~, Testimony to the effectiveness of the measures of this county conven, tion is found in the fact that not only was the election held in districts according to the Law of 1800,59 but that in the :final election eight of their ten candidates for the Constitutional Convention were elected and four of the seven for the Legislature. 60 In Ross County there could, of course, be no doubt as to the success of the Republicans. The editor of the Scioto Gazette did not exaggerate when he said that ""the Proportion of Federals to Repub,

MJbid., July 3, 1802. 55Jbid., July I 0, 1802. 56Jbid., July 31, 1802. 57Jbid., August 21, 1802. s&rhis Assembly never met, ibid. 59According to the terms of the Law of 1800, the Hamilton County Court of Quarter­ sessions, in their August term, proceeded to divide the county into nine election districts. See Map no. V. Sp,, August 21, 1802. OOJbid., October 20, 1802. FRONTIER OHIO 243

licans in this county after rallying all their forces is not one to ten. ""111 The method of electing delegates was, therefore, more informal than the one used in Hamilton County. A self,appointed committee headed by Duncan McArthur published in the Scioto Gazette of August 28 a circular letter printed in large type in which the signers declared that ""we should unite on some plan by which a free interchange of opinions may take place throughout the county."" In order to ac, complish this, they proposed that each candidate should, in presenting himself to the public, answer in the press the four following questions: 1st. Whether they are, or are not, advocates for the formation of a State Government. 2d. Whether the present administration of the general government is or is not approved by them. 3d. Whether they are for rejecting or accepting the propositions made to us by the general government. 4th. Whether they are, or are not, in favor of slavery being admitted into the country. At the same time they suggested that, in order to insure against weakening the Republican ranks by the offering of too many candi, dates, a county convention be held of delegates selected by a meeting of the people in each election district, in order to select a common ticket on which they all might unite. The suggestion· for a county convention was not acted upon because the number of Federalists was practically negligible. The sug, gestion, however, as to the form for candidates to follow in offering themselves to the public, was universally adopted. As a result the columns of the Scioto Gazette were crowded with announcements of twenty,one candidates. As to the Republican activity in other counties, we have records of the activity of only two, Belmont and Washington. In the former, early in September, a committee of :five issued an address ""to the People of the North-western Territory and particularly those of Bel, mont County. ,,a2 After indulging in a frontier paean of praise to Republican principles, and also in a denunciation of the nefarious purposes of all Federalists, the committee urged, HLet us with one voice form ourselves into corresponding communities, in every part of the county, and each committee to send three members to a general

61Scioto Gazette, July 10, 1802. 62Jhid., October 9, 1802. 244 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

~ 0 0-:) c,I - 0 ~ 0:, r. - C, .-~ 8 .., tT.) QI -...... u 0 d V) (l..- C 0 s:00 ): ~(\, ~ J.,.J- ·-r :--,. ~ H ~ 0 d 2: r c:L- ~.- d -E ~ :cd .c

V) a., 0 ~ CJ d .-~ .. (L- Q, 0..0 "d c -~ -- o() t C ~ >- -:2 FRONTIER OHIO 245' committee, to meet at the house of Elijah Martin, Esq., on the 21st day of September, A. D. 1802, to form a ticket for us_,, Popular meetings were then held Hat nine several places'' and on September 21, at Elijah Martin,s at St. Clairsville, a county convention of twenty, six members voted for two delegates each. The result, however, was unsatisfactory as only one man received a majority of all the votes cast.

In Washington County, where a county convention of Federal-­ ists had met, the Republicans were not inactive, and, although they were unable to organize a counter,convention, they did start a defec-­ tion that ultimately led to the overthrow of Federalism in Washington County. The editor of the Scioto Gazette wrote in the issue of Sep, tember 4, ""We learn that there are some rebellious townships in the county of Washington, that would not elect members to the county convention, that will do right at the election in October next; any, thing in the address to the citizens of the county of Washington to the contrary notwithstanding. " 63

The October election resulted in an overwhelming Republican victory. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in Hamilton County. Of the ten members elected to the Constitutional Convention, the :first eig4t were on the ticket of the Big Hill convention. The ninth was the land speculator, John Smith, who, although a Republican and in favor of statehood, was not in good standing with the Repub, lican societies. The tenth was the sole Federalist candidate elected, John Reily. But the most significant feature of the election in Hamil, ton County, as well as elsewhere, was the tremendous increase in the number of votes cast, as the result of the new district system of voting." Over six times as many votes were cast in Hamilton County in the election of 1802 65 as were cast in the previous election of 180099 as the f ollo\ving table shows:

63Cutler, Lifd of Cutler, 66. 64See Map no. V. flEiSn, October 20, 1802. MJbid., October 22, 1800. 246 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Election of 1800 Election of 1802 Candidates Vote Candidates Vote elected received elected received F. Dunlavy ...... 1635 M. Miller...... 284 J. Paul...... 1630 J. Smith ...... 273 J. Morrow...... 1536 F. Dunlavy...... 229 J. Wilson ...... 1381 C. W. Byrd ...... 1338 J. Morrow...... 212 J. Kitchell ...... 1172 D. Reeder...... 204 W. Goforth ...... 1128 J. Ludlow...... 187 J. W. Brown...... 1066 J. Smith...... 964 J. White ...... 162 J. Reily ...... 924 Number of candidates voted Number of candidates voted for ...... 3 5 for ...... 99

The fact that Clermont County had been cut off from Hamilton shortly after the election of 1800 increases the signincance of these :figures. Inasmuch as there were nine election districts in 1802, as contrasted with but one in 1800, it is perhaps accurate enough to say that the new election system, by increasing the vote six times, en-­ franchised for the :first time about eighty--three per cent of the voters of Hamilton County. Something similar can, of course, be said for all the rest of the Territory.

3 The Constitutional Convention. The long contest was over and statehood was attained. There now remained but the details of making the Constitution of the State, and the division of the spoils. The main features of the Constitution had, of course, been de-­ termined by the circumstances of the statehood contest. It is not nec-­ essary, therefore, to go into the details of the proceedings of the Consitutional Convention. The central theme of the Constitution and of the debates in convention was the placing of all the agencies of the State subject to the will of the people, who had been so long FRONTIER OHIO 247 deprived of a real share in political life. r. As an opponent of the in, strument expressed it, "''It begins with we the people, and if we may judge from the judiciary Article few Constitutions were ever so bepeopled as it is throughout. ,,68 From the first frontier days beyond the Ohio River, there had existed this strongest of frontier desires for self,govemment. It has been evident in every period of the Territorial era-in every phase of frontier life. Self,government was sought in all political affairs, in township, county and territory. And now every element of this frontier democracy, either accomplished or hoped for, received explicit sanction in the first Constitution of Ohio-which represents, therefore, the first political fruit of its frontier experience. The keynote of the Constitution was sounded during the cam, paign of 1802 by Stephen Wood, of Hamilton County, when he of, f ered himself to the electorate as a candidate for delegate to the Con, vention. 89 In answering certain questions proposed to all aspirants to the Convention, Wood said that he would do all in his power to pro, mote the rights of the people, ""that every resident male citizen of full age who pays a tax toward the support of the government may vote for its various officers.,.. In addition to obtaining universal suffrage for taxpayers, he pledged himself to work for the popular election of all executive and legislative officers, and for the election, by the two houses of the Legislature in joint session, of the judges of the State Courts. Finally, he argued that all offices should be ""limited.... and elections should be frequent. Other candidates expressed practically the same sentiments.10 Each one of these fundamental demands found its place in the Constitution.11 The suffrage for the election of all state, county and township officers ,.vas given to all white males of twenty,one and over, who. were taxpayers or who were ""compelled to labor on the

67The student should not be misled by the fact that the slavery issue ca.used more debate th:m any other single topic. Hamilton County leaders, during the campaign of 1802, had raised the slavery bugaboo by claiming that the Scioto Valley Virginians were favorable to the existence of some form of negrc; slavery. Practically every candidate in Ross County, however, had publicly declared his opposition to the institution. 68Levin Belt to Fearing, December 3, 1802, Fearing MSS. 89Sp7, October 2, 1802. '10Jbid. 71The first Constitution of Ohio may be found in munerous places. See Isaac Franklin Patterson (ed.)> The Constitution of Ohio.••• (Cleveland, 1912). See also Elliot Howard Gilkey (ed.), Tiu Ohio Hundred Yea,- Book• ••• (Columbus, Ohio, 1901 ), 62-76. 248 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS roads of their respective township or Counties_,., The governor, county sheriffs and coroners, justices of the peace, and other township o:ffi ... cers were to be elected by the taxpayers. The secretary of state, the judges of the Supreme Court, the judges of the Courts of Common Pleas, the state treasurer and the state auditor should be elected by joint ballot of both houses of the Legislature. All civil officers of the State were subject to impeachment by a majority of the House, and conviction rested with two ... thirds of the Senate. Terms were limited and were, as a general rule, short. Representatives to the Legislature and township officers were chosen annually; the governor, senators, sheriff"s and coroners were chosen biennially; the secretary of state, treasurer, auditor, and justices of the peace were chosen triennially; and judges of the state and county courts held office during good be-­ havior. It should be noted further that the governor had no veto power-a natural result of the contest with St. Clair. Further points which were the natural result of frontier expe-­ rience should be noted. The strong desire for autonomy in the creation of new counties and for the consequent benefits of increased local self--govemment was :finally satisfied, with the express provision that counties of not less than four hundred square miles might be laid off by the Assembly. The oft expressed antipathy to the poll--tax was laid at rest by prohibiting the Legislature from levying such a tax for county or state purposes. The militia officers, who had long been too closely supervised by the Governor, were now released from such control when the selection of the higher officers was placed in the Legislature, and the selection of the various officers of subordinate rank in election by the grade of officers or men next beneath them. The reform of the judiciary, to which much attention had been devoted throughout the territorial period, was :finally carried out by Article III, which not only placed the state and county judges subject to appointment by the Legislature, but requireq annual sessions of the Supreme Court in each county, a feature borrowed from the Pennsylvania Constitution. This provision to make the Supreme Court a peripatetic body was the object of much derision by the Federalists. Levin Belt, a Federalist attorney of Chillicothe, wrote to Fearing, ~~If Justice is not worth coming after it can hardly be FRONTIER OHIO 249

worth the having. Nor can I think that system likely to conduce to the prosperity or respectability of Society which makes their Honours the Waiters, rather than the W aited,upon ..,., This system, said Belt, was taken from the Pennsylvania system, ""with these trifling differ, ences, in that State the Judges are well paid, well accommodated and their task made practicable from their number and from having roads from one county to the other, and Taverns and Court,Houses when they get there. In this State , , , [sic]. "72 Another characteristically frontier feature of the Constitution was the express limitation of the salaries of state officers within a de:fi., nite maximum, the governor and judges of the Supreme Court being limited to $1,000, and the rest to sums varying from $450 to $800.73 This was, of course, the reductio ad abstirdum of the tendency, al, ready noted, by which the Territorial Legislature had reduced all fees in the interests of the people. The dangerous possibilities of this feature were, of course, noted by the opponents of the Constitution. Belt exclaimed with keen sarcasm, ~•what a truly desirable object of ambition will be a Judgeship in the State of Ohio. ""74 Woodbridge wrote that u on their present Economical plan no office will be Luera, tive, nor I think very Honble. ""75 The orgy of job,hunting which was to follow the adoption of the Constitution was to bear out the impli-­ cations of the words of Belt and Woodbridge. Although the record of the Convention is remarkable for its unanimity, it is not at all surprising to note that a successful effort was made to meet some of the states" rights objections that had been raised by Burnet and others in the campaign for the election of dele, gates to the Convention. It will be recalled that among these objec, tions was one pointing out that by the ""Propositions,.,., the State was to be deprived of the revenues from the taxation of lands bought from the United States until :five years after the date of sale. To meet this objection the Convention enacted, on the last day of its session, an ordinance promising to exempt all public lands from taxation for

't2Belt to Fearing, December 3, 1802, Fearing MSS. 73This feature and the over-specific provision for the Judiciary are two of the best examples of what Jefferson meant when he told Jeremiah Morrow in 1803 that the Convention "had legislated too much.,, Cutler, Life of Cutler, 75 7'Belt to Fearing, December 3, 1802, Fearing MSS. 75Dudley Woodbridge, Sr., to William Woodbridge, William Woodbridge MSS. (in Detroit Public Library, Burton Historical Collection), no. 49. 250 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

:five years after their sale, on condition that Congress grant two fur, ther concessions: :first, that the donation to the State, for school pur, poses, of a section of every township, be extended to the Congressional Military District, the Connecticut Reserve, and all lands to be obtained in the future by cession from the Indians; second, that not less than three of the :five per cent of the net proceeds from the sale of public lands reserved for western roads be applied to the laying out of roads within the State, under the direction of the State Legislature.18 A copy of the Constitution, of the Ordinance of Acceptance, and of an Address to the President and to Congress, was placed in the hands of Worthington, who was thereby commissioned as the Convention"s official agent to present these documents to the authorities at Wash, ington.n Thus, Worthington, whom one of his enemies at this time de, scribed as ""that Sweet mixture of Milk & honey, sour small beer . . . everything--citizen Tommy all in a foam with the fomentations of a Morbid Ambition,.,,~s appeared in Washington to put the :finishing touches to an enterprise he had so successfully inaugurated a year be, fore. After interviews with Jefferson, Giles, and others of the Re, publican politicians, 79 he was able to secure from Congress the accept, ance of the State Constitution, the passage of an act dealing with the school lands, and the three per cent fund as the Convention had desired.88 Under these auspices, and backed by a second overwhelming Re, publican victory in the election of State officers in January, 1803, the State of Ohio came into existence with the meeting of its Legislature in March. After years of struggling for self,government, the desire of the people had been attained. After a period of apparent disunion, a commonwealth had abruptly revealed itself with the sudden enfran, chisement of the mass of settlers in the upper Ohio Valley. For it is fair to say that the people of Ohio, at the time that they joined to,

76<:hase, Statutes of Ohio, I, i4-75. 'Z7'fhese documents, together with ·w e:rthington's letter transmitting them to Congress, are printed in American State Papen, Miscellaneous (Washington, 1834 ), I, 343-44. 78John Mathews to Fearing, December 11, 1802, Fearing MSS. 19Worthington to Massie, December 2S, 1802, in Massie, Massie, 220-22. 80Rkha.rd Peters (ed.), The Pu.hlic Statutes at Large of the United States of America. • • • (Boston, 1848), II, 225-27. FRONTIER OHIO 251 gether in this new political integer, were unconscious how close they had once been to disunion. * * * * * But oppos1t1on and criticism, both of a petty and of a whole, some type, are never absent from human affairs. Both types are com, bined in one of the first criticisms of the new regime when Belt wrote on 1.1arch 2 3, 180 3 : Our Legislature are and have been very hard at work-they call it log,rolling-1 do not well understand the term but I believe it means bargaining with each other for the little loaves and fishes of the State. When they will begin to make Laws or whether they will make any is doubtful and yet a busyer Set were rarely ever together.81 But they did begin to make laws eventually-laws whose titles provide a fitting conclusion to our story by completing the reforms treated in a previous chapter: acts for the creation of eight new coun, ties; an act for the legislative esta:blishment of seats of justice; an Election Act which made each township an election district; an act for the local election of justices of the peace, and for the division of counties into townships by the justices of the peace.112 With the adoption, the next year, of an act placing the main burden of the government of each county in the hands of a board of popularly elect, ed commissioners,83 and of an act extending the civil jurisdiction of single justices of the peace to thirty,five dollars,8' the ultimate goal of complete frontier government may be said to have been attained.85 New leaders took charge of this new political era, while the old leaders quickly disappeared from the scene. St. Clair, as one has seen, fell a victim to his own indiscretion by denying, in an address to the Constitutional Convention, the right of Congress to pass the En, ab ling Act, and was thus farced to undergo the humiliation of dismis, sal but a few months before the natural expiration of his term. He retired to his old home at Ligonier in Pennsylvania to spend the rest of his days in oblivion and reduced circumstances. Winthrop Sargent had long been forced to confess his unfitness for frontier life by abandoning the governorship of Mississippi Territory and by return, ing to the East. McMillan died in 1804, and Burnet and Fearing

81Belt to Fearing, March 25, 1803, Fearing MSS. 8:?Chase, Statutes of Ohio, I, 353-54, 364-68, 371-72; III, 2099-2101. 83Jbid., I, 410-12. 84.Jbid., I, 429. sssee Chapter V, Political Reform. 252 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS resigned themselves to less pretentious but more lucrative spheres of usefulness by lending their legal talents to the political and commercial development of their constituencies, the Miami and Muskingum Val,. leys. In their respective valley homes they rest, these losers in that strange gamble with Ohio's destiny, forgotten even by the biographers of damaged souls. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bibliographical Gu.ides

Annual Report of the Auditor of State to the Governor of the State of Ohio for the Year 1877 (Columbus, Ohio, 1878). [Contains classified description of status and location of Ohio Land Records.] Bradley, Isaac S., 44Available Material for the Study of the Insti, tutional History of the Old Northwest,.,, in American Historical Asso, ciation Report, 1896 (Washington, 1897), 290,319. Brigham, Clarence S., 44Bibliography of American Newspapers, 1690,1820, Part XI, Ohio,"" in American Antiquarian Society, Pro, ceedings (Worcester, Massachusetts, 1919), Ne~T Series, XXIX, part I, 129,80. Galbreath, Charles B., Newspapers and Periodicals in Ohio State Library, Other Libraries of the State, and List of Ohio Newspapers in the Library of Congress and the Historical Society of Wisconsin (Columbus, Ohio, 1902). Hasse, Adela4de R., Index of Economic Material in Documents of the States of the United States. Ohio, 1787,1904-2 Parts (Carne, gie Institution; Washington, 1912) . Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio, Catalogue of the 'Torrence Papers ... (Cincinnati, 1887). Library of Congress, A Chec7{ List of American Eighteenth Century Newspapers in the Library of Congress; compiled by John Van Ness Ingram, chief assistant, Periodical Division (Washington, 1912). Library of Congress, Chec"Jt List of Collections of Personal Papers in Historical Societies, University and Public Libraries, and Other LeaTned Institutions in the United States (Washington, 1918). Library of Congress, Handboolt of Manuscripts in the Library of Congress (Washington, 1918). Library of Congress, Manuscripts in Public and Private Collec, tions in the United States (Washington, 1924) . 253 254 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Mode, Peter George, Source Boo'<. and Bibliographical Guide for American ChuTch History . . . (Menasha, Wisconsin, 1921). Ohio State Library, Catalogue of Manuscript Papers Deposited in the State LibraTy from the Governor's Offece. [No date.] Parker, David W., Calendar of Papers in Washington Archives Relating to the Territories of the United States ( to 187 3) ( Carnegie Institution, Washington, 1911). Thomson, Peter G., Bibliography of the State of Ohio~ Being a Catalogae of the Bool{s and Pamphlets Relating to the History of the State ( Cincinnati, 1880). Van Tyne, Claude Halstead and Leland, Waldo Clifford, Guide to the Archives of the Government of the United States. . . . Second Edition . . . ( Carnegie Institution, Washington, 1907) .

2 Prima-ry Sources

A. Manuscript Collections, Memoirs, Journals and Travel Accounts 1. Unprinted Clark, George Rogers George Rogers Clark MSS. (in State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Draper Collection, Madison, Wisconsin). Continental Congress Continental Congress MSS. (in Library of Congress, Man, uscript Division, Washington), Series 5' 6. Fearing, Paul Paul Fearing MSS. (in Marietta College Library, Marietta, Ohio). Frontier Wars Frontier Wars MSS. (in State Historical Society of Wis, consin, Draper Collection, Madison, Wisconsin). Greene, Griffin Griffin Green MSS. ( in Marietta College Library, Marietta, Ohio). FRONTIER OHIO 255

Harmar, Josiah Josiah Harmar MSS. (in State Historical Society of Wiscon, sin, Draper Collection, Madison, Wisconsin). Jefferson, Thomas Thomas Jefferson MSS. {in Library of Congress, Manu, script Division, Washington). McArthur, Duncan Duncan McArthur MSS., 1783, 1848 (in Library of Con, gress, Manuscript Division, Washington), 48 vols. Pickering, Timothy Timothy Pickering MSS. (in Ma~achusetts Historical So, ciety, Boston) . St. Clair, Arthur Arthur St. Clair MSS. ( in Illinois State Historical Library, Springfield, Illinois) . Arthur St. Clair MSS. (in Ohio State Library, Columbus, Ohio). Sargent, Winthrop Winthrop Sargent MSS. (in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio). Tod, George George Tod MSS. (in Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland) . Woodbridge, William William Woodbridge MSS. (in Detroit Public Library, Bur, ton Historical Collection, Detroit). Worthington, Thomas Diary of Thomas Worthington (in Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Washington). Letter,book of Thomas Worthington, Mercantile Letters, 1801,1825 (in Library of Congre~, Manuscript Division, Wash, ington). Thomas Worthington lv1SS. (in Ohio State Library, Co, lumbus, Ohio). 256 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

2. Printed Badger, Joseph A Memoir of Joseph Badger Containing an Autobiography and Selections from His Private Journal and Correspondence (Hudson, Ohio, 1851) . Baily, Francis Journal of a Tour in Unsettled Parts of 'North America in 1796 C:J 1797 ... , by Francis Baily (London, 1856). Boyer, Lieutenant A Journal of Wayne's Campaign . .. , by Lieutenant Boyer (Cincinnati, 1866). Burnet, Jacob 1,1,Jacob Bumet"s Letters,"" in Historical and Philosophical So, ciety of Ohio Transactions (Cincinnati, 1839), part 2, I. Notes on the Early Settlement of the North,western Terri, tory, by Jacob Burnet (New York and Cincinnati, 1847). Butler Richard 1,1,Journal of Richard Butler,"" in The Olden Time (Pitts, burgh, Pennsylvania, 1846,1848), II (1847), 433,64, 481,525, 529,31. Chambers, Charlotte Memoir of Charlotte Chambers; ed. by her grandson, Lewis H. Garrard (Philadelphia, 1856). Clark, William l,"William Clark,s Journal of General Wayne,s Campaign,", in Mississippi Valley Historical Review (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1914,), I (1914), 418,44. Denny, Ebenezer l,"Military Journal of Major Ebenezer Denny,"'! in Historical Society of Pennsylvania Publications (Philadelphia), VII (1860), 205,492. Drake, Daniel 1,1,Dr. Daniel Drake'ls Memoir of the Miami Country, 1779, 1794 (An Unfinished Manuscript)",.; ed. by Beverley W. Bond, FRONTIER OHIO 257

Jr., in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio ~uarterly Publication ( Cincinnati, 1906,), XVIII ( 192 3),. nos. 2 and 3, 39,117. J\f.atural and Statistical View or Picture of Cincinnati and the Miami Country ... , by Daniel Drake (Cincinnati, 1856). Finley, James B. S'l{etches of Western Methodism, by James B. Finley; ed. by William P. Strickland ... (Cincinnati, 1856). Harris, Thaddeus Mason 'The Journal of a. Tour into the Territory Northwest of the Alleghany Mountains; Made in the Spring of the Year 1803 with a Geographical and Historical Account of the State of Ohio ... , by Thaddeus Mason Harris (Boston, 1805), in Reuben Gold Thwaites (ed.), Early Western Travels, 17 48, 1846 . . . ( Cleveland, 1904) , III. Harrison, William Henry HLetters of William Henry Harrison in Selections from the Torrence Papers, III,,, arranged by Isaac Joslin Cox, in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio ~uarterly Publication (Cin, cinnati, 1906,), II (1907), no. 3, 97,120. Huntington, Samuel .... Letters from the Samuel Huntington Correspondence, 1800, 1812, ,, in Western Reserve Historical Society 'fracts (Cleveland, 1870,), no. 95 (1915), 55--151. Kilbourne, James HAutobiography of James Kilbourne,,, in 'The "Old North, west" Genealogical ~uarterly (Columbus, Ohio, 1898--1912), VI (1903), 111,21. Maclay, William Journal of William Maclay; ed. by Edgar S. Maclay (New York, 1890). M"Nemar, Richard The Kentucky Revival; or a Short History of the I.Ate Ex, traordinary Outpouring of the Spirit of God in the Western States of America ... , by Richard M"Nemar (New York, 1846). 258 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

May,John Journal of Col. John May ... (Cincinnati, 1873). M~ie, Nathaniel Nathaniel Massie, a Pioneer of Ohio; a Sl{etch of His Life; Selections from His Correspondence, by David Meade Massie, (Cincinnati, 1896). Michaux, Fran~ois A. Travels to the West of the Allegheny Mountains in the States of Ohio:, Kentucl{y:, and Tennessee ... in the Year 1802, by Fran~ois A. Michaux (London, 1805), in Reuben Gold Thwaites (ed.), Early Western Travels:, 1748,1846 (Cleveland, 1907), III. Putnam, Rufus The Memoirs of Rufus Putnam. and Certain OfficiaL Papers and Correspondence; published by the National Society of the Colonial Dames of America in the State of Ohio; compiled and annotated by Miss Rowena Buell . . . (Boston and New York, 1903). St. Clair, Arthur A 'N.,arrative of the Manner in Which the Campaign against the Indians in 1791 Was Conducted:, by Arthur St. Clair (Phil, adelphia, 1812) . 'The Life and Public Services of Arthur St. Clair ... with his Correspondence and Other Papers, by William Henry Smith ( Cincinnati, 1882), 2 vols. Simcoe, John Graves The Correspondence of Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe; ed. by Ernest A. Cruikshank (Toronto, 19 31) . Stanley, William ""Diary of Major William Stanley, 1790, 1810,"' in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio ~uarterly Publication (Cin, cinnati, 1906,), XIV (1919), nos. 2 and 3, 17,32. Symmes, John Cleves The Correspondence of John Cleves Symmes ... ; ed. by Beverley W. Bond, Jr.; published for the Historical and Philo, FRONTIER OHIO 259

sophical Society of Ohio by the Macmillan Company (New York, 1926). Torrence MSS. ~~Selections from the Torrence Papers.... ; .arranged and ed. by.: Isaac Joslin Cox in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio ~u.arterly Publication (Cincinnati, 1906,), I (1906), no. 3, 63 ,96. [Papers described in Annual Report of the Society for 1887.J Van Cleve, Benjamin ~~Memoranda of Benjamin Van Cleve,.. ., in The American Pi, oneer (Cincinnati, 1842, 1843), II (1843). ~·Memoirs of Benjamin Van Cleve""; ed. by Beverley W. Bond, Jr., in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio ~uarterly Publication (Cincinnati, 1906,), XVII (1922), 1,71. Washington, George The Diaries of George Washington, 1748, 1799; ed. by John · Fitzpatrick (Boston and New York, 192 5) . The Writings of George Washington ... ; ed. by Jared Sparks (Boston, 1858), 12 vols.

B. Printed Public Documents American State Papers, Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States ... Indian Affairs ... (Wash, ington, 1832), I. American State Papers, Documents, Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United States . . . Miscellaneous . . . (Wash, ington, 1834), I. American State Papers, Documents, Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United States ... Military Affairs ... (Wash, ington, 1832), I. American State Papers, Documents, Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United States . . . Public Lands . . . (Wash, ington, 1832), I. Annals of the Congress of the United States, the Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States Containing Important State Papers and Public Documents ... (Washington, 1851). 260 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Calendar of Virginia State Papers; ed. by William P. Palmer (Richmond, Virginia, 1884),IV. Constitutions of Ohio; Amendments Including the Ordinance of 1787, the Act of Congress Dividing the Northwest 'Territory and the Acts of Congress Creating and Recognizing the State of Ohio, Com, plete Original Texts; ed. by Isaac Franklin Patterson ... (Cleveland, 1912). Description of the Soil Production, etc., of that Portion of the United States Situated between Pennsylvania, the Rivers Ohio and Scioto and La~e Erie; translated from the French ... by John Henry James (Columbus, Ohio, 1888). ""From Charter to Constitution: Being a Collection of Public Doc, uments Pertaining to the Territory of the Northwest and the State of Ohio ... 1606 to 1803 ... ,,; ed. by Daniel Joseph Ryan in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society ~uarterly (Columbus, Ohio, 1887,), V (1896), 1,164. Indian Affairs. Laws and' Treaties; ed. by Charles J. Kappler (Washington, 1903), II. Journal of the House of Representatives of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio Begun and Held at Cin, cinnati on September 16, 1799 ... (Cincinnati, 1800). Journal of the House of Representatives of the 'Territo-ry of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio Begun and Held at Chilli, cothe, November 3, 1800 . . . ( Chillicothe, Ohio, 1801) . Journal of the House of Representatives of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio ... at the First Session of th_e Second General Assembly . . . N. ovember 2 3, 1801 ( Chillicothe, Ohio, 1802) . Journals of the Continental Congress, in Library of Cong-ress Edition (Washington, 1934), XXV. lAws of the Territory of the United States, Northwest of the River Ohio ... to the 31st of December, 1791 (Philadelphia, 1792) . . . . from July 20,. 1792 to December [?], 1792 (Philadelphia, 1794) . . . . from May 29, 1795, to August 25, 1795 ... (Cincinnati, 1796), (Maxwelrs Code.] lAws of the Territory of the United States, Northwest of the FRONTIER OHIO 261

River Ohio at a. Session of the Legislature ... from April 29., 1798~ to May 7., 1798 (Cincinnati, 1798). Laws of the Territory of the United States., Northwest of the Ohio River, Passed a.t the First Session of the General Assembly Begun ... at Cincinnati ... September 16., 1799 . . . (Cincinnati, 1800) . . . . at the Second Session of the First General Assembly Begun . . . at Chillicothe . . . "J\[ ovember 3, 1800 . . . ( Chillicothe, Ohio, 1801) . . . . at the First Session of the Second General Assembly Begun at Chillicothe . . . "J\[ ovember 2 3. 1801 . . . ( Chillicothe, Ohio, 1802). 'The Laws of the Northwest 'Territory., 1788,1800; ed. by Theo, dore Calvin Pease; published by the Trustees of the Illinois State Historical Library (Reprinted by the Illinois State Bar Association, Springfield, Illinois, 192;) . Messages and Papers of the Presidents; ed. by James D. Richard, son (Washington, 1898), I. Minutes of the Legislature of the 'Territory of the United States Northwest of the Ohio [Meeting in 1795], Winthrop Sargent MSS., (in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Library, Colum, bus, Ohio; printed in the Society's Publications (Columbus, Ohio, 1887,), XXX (1921), 13 .. 53_ 'The Ohio Hundred Tea,, Bool{; ed. by Elliot Howard Gilkey ... (Columbus, Ohio, 1901). Official Records of the Proceedings of the Government of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio, North, west Territory MSS. (in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Library). [ A copy of the original in the State Department at Washington.] 'The Public Statutes a.t Large of the United States of America.; ed. by Richard Peters . . . (Boston, 1848). The Records of the Original Proceedings of the Ohio Company . . . ; ed. by Archer Butler Hulbert (Marietta, Ohio, 1917), 2 vols. Statutes of Ohio and the Northwest 'Territory; ed. by Salmon P. Chase ... (Cincinnati, 1833), 3 vols. 262 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Cfhe Statutes at lArge; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Vir, ginia from the First Session of the Legislature ... 1619 ... to Febru, ary __ 5, 1808; ed. by William Waller Hening ... (Philadelphia, 1823).

C. Periodicals l. Newspapers Chillicothe, Ohio. 'The Scioto Gazette and Chillicothe Advertiser, October 10 to December 25, 1800. 'The Scioto Gazette, January 8, 1801, ff. [On file in Qhilli-­ cothe Public Library and in W estem Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland.]

Cincinnati. 'The Centinel of the N,orthwestern Territory, November 23, 1793-June 11, 1796. 'The Western Spy, and Hamilton Gazette, December 10, 1799, ff [Copies of Centinel and Spy in Library of the Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio; copies of the Centinel in Li, brary of Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society.]

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh Gazette, August 26, 1786, ff [Copies in Carne, gie Library of Pittsburgh.] 2. Monthlies

'The American Pioneer, a Monthly Periodical Devoted to the Objects of the Logan Historical Society; ed. and published by John S. Williams (Cincinnati, January, 1842--October, 1843). · Cist, Charles, 'The Cincinnati Miscellany or Antiquities of the West and Pioneer History and General and Local Statistics; Compiled from the Western General Advertiser from October 1st, 1844 to April 1st, 184 5 ( Cincinnati, 184 5) , I. . from April 1st, 184 5, to April 1st, 1846 ( Cincinnati, 1846, II. FRONTIER OHIO 263

3 Secondary Sources A. Books-Biographies Biographical Cyclopaedia and Portrait Gallery . . . of the State of Ohio ... (Cincinnati, 1883), 2 vols. Campbell, John W., Biographical S~etches with Other Literary Remains ... ; compiled by his widow (Columbus, Ohio, 1838). Cutler, Julia Perkins, Life and 'Times of Ephraim Cutler ... ( Cincinnati, 1890) . Gilmore, William Edward, Life of Edward 'Tiffin, First Governor of Ohio ( Chillicothe, Ohio, 1897) . Hildreth, Samuel P., Memoirs of the Early Pioneer Settlers of Ohio . . . ( Cincinnati, 18 54) . McBride, James, Pioneer Biography. S"l{etches of the Lives of Some of the Early Settlers of Butler County, Ohio (Cincinnati, 1869), 2 vols. McDonald, John~ Biographical S~etches of General Nathaniel Massie, General: Duncan McA_rthu.r, Captain . William Wells, and General Simon Kenton . . . ( Cincinnati, 183 8). Meguiness, John F., Biography of Francis Slocum (Williamsport, Pennsylvania, 1891). Memorial Association, Eulogies at Music Hall, and Biographical Sl{etches of Many Distinguished Citizens of Cincinnati, in the Pro, ceedings (Cincinnati, 1881). Private Memoir of 'Thomas Worthington . . . , by his daughter; printed for the use of his descendants only ( Cincinnati, 1882). Smith, William Henry, 'The Life and Public Services of A~hur St. Clair ... (Cincinnati, 1882), 2 vols. Stone, William L., Life of Joseph Brant (Albany, 1864), 2 vols. B. Books-County and Local Histories Andrews, Martin R., History of Marietta and Washington County> Ohio, and RepTesentative Citizens (Chicago, 1902). Bannon, Henry T., Scioto S'l{etches, an Account of Discovery and Settlement of Scioto County, Ohio ... (Chicago, 1920). 264 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS Butler County., Ohio., Centennial History of; ed. by Honorable Bert S. Bartlow, W. N. Todhunter, Stephen D. Cone, Joseph J. Pater, Frederick Schneider and others (B. F. Bowen fi Co., 1905'). Butler County., Ohio., A History and Biographical Cyclopaedia of ... (Cincinnati, 1882). Butler, Joseph G., History of Youngstown and the Mahoning Val-­ ley., Ohio (Chicago and New York, 1921), 2 vols. Caldwell, John A., History of Belmont and Jefferson Counties, Ohio ... (Wheeling, West Virginia, 1880). Clari{ County, The History of . . . ( Chicago, 1881). Clermont County, Ohio., History of, with Illustrations and Bio-­ graphical S\etches of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers (Philadelphia, 1880). Columbiana County., History of, with Illustrations and Biograph-­ ical S~etches ... (Philadelphia, 1879). Dills, R. S. History of Greene County ... (Dayton, Ohio, 1881). Doyle, Joseph B., 20th Century History of Steubenville and Jef-­ f erson County, Ohio ... (Chicago, 1910). Evans, Nelson W., and Stivers, Emmons B., A History of Adams County, Ohio ... (West Union, Ohio, 1900). Evans, Nelson W., A History of Scioto County, Ohio . . . Portsmouth, Ohio, 1903). Ford, Henry A., and Ford, Kate B., History of Hamilton County, Ohio (L. A. Williams & Co., 1881). Greene County., 1803,1908; ed. by a Committee of the Home Coming Association (Xenia, Ohio, 1908). Greve, Charles Theodore, Centennial History of Cincinnati and Representative Citizens (Chicago, 1904), 2 vols. Hanna, Charles A., Historical Collections of Harrison County in the State of Ohio ... (New York, 1900). Hentz, John P., Twin Valley; Its Settlement and Subsequent His, tory 1798,1882 ... (Dayton, Ohio, 1833). Miami County, Ohio, The History of ... (Chicago, 1880). Miami Valley., Memoirs of the; ed. by John C. Hover [et al.] ( Clucago, 1919), 3 vols. FRONTIER OHIO 265' Middleton, Evan P. (ed.), History of Champaign County, Ohio, Its People, Industries and Institutions ... (Indianapolis, 1917), 2 vols. Preble County, Ohio, History of, with Illustrations and Biograph, ical S~etches ( Cleveland, 1881). Robinson, George F., History of Greene County, Ohio . . . ( Chicago, 1902) . Steele, Robert W., and Mary Davies, Early Dayton . .. (Dayton, 1896). Summers, Thomas J., History of Marietta ... (Marietta, Ohio, 1903). Teeter, Henry B., The Past and Present of Mill Creel{ Valley . . . ( Cincinnati, 1882) . Trumbull and Ma.honing Counties, History of, with Illustrations and Biographical Sl{etches (Cleveland, 1882), 2 vols. Union County, Ohio, Cfhe History of . . . (Chicago, 1883). Upton, Harriet Taylor, History of the Western Reserve . . . ( Chicago and New York, 1910) , 3 vols. Upton, Harriet Taylor, A Twentieth Century History of Cf rum, bull County, Ohio (Chicago, 1909), 2 vols. Warren County, Ohio, 'The History of ... (Chicago, 1882). W a.shington County, Ohio,. History of . . . ( Cleveland, 1881).

C. Books-Special Subjects Barker, John Marshall, History of Ohio Methodism . .. (Cincin, nati and New York, 1898). Bemis, Samuel Flagg, Jay's T-reaty-a. Study in Commerce and Diplomacy (New York, 1923). Butler, Mann, History of Kentucl{y (Lo1risville, Kentucky, 1834). Callahan, James Morton, Semi Centennial History of West Vir, ginia . . . (Charleston, West Virginia, 1913) . Chaddock, Robert Emmet, Ohio before 1850, a Study of the Ear, ly Influence of Pennsylvania and Southern Populations in Ohio, in Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law ... (New York), XXXI (1908), no. 2. Cleveland, Catherine, Cfhe Great Revival in the West, 1797, 1805 ... (Chicago, 1916). 266 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Collins, Lewis, and Richard H., History of Kentucb ... (C,ov, ington, Kentucky, 187 4), 2 vols. · Cotterill, Robert S., History of Pioneer Kentucfo, (Cincinnati, 1917). Dunlevy, Anthony H., History of the Miami Baptist Association ... (Cincinnati, 1869). Egle, William H., History of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ... (Philadelphia, 1883). Ford, Amelia Clewley, Colonial Precedents of Our National l.And System as It Existed in 1800 ... , in University of Wisconsin Bulle, tin (Madison, Wisconsin), II (1910), no. 2. Hildreth, Samuel P., Pioneer History; Being an Account of the First Examinations of the Ohio Valley and Early Settlement of the Northwest 'Territory ... (Cincinnati and New York, 1848). Howe, Henry, Historical Collections of Ohio, Containing a Col, lection of th.e Most Interesting Facts, 'T raditiom, Biographical Sl{etch, es, Anecdotes, etc., Relating to Its General and Local History . . . (Cincinnati, 1847). Hulbert, Archer B., · Boone's Wilderness Road, in Historic High, ways ... (Cleveland, 1903), VI. Hulbert, Archer B., Braddoc1( s Road ... , in Historic Highways, . . . (Cleveland, 1903), N. Hulbert, Archer B., The Old Glade (Forbes's) Road, in Historic Highways ... (Cleveland, 1903), V. Hulbert, Archet: B., Washington and the West . . . (New York, 1905). Jones, Robert Ralston, Fort W a.shington . . . ( Cincinnati, 1902). Jones, Rufus M., The Later Periods of ~ual{erism (London, 1921), 2 vols. King, Rufus, Ohio First Fruits of the Ordinance of 1787 (Boston and New York, 1888). McCarty, Dwight G., 'The 'Territorial Governors of the Old Northwest, a Study in 'Territorial Administration . . . (Iowa City, Iowa, 1910). Maclean, John P., Shal{ers of Ohio: Fugitive Papers Concerning the Shil{ers of Ohio, with Unpublished Manuscripts (Columbus, Orio, 1907). FRONTIER OHIO 267

Peters, William E., Legal HistOTy of the Ohio University . . . ( Cincinnati, 1910) . · Peters, William Edwards, Ohio Lands and Their Subdivision . .. (Athens, Ohio,. 1918). Randall, Emilius 0. and Ryan, Daniel J., History of Ohio, the Rise and Progress of an American State (New York, 1912), 5 vols. Seldes, Gilbert Vivian, The Stammering Century ... (New York, 1928). Sherman, Christopher E., Original Ohio I.and Subdivisions, in Ohio Cooperative Topographic Survey Final Report ... (Columbus, Ohio), III (1925). Sweet, William W ., The Rise of Methodism in the West ( Cin, cinnati, 1920). Treat, Payson J., The National Land System, 1785,1820 (New York, 1910). Williams, Samuel W., Pictures of · Early Methodism in Ohio, (Cincinnati and New York, 1909) .

D. Magazine Articles Bartlett, Ruhl Jacob, ""The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio,"" in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Publications (Colum, bus, Ohio, 1887,), XXXII (1923), 472,505. Cole, Frank T., ""Thomas Worthington,"" in Ohio State Archaeo, logical and Historical Society Publications (Columbus, Ohio, 1887,), XII (1903), 339 ff. Downes, Randolph C., ""Thomas Jefferson and the Removal of St. Clair in 1802,"" in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical So, ciety Publications (Columbus, Ohio, 1887,), XXXVI (1927), 62,77. Goodwin, Frank P., ""The Development of the Miami Country,"" in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Publications ( Co, lumbus, Ohio, 1887,), XVIII (1909), 484,503. Huntington, Charles C., ""A History of Banking and Currency in Ohio before the Civil War,"" in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Publications ( Columbus, Ohio, 1887,) , XXN (1915'), 23; .. ;39_ 268 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Katzenberger, George A., ""Major David Ziegler,"" in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Publications (Columbus, Ohio, 1887,), XXI (1912), 127--74. M"Clintock, William T., .... Ohio"s Birth Struggle,"" in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Publications ( Columbus, Ohio, 1887,), XI (1902), 44 ff. Moats, Francis I., ""The Rise of Methodism in the Middle West,"" in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review (Cedar Rapids, 1914,), xv (1928), 68,88. Pershing, Benjamin H., "I.Winthrop Sargent,"" in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Publications ( Columbus, Ohio, 1887,), XXXV (1926), 583,602. Smith, H. E., ""The Quakers; Their Migration to the Upper Ohio; Their Customs and Discipline,"" in Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Publications ( Columbus, Ohio, 1887,), XXXVII (1928), 35,85. Utter, William T., ""Saint Tammany in Ohio: a Study in Frontier Politics,"" in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review ( Cedar Rapids, 1914--), xv (1928), 321,40. Wittke, Carl, ""Canadian Refugees in the American Revolution,"" in The Canadian Historical Review (Toronto, 1920), III (1922), 320,33. INDEX

Adams County, .Politics...... 224,225 .-'\.dams, John, President, and removal of St. Clair...... 19 3 Ainse, Sarah...... 47 Alexander township (Athens County), settlement...... 76 Anderson, John, Colonel...... 20 Anderson, Richard C., Colonel...... 19~ 81 Armstrong, John, Captain ...... 74, 84, 85', 134 Asbury, Francis ...... 89, 97 Ashton, Joseph, Captain...... 20 Athens settlement, 76, 82; incorporation, 15 5. Aupaumut, Hendrick, Captain, ...... 3, 36, 37 Aurora ...... 206 Badger, Rev. Joseph...... 99 Baldwin, Abraham, Senator...... 20 5' Baldwin, Michael, 224; agent to Congress to oppose gerrymander, 209. Banking, beginnings...... 120 Baptist Church ...... 62, 94,96, 99, 100 Bartle, John, sutler...... 109 Baum, Martin ...... 84, 119, 121 Bellaire ...... ·...... 8 2 Belmont County, politics ...... 217, 243,245' Belpre ...... 71 Belt, Levin ...... 248, 2 51 Benham, Robert, sutler...... 108, 182 Big Bottom massacre ...... 26, 69, 71 Big Cat (Delaware chief)...... 50 Big Hill, Republican convention...... 242 Blanchard, John...... 13 7,138 Boat yards...... 5' 8 Braddock's Road...... 5'7 Brant, Joseph, Captain ...... 7,11, 37, 39, 46,48 Brickell, John...... 3, 5'0 British influence among Jndians ...... 4, 17, 22, 28, 33,37, 38,48 Brodhead, Daniel, Colonel...... 7 4 Brown, John, Senator...... 20 5' Brown, John W...... 99 Brown, Patrick...... 18 Brown, Thomas ...... ~...... 241 Buckongahelas ...... 10, 3 7, 49 Buell, Joseph...... 220 Burnet, Jacob, 78, 87, 161; disapproves St. Clair's proroguing Legislature, 202; delusions about gerrymander, 229, 230; favors two states, 231; opposes Enabling Act, 232, 234,237; retirement, 251,252. Butler, Richard, Major,General...... 29,31 Byrd, Charles Willing, opposes St. Clair's proroguing Legislature, 202; refuses to call Legislature, 2 2 2, 2 24, 2 3 6; patronage, 2 2 2, 2 2 5'; quarrels with St. Clair, 224,225'. Cadbury, Henry...... 226 269 270 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Cadwell, Aaron...... 114 Caesarsville ...... : ...... 80 Cahokia, land problem...... 168 Caldwell, James ...... :... 217 Campbell, William, Major...... ~······· 46 Campus Martius...... 71 Carneal, Thomas...... ,...... 81 Carpenter, Nicholas...... 111 Carpenter, Samuel...... ,...... 124 Cattle droving ...... 104,105', 111, 112, 125',126 Census, taken by statehood advocates, 18 2,185'; proposed by opponents of Enabling Act, 236. Cherokee Indians...... 18, 2 2 Chew, Joseph...... 39 Chillicothe, founded, 81; land office, 8 3; shipping, 122; incorporated, 1 5' 5'; capitol of Territory, 198; desires permanent capitol of Territory and State, 201, 203; campaign for statehood, 201,225'; protests against gerrymander, 208; anti,gerrymander committee, 209, 214, 215'. See Gerrymander, Statehood, Republican party, Worthington. Chippewa Indians ...... 8, 10, 40, 43, 5'1, 5'4 Church, 88,100; raises anti,slavery issue, 100. See different denominations. Cincinnati, Kentucky origins, 6 2,6 3; reasons for location, 6 3, 79, 114, 1 1 5; land office, 8 3; growth as a trade center, 114,115'; squatter form of government, 129,130; incorporated, 15' 5'; capitol of Territory, 166; leads movement for statehood, 178; leads movement for second stage of territorial government, 181; recession of desire for state, hood, 186; desire to be capitol of Territory, 186,187; opposes form, ation of Indiana Territory, 186,187; campaign for gerrymander, 187,200; alliance with St. Clair, 189, 192,195'; relations with back country, 190, 210; political bargain with Marietta, 198,200; capitol removed to, 200; last stand, 226,239; favors two states, 231,232. See Burnet, Gerrymander, McMillan, Northwest Territory, Statehood. Clark, Alured, Lieutenant,Governor...... 3 5' Clark, Francis...... 96 Clark, George Rogers...... 17, 49 Clark, William, Captain...... 74 Clark•s Grant...... ·.... .-... 238 Clendenin, George, Colonel...... 20 Cleveland ...... 83 College townships, in Athens County, 76; in Hamilton County, 191. Columbia, 6; settlement, 61; center of Baptist Church, 9 5'; decline, 11 5'; squatter form of government, 129. Committee of correspondence, works for second stage of territorial govern, ment and statehood, 182,185'. See Northwest Territory, Statehood. Congregational Church ...... 90, 98,99 Congress.· See United States. Congressional Military District, settlement, 69; speculation, 83,85'. . Connecticut Land Company...... 83 Connecticut Missionary Society...... 99 Constitutional convention, election, 219, 237,246; politics, 221,222; St. Clair addresses, 233; confusion of election laws, 235'; proceedings, 246,250. Constitution, Ohio, terms, 247,249; accepted by Congress, 250. . · Converse, Daniel...... 218 Cooke, William...... 21 7 FRONTIER Omo 271

Cooper, Daniel C...... 80 Complanter...... 7, 11, 16, 27 County government, Court of Quarter,sessions, 149,150, 154,162; Court of Common Pleas, 156; commissioners, 154; tax system, 149,150; reform under statehood, 251. See Justices of peace, New counties. Courts. See General Court. Covalt•s Station...... 71 Cow Killer (Seneca chief)...... 28 Crane (Wyandot chief) ...... 44, 53 Crary, Archibald...... 60 Credit, early system ...... 119, 120 Creighton, William...... 2 24 Currency, 107, 109; mill certificates ...... 116, 120 Cutler, Ephraim, 76,77, 82, 126; receives produce for lands sold, 118.

Davis, Jacob...... 8 2 Davis, Thomas T ...... 124, 213 Dayton, Jonathan ...... '...... 64,65, 67, 78 Deerfield ...... 80 Delaware Indians ...... 3, 6, 8, 10, 14, 17,18, 22, 32, 40, 49,51, 5'4 Denman, Matthias...... 62, 79 Denny, Ebenezer, Major...... 24,25, 29, 31 Deposit, right suspended...... 12 2 Detroit, 167; incorporated, 155'; a1fected by statehood, 235, 236, 237. Dicks, Zachariah...... 97 Division of Northwest Territory. See Gerrymander, Northwest Territory. Donation lands, 61, 63,65', 69, 80. See Land policy. Dorchester, Lord, 33, 34, 38, 39, 41, 45, 46, 48; predicts war with United States, 38. Doughty John, Major...... 6, 115 Douglass, Francis...... -·...... 21 7 Duane, William.:...... 206 Duentete (Wyandot chief) ...... 10, 11 Dundas, Henry...... 41, 45 Dunlap, John...... 79 Dunlap•s Station ...... 71, 134 Dunlavy, Francis ...... 210, 223 Dunn, Isaac B...... 106

Election laws, relation to statehood contest, 207; confusion in, 23 5'; for constitutional convention, 239; e1fect of Law of 1800, 241, 244, 246; reform under statehood, 251. Enabling Act, 214,216, 226; opposed, 232,238; declared a nullity, 233. See Statehood, United States Congress. England. See British. England,. . Richard G ., Colonel...... 40,46 E qwty, 1n county courts...... 158 Exports, trans,montane...... 104

Fallen Timbers, 40, 42, 43; Battle of, 45,46. Farmers• Castle...... 71 Fearing, Paul, 77, 85',86, 251,252; bargain with McMillan for delegate to Congress, 196,197; supports gerrymander, 213; opposes Enabling Act, 216. Fees, reduction of...... 249 272 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Filson, John ...... 62, 63, 79 Findlay, James ...... 119, 122 Finley, Robert...... 6·9 Finley, Samuel...... 209, 214, 215, 228 Forbes~ Road...... 57 Fort at Falls of Ohio...... 18 Fort Finney, Treaty of...... 4, 5, 7 Fort Franklin...... 7 Fort Frye...... 71 Fort Hamilton...... 29 Fort Harmar, construction...... 6 Fort Harmar, Treaty of, 3,16, 17, 19; Indians deny validity, 22; United States withdraws insistence on line, 36,37; United States restores insistence on line, 47, 50, 54; regarded by Indians as act of seduction, 51. Fort Jefferson...... 29 Fort Knox...... 18, 19 Fort McIntosh, Treaty of, 4, 5, 12, 15; Indians refuse to recognize validity, '>. Fort Miami (British) ...... 39,41, 45,47 Fort Recovery, Indian attack...... ;...... 4 2,44 Fort St. Clair...... 29 Fort Stanwix, Treaty of...... 5 Fort Washington, 20, 5 8; construction, 11 5. Foster, Luke...... 129 Fowler, John ...... 214, 215 Franklin (Warren County)...... 80 Franklinton ...... 81 French, influence among Indians...... 49 French Revolution, effect on desire for statehood...... 179 Frontier Ohio, relationship to East...... 55,69 Fur trade, 104; disappearance, 113. Gallatin, Albert...... 204 Gallipolis ...... 71 Gamelin, Pierre, Captain...... 22,23 Gano, Daniel...... 108 Gano, John S., Colonel...... 80, 108, 122, 193,194 Gano, Stephen...... 94 Gatch, Philip ...... 97, 99 General Court, decentralized, 163; difficulty of serving large territory, 169,170~ congestion, 170; increase in number of terms, 171; proposal to increase number of judges, 170, 172, 174. Gerrymander, favored by St. Clair, 178, 188, 227; Cincinnati,Marietta cam, paign, 190, 196,200; adopted by Territorial Legislature, 199; Worthington opposes, 205,206; protests against, 208,213; re, jected by Congress, 214; campaign against becomes one for state, hood, 214,215; Cincinnati persistence, 226; petitions in support of, 229; caucus in support of, 230; association in support of, 236; effort to make it subject at constitutional convention, 237,239. Gibson, Thomas...... 2 2 3 Giles, William B., congressional leader for statehood ...... 213, 215' Gilman, Benjamin Ives...... 219 Ginseng, trade...... 104 Goforth, William, 86, 87, 150, 240; leads movement for second stage of territorial government, 181,182. FRONTIER OHIO 273

Goudy, Thomas ...... 118, 182 Grand Portage...... 16 7 Granger, Gideon, patronage in Ohio ...... 218, 221 Great Revival of 1800...... 90 Greene, Griffin ...... 218,220 Greene, Philip...... 218 Greenville, Treaty of, 4, 43; negotiations and proceedings, 48,5'4; terms, 5'3,5'4; effect on settlement, 71,72.

Half King (Wyandot chief)...... 6 Hamilton County, 75; politics, 190,192, 222,223; Cincinnati vs. back country, 210,212; goes Republican, 240,242; Big Hill convention, 242; comparison of elections of 1800 and 1802, 246. Hamilton (town), settlement...... 80 Hammond, George...... 34 Hamtramck, John F., Major ...... 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25', 32, 48. Hardin, John, Colonel...... 19, 20, 24, 34 Harmar, Josiah, Colonel, 17; campaign and defeat, 18,26; effect of defeat on settlement, 70. Harrison, William Henry, 137; part in division of Territory, 174, 187; reveals duplicity of St. Clair, 207,208. Hartshorne, Asa, Ensign...... 21 Heckewelder, John ...... 10 Highway, Samuel...... 72, 80 Hodgdon, Samuel, Quartermaster,General...... 30 Hole, Zachariah...... ·~...... 68 Hunt, Jesse, merchant...... 119 Huntington, Samuel...... 220,222 Huron Indians. See Wyandot. Hutchins, Thomas...... 6 Indiana Territory, creation ...... 17'$, 186 Indians, annuities, 5'3,5'4; attacks on. whites, 9, 18, 21, 25', 29, 34, 35', 42; barrier state proposed, 34, 35'; civilization, 16, 27, 5'4; uncompromis, ing attitude, 33, 34. See specific tribes. Indian confederacy, 4,8, 12, 22, 23, 28, 32,35', 52, 5'3; final failure, 43; restoration, 1 7, 3 2; broken by Treaty of Fort Harmar, 16, 17. Indian councils: on the Au Glaize, 1792, 32, 35'; on the Au Glaize, April, 1794, 39; on the Au Glaize, June, 1794, 41; at Buffalo Creek, 1791, 27; at Brownstown, 1794, 46; at Canadesaga, 1788, 7; at Detroit, 1786, 5'; at Maumee Rapids, 1791, 34; at Maumee Rapids, 1793, 37; in the Miami country, 1788, 8, 11; at Painted Post, 1791, 28; on the Sandusky, 1783, 4; division, 6,12, 16. Indian lands: Indians need, 3; Indian proprietorship, 4, 15'; United States assumes Indians have no title, 5'; Indians acknowledge United States option, 13; complain that United States robbed them, 13, 1 5. See Ohio River boundary. Indian representation: at Treaty of Fort Harmar, 10; at Treaty of Fort McIntosh, 1 '>. Indian trade ...... 13, 16, 3 3, 5'3, 54 Iroquois. See Six Nations. Jackson, John G ...... 186, 21 5' Jackson, William...... 219 Jay Treaty ...... 38, 41, 47, 5'2,5'3 274 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Jefferson County, politics...... 217 Jefferson, Thomas...... 122, 123 Johnson, Sir John ...... 4, 32,34 Jones, W. & M., Grocers...... 116 Jury, six man vs. twelve man...... 158 Justices of peace, administrative powers, 149; appointment, 149, 1 51; effort to increase jurisdiction, 155,162, 2 51; right to judge by equity, 158; take testimony for higher courts, 162. Kaskaskia Indians...... 5 4 Kaskaskia, land problem...... 168 Kemper, James...... 90,92 Kentucky, aggressions on Wabash,Maumee Indians, 18,20; effect on United States Indian policy, 20; part in settlement' of Ohio, 58, 59, 62, 63, 69; traders, 110, 111. Kerr, Joseph...... 209 Kickapoo Indians...... 8, 39, 54 Kilbourne, James...... 77, 8 2 Knox, Henry, Secretary of War, 8, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 36, 50, 51 Kobler, John...... 97 Lancaster ...... 8 2 Lands, free lands to :first settlers forced on Ohio Company, 61; free lands forced on Symmes, 63,65; scattered locations forced on Symmes, 64,67; scattered locations forced on United States, 67; credit pay, ments, 67; low price, 68; preemption, 68; universality of free lands to first settlers, 69; squatting and speculating on lands west of Great Miami, 74,75, 81, 83; United States land offices opened, 83; speculation in Congressional Military District, 8 3 ,8 5; speculation in Refugee Tract, 85,86; use of produce in paying for lands, 116,118, Federal Land Law of 1800, 123; exemption of public lands from State taxation, 21 5, 249. See Massie, Speculators, Symmes, United States. Lasselle, Antoine ...... 47,49 Laws, question of adoption by governor and judges, 131; question of rules of equity in application, 158. Le Gris (Miami chief) ...... 22 Little Turtle ...... 1 7, 44, 49, 5'1,53 Limitations, repeal of statute proposed ...... 170 Local government. See Township and County government. Ludlow, Charlotte Chambers...... 88,89 Ludlow, Isaac...... 13 7 Ludlow, Israel, Major...... 78, 80, 81, 119, 145', 229 Ludlow, John ...... 79, 130 Ludlow, William...... 211 Ludlow"s Station ...... 71, 89 Lytle, William...... 81 McArthur, Duncan ...... 78, 81, 243 McClure, Robert...... 182 McCormick, Francis ...... 97, 99, 100 McCulloch, Thomas ...... 139,140 McElheran, Daniel...... 82 McFarland, Thomas...... 242 McIntire, John...... 77, 82 FRONTIER OHIO 275

McKee, Alexander...... 32, 33, 35', 37, 39,48 Maclay, William, Senator...... 2 5' ·McMillan, William, 63, 68, 87, 130, 139,141, 150, 182; relations with Sargent, 189; relations with St. Clair, 189; proposed for General Court, 190; opposes Symmes, 192; works for St. Clair's reappoint, ment, 194; bargains with Fearing for delegate to Congress, 196,197; drafted to support gerrymander, 230, 23 2; favors two states, 23 2; opposes Enabling Act, 2 3 2; proposes several states, 2 3 8; death, 2 51. McNemar, Richard...... 90,93 Mails, political manipulations...... 218 Manchester ...... 81 Marietta, 6, 34, 59,60, 61, 64, 76, 77; land office, 83; ship building, 121; squatter form of government, 128,129; incorporation, 1 5' 4 ... 1 5 5: supports Cincinnati gerrymander, 196,200; bargains with Cincinn1ti for capitol of Territory, 198, 200; politics, 218,220. Marshall, Robert ...... 92 Martin, Alexander ...... 1 51 Masass (Chippewa chief)...... 51 Massie, Henry ...... 8 2 Massie, Nathaniel, 69, 71, 78, 81, 224; trade activities, 106; receives produce for lands sold, 117; opposes gerrymander, 212; works for statehood, 228: fears gerrymander, 239. Massie's Station ...... 71 Maxwell, William ...... · .... 14 5', 146 May, John, Colonel...... 106 Means, Robert ...... 7 8 Meigs, Return J., Jr...... 100, 218,220 Merchant,mill system ...... 118,l 19 Miami Baptist Association...... 9 5 Miami Exporting Company...... 119, 120 Miami Indians, 8, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 33, 34, 3 5', 39, 40, 44, 47, 49,54.. Miami Purchase. See Symmes Purchase. Michillimackinac ...... 16 7 Middletown ...... 80 Militia, in Hamar•s defeat, 23,36; in St. Clair's defeat, 29, 3 2; difficulties with Sargent, 135,141. Mills, importance ...... 120 Mingo Indians ...... 3, 18, 39 Monongahela Farmer ...... 121 Morrow, Jeremiah ...... 15'1, 210, 223 Mount Pleasant ...... 79 Muskingum Falls, scuffle...... 9, 11 New county issue ...... 15'1,l 5'2, 162,163, 201, 203, 210, 25'1 New Light Church...... 90,94 New Orleans, trade ...... 105, 106, 120, 121,122, 123, 124, 125' Newell, David ...... 82 Newellstown ...... 8 2 North Bend, settlement, 63, 65'; decline, 115'. Northwest Ordinance, Federalist purposes, 101; dispute over interpretation, 131; undemocratic nature of, 147,149; dissatisfaction with, 179,182; compact theory, 234. See Northwest Territory. Northwest posts, delivery ...... 167,168 276 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Northwest Territory, formed, 6; proposals to divide, 164, 165, -173; division delayed by Indian wars, 166; need for division, 167,169, 171; second stage of government opposed by French, 173; second stage precipitates division, 173,174; division of 1800 (Indiana), 175; movement for second stage 180,186; division opposed by Cincinnati; 186,187. See Gerrymander, Northwest Ordinance, Statehood. Nourse, Joseph ...... 204 Ohio Company, 6, 36, 55, 59, 60, 76, 120; interest in downstream trade, 105; attempt to amend charter, 130. Ohio, first Constitution, terms 247,249; accepted by Congress, 250. See Statehood. Ohio River boundary, Indian claim, 3, 4, 8, 14, 26; Indians willing to com, promise, 8, 1 5; insisted on by Miami, 8, 1 7; Indians unwilling to compromise, 34, 3 7; Indians finally reiinquish, 4 7, 50. See Indians. Oldham. William, Colonel...... 31 Oliver, Robert ...... 118 Ordinance of 1783 (Indian)...... 5 Ordinance of 1784, statehood under...... 178, 238 Ordinance of 1787. See Northwest Ordinance. Ottawa Indians ...... 10, 40, 51, 52, 54 Ouiatenon (Wea) Indians ...... 11, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 39, 54 Paris, Treaty of 1783, used against Indians...... 52 Parsons, Samuel H ...... 60, 61, 130 Patronage, used by Chillicotheans ...... 216,22 5 Patterson, Robert C., Colonel...... 19, 79 Paul, John ...... 81 Pennsylvania frontier, relation to frontier Ohio, 55; sketch, 57,58; supplies Ohio settlers, 57, 62, 69; provides settlers, 59. Phelps, Timothy ...... 221 Piankashaw Indians ...... 18, 39, 54 Pickering, Timothy, 3, 10, 37, 207, 208; Indian mission, 1791, 28. Pickett, Pollard and Johnson...... 78 Pioneers, characteristics ...... 72,73 Pipe, Captain ...... 10 Pond, Peter, Captain...... 34 Potawatomi Indians ...... 8, 10, 40, 43, 49, 51, 54 Presbyterian Church, progress on the frontiers, 89,90; first society in Cin, cinnati, 90; New Light schism, 90,94. Pritchard, James ...... 217 Proctor, Thomas, Colonet Indian mission...... 27 .. Propositions;~ 215, 237, 241, 249; opposed by Burnet...... 235 Pultney ...... 82 Putnam, Rufus, Brigadier,General, 60, 76, 77, 78, 86, 132, 133, 138, 141; on Indians, 26, 32; peace mission to Vincennes, 35; early interest in trans,montane trade, 103, 104; opposes Enabling Act, 233. Quakers, in frontier Ohio ...... 97,99 Quinby, Ephraim ...... 83 Randolph, Beverly, Governor...... 20 Reading ...... 80 Refugee Tract (Canadian), speculation...... 85 Republican Corresponding Societies ...... 241,242 FRONTIER OHIO 277

Republican feeling on frontiers ...... 178, 180 Republican party, opposition to land speculators, 87,88; beginnings 208,212; use of patronage, 217,225; campaign for constitutional convention, 239,246; Hamilton County convention, 242; victorious in first State election, 2 50. Rice, Rev. David...... 90 Roads, 111; poor quality, 125; Zane's, 125; reform in legislation, 152,153; money grants, 215; federal aid, 250. See Forbes·, Wilderness. Ross County, politics 223,224; statehood election, 242,243. Ross, James, Senator, 82; works for division of Northwest Territory, 171,172. Rossville ...... 80 St. Clair, Arthur, Governor, Major,General, leads negotiations at Treaty of Fort Harmar, 8, 16, 19; negotiates with Miami 21; desires extensive land cession, 22, 165; campaign and defeat, 26,32; conflict with Ohio Company 61, 150; conflict with Symmes, 67, 86, 133,134, 191; ignores squatters, 75; speculator, 80; comment on whiskey con, sumption, 112; interest in people of Territory declines, 127; popu, larity, 128; extricates Sargent from trouble, 143, 146; opposes new counties, 1 51, 201; opposes increase of justice of peace jurisdiction, 157; opposes use of equity rules by justice of peace, 158; proposal to divide Territory, 164, 169; rebukes Turner, 168; quarrels with Sargent, 168; proposal to increase number of territorial judges, 170; opposes statehood, 178, 184,185, 189; favors gerrymander, 178, 188; opposes second stage, 182; relations with McMillan, 189,190; alliance with Cincinnati, 189, 192,195; campaign to remove, 192,194, 202; reappointment, 194; favors statehood, 195; favors rotating capitol, 200; opposes qualified veto power, 201 ; prorogues Legisla, ture, 201,202; duplicity on statehood, 207,208; quarrel with Byrd, 224,225; dismissal, 225, 233, 251; works for gerrymander, 227, 230; low opinion of people, 227; opposes Enabling Act, 232,233; cam, paigns in statehood election, 238. St. Clair's defeat, 26,32; stimulates Indian unity, 32; discourages white settlement, 70. St. Clairsville ...... 8 2 Salt springs ...... 216 Sargent, Winthrop, Secretary, 71; opposes squatters, 75,76, 144,145'; op, poses premature surveying, 81 ; character, 12 7, 1 28; vetoes town self,government bill, 13 2; quarrel with Turner and Symmes, 13 2,133; militia orders controversy, 13 5' .. 13 7; controversy with Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, 137,138; controversy over night,fir, ing, 138,141; controversy over white attack on Indians, 141,142; controversy over tenure of office of county judges, 142,143; shows need for dividing Territory, 168, 171; quarrels with St. Clair, 169; opposes second stage, 182; opposes statehood, 188,189; relations with McMillan, 189; retirement, 2 51. Schenck, William C ...... 80, 84, 85 School townships ...... 215, 250 Scioto River expedition of 1790...... 21 Scofield, Elnathan ...... 85,86 Scott, Charles, Brigadier,General, Ouiatenon expedition ...... 27, 28, 30, 32 Second stage of government. See Northwest Ordinance, Northwest Territory. Seneca Indians ...... 7, 8, 11, 12, 27 Settlement, eastern vs. frontier origins, 55, 59,60; restricted, 1789, 1794, 69,71; opening of floodgates, 71. 278 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Seven Nations Indians ...... 3 8, 39, 40 Seven Ranges, survey...... 6 Shawnee lndians ...... 3, 8, 10, 17, 18, 22, 39, 40, 52, 54 Shendeta . (Wyandot chief) ...... 13-16 Ship-building ...... 121 Silliman, Wyllys ...... 219,220 Simcoe, John Graves, Governor...... 35,39, 41, 43,47, 49 Simrell's Ferry ...... 58 Six Nations lndians ...... 7, 11, 13, 16, 26,28, 51 Slavery issue ...... 237, 242, 243, 247 Slough, Jacob, Captain...... 31 Smith, John, 80, 87, 119, 122, 223; elder in Baptist Church, 95, 99; land agent, 11 7; candidate for delegate to Congress, 196; opposes gerry, mander, 210; elected to constitutional convention, 245. Speculators in land...... 78,88 Spencer, Oliver, Lieutenant,Colonel...... 136 Springer, Jacob ...... 6 Sproat, Ebenezer, Lieutenant,Colonel...... 136 Squatters, right of Indians to remove, 54; early presence i:;:i Ohio, 73,74; west of Great Miami, 74,75, 144; recognized by Government, 75',76; encouraged by Putnam, 76; at Zanesville, 77; at Worthing, ton, 77; religious leanings, 98. Stanley, William ...... 107, 108, 119 Statehood, contest, 176,245'; first 'movement in 1785', 177; first movement in Hamilton County, 178; agitation subsides, 178; agitators take census, 182,185'; theory of early admission, 183,184; Cincinnati opposes, 186; St. Clair reverses stand, 198; Chillicothe campaign, 201,225'; Worthington leadership, 204,225; Enabling Act passed, 214,216; petitions, 21 5'; use of patronage to obtain, 217,22 5; pro, posal for two states, 231,232; favored under Ordinance of 1784, 237, 239; campaign for constitutional convention, 239,246; drawing up of Constitution, 246,250; admission of Ohio, 250. See Enabling Act. Stations, method of settlement ...... 64, 68,69, 70,71 Steedman, William ...... 3 4 Steubenville ...... 8 3 Stites, Benjamin ...... 61, 62 Stites, Hezekiah ...... 110 Suffrage ...... 68, 151,152, 163, 247,248 Sullivant, Lucas ...... 81 Surplus, agricultural, absorbed, 107, l 13; becomes a problem, 113,126. Sutling ...... 108, 109 Swan Creek (Fort Industry), Indians collect...... 46 Symmes Associates, 6, 36. See John Cleves Symmes. Symmes, John Cleves, 55, 61,63, 70, 73,75, 78, 79, 110, 111, 113, 115; and ·•the City," 62, 63, 65; boundary dispute, 66, 67; ruined, 67; speculates in Congressional Military District, 84; hated as specu, lator, 86; fraternizes with masses, 87,88; interest in trans,montane trade, 104, 105; receives produce for lands sold, 116,117; con, troversies with Sargent, 131, 13 2,133, 137,138, 139,141; quarrel with St. Clair, 133,134; favors increased powers for justices of· peace, 1 5 6, 160; favors second stage, 181 ; disliked by masses, 181,182; contest with Cincinnati politicians, 19Q, 19 2; college township controversy, 191; threatened with impeachment, 191; sells lands beyond legal limits, 192; boundary controversy, 192; works for statehood, 240. FRONTIER OHIO 279

Taxation, local machinery, 149; discontent, 152; reform in local adminis, tration, 1 5 3. 'faylor, Isaac, Captain.,...... 111 Thompson, John ...... 90,92 Tiffin, Edward, leader in Methodist Church, 97, 99; opposes gerrymander, 212; elected governor, 223,224. Tod, George ...... 220,222, 230, 232 Towns, attempts at self,government...... 131,132 Township government...... 149, 150, 153,155 Tracy, Uriah, Senator, proposed as governor...... 193 Trade, 101,126; trans,montane, 101,104, 125,126; upstream vs. downstream, 101,107, 113, 124; difficulty with Spanish, 112; license law, 114; federal land system affected, 123,124; attempts to improve up, stream, 12 5. Treaties. See Fort Stanwix, Fort McIntosh, Fort Finney, Fort Harmar, Greenville. Troup, Robert ...... 82 Trueman, Alexander, Captain...... 34 Trumbull County, politics ...... 220,222 Turner, George, 11 5; controversies with Sargent, 131, 13 2, . 13 5'; favors increased powers for justices of peace, 156,158, 160; favors six, man juries, 15'8; usurps authority, 168. United States, Ordinance of 1783, 5; financial program and Indian policy, 5', 9; relations with Miami Indians, 1784,1789, 17,20; endorses Kentucky Indian policy, 21; peace negotiations, 21,23, 26,28, 34,38; appropriation for St. Clair's campaign, 26; willing to compromise on Indian boundary, 36; effect of Wayne's victory on Indian policy, 4 7, 5 0; gains option on alienation of Indian lands, 5 4; land offices opened, 83; Congress favors statehood, 213,216; Congress rejects gerrymander, 214; Congress passes Enabling Act, 216; Congress accepts Ohio Constitution, 2 50. Updegraff, Nathan ...... 99 Vail, Stephen ...... 80 Van Cleve, Benjamin ...... 108, 110, 112, 236 Varnum, James M...... 130 Vincennes, Brown's filibuster, 18; land problem, 168. Virgin, Captain ...... 144, 145' Virginia Military District ...... 71, 81 Virginia, relation of frontier to Ohio, 55, 57, 59, 69; sketch of frontier, 57,58; trans,montane trade, 102,103. Ward, John ...... 217 Warren ...... 83 Washington County, politics in, 217,220; opposes statehood, 239; state, hood election, 24 5. Washington, George, 16, 21, 28, 74; interest in western trade, 101,103. Waterford ...... 71 Wayne, ·Anthony, Major,General, 31, 38,43, 45', 47,52; tactics at Fallen Timbers, 45'; effect of his defiance of British on Indians, 45'; defies English at Fort Miami, 45,46; stresses British desertion of Indians, 48, 5'2; tactics at Treaty of Greenville, 48, 5'0,51, 52. Wayne, William, Lieutenant...... 46 Waynesville ...... 72, 80 Wea Indians. See Ouiatenon. 280 OHIO HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS

Wells, Bezaleel ...... _...... 8 2 Wells, William ...... 84 Western Reserve, settlement...... 69 Whipple, Abraham ...... 118 Whipple, Levi ...... 85 Whiskey trade ...... 112 White, Jacob ...... 119 Wilderness Road ...... 57 Wilkinson, James, Major,General, Scioto expedition, 21; Ouiatenon expedi, tion, 28, 30, 32; land speculator, 80; trade, 106; quarrel with civil authorities, 13 7. Williams, Isaac ...... 47 Williamsburg ( Clermont County) ...... 81 Wood, Stephen ...... 24 7 Woodbridge, Dudley, 118, 220, 249; low opinion of masses, 227; supports gerrymander, 229; opposes Enabling Act, 233. Worthington, Thomas, 78, 82, 97, 118, 122; corresponds with Gallatin, 204; leads Chillicothe movement for statehood, 204,225; corres, ponds with Joseph Nourse, 204,205; corresponds with John Brown, 205; corresponds with Abraham Baldwin, 205; corresponds with William Duane, 206; to Congress to oppose gerrymander, 209; ac, tivities in Washington, 212,216; use of patronage, 217,220, 223; delivers Ohio Constitution to Congress, 2 50. Wyandot Indians ...... 6, 8, 10,12, 14,17, 32, 40, 43, 44, 47,51, 53, 54 Wyllys, John P., Major...... 18, 24 Xenia ...... 81 Young, John ...... 83 Youngstown ...... 8 3 Zane, Ebenezer ...... 77, 78, 82 Zane, Jonathan ...... 77 Zane, Noah ...... 85 Zane's Road ...... 125 Zanesville ...... 77, 82 Ziegler, David ...... 116, 134, 182