During the Indian war these citizens of Gallipolis were not molested by

the warriors, who still had friendly feelings toward their former French

allies in Canada. The other settlers, however, were not so fortunate

in escaping Indian hostility. On May 1, 1789, only four months after

the Treaty of Fort Harmar, Captain Zebulon King was killed and scalped

by two Indians at Belpre. In August two boys were killed two miles up

the Little Kanawha River in Virginia. Murders occurred with increasing

frequency along the frontier. Settlers in Virginia, Kentucky, and the

Ohio settlements called for protection. In 1790, Washington sent Harmar

northward from Cincinnati with an expedition to punish the Indians in the

Miami country, and compel obedience to the treaties of Fort McIntosh and

Fort Harmar, but the warriors defeated his army so severely that they

became bolder than ever in their revengeful attacks.

On Sunday, January 2, 1791, a war party of thirty Delaware and Wyandots

attacked the settlers on donation lands at Big Bottom. Thirteen people,

including a woman and two children, were gathered in a two-story

blockhouse of beech logs. Four men were eating supper in a cabin a

hundred yards above the blockhouse, and two men were preparing their

meal in another cabin below the main building. A light snow covered

the ground, and the ice on the Muskingum was strong enough to hold the

Indians who crossed from the trail on the opposite side. While a few

of their number tied the four men in the upper cabin, the main body of

Indians surrounded the blockhouse. One of them pushed open the door, and

his companions fired at the men around the fireplace. Then the Indians

rushed in and massacred the settlers before they could reach their

weapons. Twelve people were killed, five were made captives, and the two

men in the lower cabin escaped to carry the news to the lower settlements.

Many of the men from Belpre and Waterford were attending the Court of

Quarter Sessions in Marietta when the news of the massacre arrived.

Hurrying back to their homes, they prepared to defend themselves if other

attacks should be made. Several smaller settlements were abandoned, and

the fortifications at Marietta, Belpre, and Waterford were strengthened.

On January 8 Putnam wrote to Washington:

“The garrison at Fort Harmar, consisting at this time of little more than

twenty men, can afford no protection to our settlements; and the whole

number of men in all our settlements, capable of bearing arms, including

all civil and military officers, do not exceed 287; and these badly

armed. We are in the utmost danger of being swallowed up, should the

enemy push the war with vigor during the winter.”

[Illustration: INDIAN CHIEFS BEING ENTERTAINED BY RUFUS PUTNAM AT CAMPUS

MARTIUS]

During the following summer a company of United States troops under

Major Jonathan Haskell was stationed at the Ohio Company settlements.

The roofs of Campus Martius were covered with four inches of clay as a

protection against flaming arrows. Picketed Point was strengthened and

another blockhouse built for quartering troops. Colonel Ebenezer Sproat

commanded a detail of 60 men from the militia in building fortifications.

Six scouts, two from each of the settlements, started each morning on

a circuit of 15 miles to discover the approach of Indians and give the

alarm. For this defense the Ohio Company paid a total of $11,350.90,

which was never repaid by the government. During the war the Indians

killed 38 settlers in the vicinity of Marietta.

Coming soon after Harmar’s tragic defeat, the Big Bottom massacre seemed

to justify the boast of the Indians that they would drive the white men

out of the Ohio Valley. Washington commissioned St. Clair to lead an

army of 2,000 men to punish the tribes. Starting from Fort Washington in

October, 1791, they reached the eastern fork of the Wabash at present

Fort Recovery, Ohio, on November 3, and encamped without suspicion of

danger. At dawn they were surprised by a large body of Indians and forced

to retreat with a loss of 900 men. As a result of the bitter criticism

directed against St. Clair, a committee of Congress investigated the

battle and found that the blame rested not upon St. Clair, but upon the

incompetence of the troops and the inadequacy of the equipment. This has

been before referred to as a besetting evil of early western campaigns.

The situation had become of serious national consequence. One of the

traits of Indian warriors was a desire to be on the winning side. Under

the impetus of two crushing defeats administered in quick succession

to the American troops, even those tribes which had been peaceable

and inoffensive began joining with the war-mad tribes and all white

settlements were endangered. There was strong reason to believe, as was

later substantiated, that the British who had not evacuated posts in

Michigan despite the Treaty of Paris, were aiding and abetting the red

man.

Washington realized that decisive steps must be taken if the Northwest

was to be saved to the United States, and appointed General “Mad” Anthony

Wayne of Revolutionary fame to lead the next expedition against the

Indians and their allies.

[Illustration: ANTHONY WAYNE

_Drawn by Herbert Krofft, Zanesville, Ohio_]

After two years of preparation in drilling his troops and building

several forts to protect supply trains, he led an army of 2,000 regulars

and 1,500 militia to the confluence of the Auglaize and Maumee Rivers.

Enroute from Fort Greenville he had performed a notable strategy, which

led the Indians on the westward to believe he would attack near present

Fort Wayne, Indiana, and those to the east to conclude that he would

attack them near present Toledo, Ohio. In reality he drove straight

north to the mouth of the Auglaize where he built Fort Defiance, and

thus, because of their absolute dependence upon the Maumee River for

transportation, split the Indian forces in half. Taking ample time and

with his now well-disciplined army, he attacked the Indians at Fallen

Timbers, west of present Toledo. Here, behind trees blown down by a

tornado, an army of 2,000 Indians waited for an attack. On the morning of

August 20, 1794, Wayne’s army finally crushed the strength and spirit of

the Indian hostility.

The British troops at Fort Miami, which was on American soil, four miles

away from the battlefield, did not go to the assistance of the Indians,

although a number of Canadian soldiers and officers were captured

or killed in the battle. This failure of support and the smashing

defeat which had been administered to them made possible the Treaty of

Greenville, made by Wayne with the Indians on August 5, 1795.

The boundary lines established by this treaty extended somewhat beyond

those of the Fort McIntosh Treaty of ten years before. What Wayne and the

Greenville Treaty did accomplish was to convince the Indians and their

British backers that America meant to hold the Northwest. They remained

convinced until the War of 1812, when the matter was settled for all time.

With the advent of peace, settlement of Ohio and the Northwest proceeded

rapidly. Virginians swarmed into the Military Tract reserved by her

deed of cession for bounty lands. Manchester, on the Ohio River, was

settled in 1791 by Colonel (later General) Nathaniel Massie, who also

settled Chillicothe in 1796. Chillicothe was to become later the first

territorial capital, then the first capital of Ohio.

When Connecticut ceded her claims to the Northwest Territory lands to the

United States, reservation had been made in the northeast corner of the

present state of Ohio—known as the “Western Reserve.”

A half million acres of this area were set off for the benefit of

Connecticut citizens who had suffered loss by fire at the hands of

the British in the Revolutionary War. These still bear the name of

“Firelands.” In 1795 Connecticut sold the portion of her reserved lands

east of the Cuyahoga River to a land company, and here in 1796 Moses

Cleaveland established the present city which bears his name.

In the central part of the state Franklinton, present Columbus, was laid

out in August, 1797. By 1800 the towns of Marietta, Cincinnati, North

Bend, Gallipolis, Manchester, Hamilton, Dayton, Franklin, Chillicothe,

Cleveland, Franklinton, Steubenville, Williamsburg and Zanesville and

many smaller settlements were in existence.

In the territory to the west settlers were now finding new homes.

Settlements around the old French trading posts and forts had grown

materially and new centers were springing up in an ever westward march.

The Northwest as an integral and thriving part of the United States was

definitely established.

While it would be interesting herein to follow through the developing

communities of those states later to be formed from the territory, the

purpose of this book apparently requires confinement of details to the

formative period of the territory, and, except in unusual cases, towns

and cities settled after 1800 will be left to state histories, which are

commonly available.

[Illustration: FORT HARRISON ON THE WABASH

_Drawn by Helen Jean Marshall, Grand Ledge, Michigan_]

The region now known as Indiana was traversed by La Salle, possibly along

the Ohio in 1670, along the St. Joseph and the Kankakee in 1679. French

traders were at the present site of Fort Wayne early in the eighteenth

century, and Fort Ouiatenon (southwest of Lafayette) was built by 1722.

Vincennes was established and a fort built there by 1732. This entire

region remained under French control until after the French and Indian

War, when it was surrendered to the English. Following victories at

Kaskaskia and Cahokia in the Illinois country, Americans under George

Rogers Clark captured Vincennes in 1779. While his expedition was

authorized by Governor Patrick Henry of Virginia as a state venture,

the final effect was to establish the claim of the United States to the

Northwest Territory sufficiently to secure cession by England in the

Treaty of Paris.

This event, followed by cession of state claims, opened up the Middle

West to the United States, except for Indian titles. The first American

settlement in Indiana was made at Clarksville in 1784.

The Treaty of Greenville, made by Wayne in 1795 gave the United States

undisputed title to the southwest corner of the present state of Indiana

and certain reservations for white settlements. Thus, a hundred and fifty

years ago it was the whites who were privileged to live on reservations

in Indian territory, rather than as has been the practice since the

memory of living men. The “Vincennes tract” and the “Clark grant” had

been occupied before the Northwest Ordinance was framed. There followed

the Treaty of Greenville, at irregular intervals, well into the middle

of the nineteenth century, more than fifty treaties of more or less

importance before all Indian titles had passed to the United States.

[Illustration: WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON HOUSE

_Drawn by Geneva Kirschoff, Vincennes, Indiana_]

In 1800 the population of Indiana Territory (the western part of the

Northwest Territory after its division) was 5641 people. Of these, 929

lived in the Clark grant and some 1500 others around Vincennes. Corydon

in southern Indiana succeeded Vincennes as the territorial capital

in 1813, and so remained when the state was admitted to the Union in

1816. At that time, some 15 counties had been established, all of them

in the southern part of the state. The state capital was removed to

Indianapolis, its present location, in 1825.

Illinois, located on the great Mississippi River highway of the French

explorers and missionaries, had attained a considerable repute for so

remote an area.

About 1700, Kaskaskia and Cahokia, near the present St. Louis, had

been settled as trading posts and, along with those erected in present

Michigan and Wisconsin, were links in a chain of proposed forts from

the St. Lawrence River to the Gulf of Mexico. Such was the intensity of

purpose of France with reference to the Northwest in the early 1700’s.

In 1712 the Illinois River had been made the northern border of the

Louisiana Territory.

As a result of the French and Indian War, however, the territory east of

the Mississippi and north of the Ohio River was ceded to England. Due to

the Pontiac Conspiracy, an alliance of most of the Indian tribes of the

Northwest, it was two years later before the French flag was lowered at

Fort Chartres and English dominion effected. As in all the rest of the

Northwest after that war, settlement was forbidden by royal decree until

around 1770, when settlers poured in from the seaboard colonies. As a

result, one of the great early colonial “land bubble” schemes centered in

southern Illinois.

In 1771, the Illinois settlers petitioned for, and, in fact, _demanded_,

a form of self-government; but this was refused by Great Britain and in

1774 the Quebec Act annexed the entire area to the Province of Quebec.

This all resulted in a considerable sympathy of the Illinois people for

the cause of the American colonists in the ensuing Revolutionary War.

[Illustration: FORT DEARBORN, CHICAGO

_Drawn by Helen Jean Marshall, Grand Ledge, Michigan_]

Fort Dearborn, established 1803, and now the site of America’s second

largest city, was captured in 1812 by the Indians, and as late as 1832

the Blackhawk War was fought in their last effort to retain title.

Due probably to the entrenched squatter settlements scattered through

the area, the “first American settlements” are disputed, although

Bellefontaine in the present Monroe County is regarded as the first.

Shawneetown and Edwardsville were early land offices, along with

Kaskaskia and Vincennes.

When lead ore was discovered at Galena in northwestern Illinois,

settlement spread rapidly there. As has been said, Chicago began with

Fort Dearborn in 1803, but at the time it was incorporated as a city in

1837, the village had but 4,170 inhabitants.

In 1809 the separate Territory of Illinois was created by Congress. The

territory entered its second phase of elective officers in 1812, and

in 1818 was admitted into the Union. Capitals had been at Kaskaskia,

1809-18; Vandalia, 1819-39; and thereafter at Springfield.

It is impossible to interpret the American phase of Michigan’s history

without a fairly thorough understanding of the earlier French and English

occupancies.

[Illustration: DETROIT IN 1815

_Drawn by Helen Jean Marshall, Grand Ledge, Michigan_]

The French explorer-missionary-trader parties had followed the water

courses of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi and other rivers, and

founded posts substantial enough, particularly at strategic points, to

survive as English and later American communities.

Cadillac settled Detroit in 1701, but the restraint to settlement

imposed by the English occupation—1763-1775—precluded any substantial

growth. Pontiac, the great Indian chieftain of the Ottawas, effected

his conspiracy and made a great effort to retain the territory for the

Indians.

Michigan was made a separate territory in 1805 (see chapter on Evolution

of the Northwest Territory), and became a state in 1837. The capital

had been at Detroit, and so remained until 1847, when it was moved to

Lansing.

As has been said, particularly of Illinois and Michigan, growth of

American settlement in Wisconsin cannot be dissociated from the French

era. Jean Nicolet is credited with being the first white man to explore

the region, in 1634. But all the noted French expeditions paved the way

for later trading posts and missions.

The Indian population of Wisconsin early in the seventeenth century

had probably been the largest of any area of similar size east of the

Mississippi River, and hence, with the adjacent Minnesota lands, the

region offered great attraction to the fur traders, and to missionaries.

Prairie du Chien and Green Bay were major settlements and county seats

of the first counties of the early era. While England held technical

possession of the territory—1763-1783—her occupation was ineffective and

of little importance. Wisconsin was, however, the last section of the

Northwest Territory to be evacuated by the British.

American traders entered “Ouisconsin” 1760-1766, and were later succeeded

by John Jacob Astor’s American Fur Company. The lead mines discovered

around present Galena, Illinois, by the Frenchman, Perrot, in the late

1600’s were a considerable factor in settlement. It is interesting to

note that negro slaves were used in these mines in 1820.

Set apart as a territory in 1836, with its first boundaries later changed

to the territory east of the Mississippi River in 1838, Wisconsin became

a state in 1848, with its capital at Madison.

Technically, under the Ordinance of 1787, all of the Northwest Territory

was to become not more than five states, and hence the present portion

of Minnesota lying east of the Mississippi represents one of those

adjustments of state boundaries established by Congress.

Like the areas of Michigan and Wisconsin, the Minnesota country was

first explored by the French, who established missions, developed the

fur trade, and conducted a search for the fabled northwest passage to

the Pacific. Perhaps the earliest of the French explorers to see the

Minnesota country were Radisson and Groseilliers, who may have pushed

into what is now part of the state not long after the middle of the

seventeenth century, and who came into contact with Sioux Indians in

1659-60. The region became known as a result of the visits of a number

of explorers, including Du Lhut, who explored the country between the

Mississippi and the St. Croix in the decade following 1679; Father

Hennepin, who discovered the Falls of St. Anthony in 1680; Perrot, who

laid formal claim to the upper Mississippi country for France in 1689;

Le Sueur, who built a post on Prairie Island in the Mississippi in 1695

and Fort L’Huillier on the Blue Earth River in 1700; La Perriére, who

established Fort Beauharnois on Lake Pepin in 1727; and La Vérendrye,

who with his sons and his nephew opened the great canoe route from Lake

Superior to Lake Winnipeg between 1731 and 1743. Along this route, which

he believed might connect with the northwest passage, he established a

chain of forts, including Fort St. Charles on the Lake of the Woods.

At Grand Portage, where La Vérendrye’s route to the West left Lake

Superior, a great fur trade depot developed in the French period and

continued to prosper after the arrival of the British in 1763. The

British were forced to abandon Grand Portage after 1816, but the white

occupation of the site has continued to the present. Among exploring

traders who entered the Minnesota country during the British period were

Jonathan Carver, Peter Pond, and David Thompson.

In southern Minnesota the earliest permanent white settlement grew up

in the American period near the mouth of the Minnesota River on a tract

that was acquired from the Indians by Lieutenant Pike in 1805. There

in 1819 Fort St. Anthony, later called Fort Snelling, was established.

To manufacture lumber for the fort, a government sawmill was built at

the Falls of St. Anthony in 1821-22. The first steamboat pushed up the

Mississippi to the Minnesota fort in 1823. Other white settlements

developed in the vicinity—Mendota across the Minnesota River from the

fort, St. Paul some miles down the Mississippi, and St. Anthony and

Minneapolis on the same stream above the fort at the Falls of St.

Anthony. Exploration continued in the American period. After Schoolcraft

discovered Lake Itasca, the source of the Mississippi, in 1832, it became

possible to determine definitely the northwestern boundary of what had

been the Northwest Territory. The upper valley of the Father of Waters

was explored also by Pike, Cass, Beltrami, and Nicollet.

In 1805 the United States acquired from the Indians tracts of land at the

mouths of the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers, and in 1837, the area

between the lower St. Croix and the Mississippi. Settlements began soon

afterward at Dakota (Stillwater), Marine, and St. Croix Falls, and it

was due in large part to the efforts of these settlements that what is

now eastern Minnesota was not included in Wisconsin. In 1848 a land boom

started at St. Paul and immigration to the region increased materially.

In 1849 the area of eastern Minnesota, which had been successively a

portion of the Northwest, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin

territories, became a part of the new Minnesota Territory, which was

admitted to the Union as a state in 1858. Indian title to lands in the

region was extinguished by treaties in 1854 and 1866.

Thus, eighty-one years after the first cession to the United States of

Indian lands in the Northwest Territory, territorial acquisition was

complete.

It is not fair to leave consideration of growth of settlements without

some mention of its religious aspect, particularly in view of the

portentous clauses of the ordinance, “Religion, morality and knowledge

being necessary to good government” and “no person, demeaning himself

in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of

his mode of worship.” It is impossible even to estimate the influence

of the French-Catholic missionaries upon the Indians and later white

settlers. Nor can we evaluate the effect of the early Moravian effort to

christianize the Indians in Ohio.

As soon as the Ohio Company settlers built their cabins, they provided

educational opportunities for their children. Aside from the Moravian

mission school for Indians at Schoenbrunn in 1773, the first school in

Ohio was opened for the small children at Belpre in the summer of 1789.

On the hill above Farmers’ Castle lived Colonel Israel Putnam, who

brought to Belpre many books that had belonged to his father, General

Israel Putnam. With these books as a nucleus, the Belpre residents formed

a library owned by a joint stock company with shares at ten dollars each.

It was variously called the Putnam Library, the Belpre Library, and the

Belpre Farmers’ Library. It was the first American circulating library in

the Northwest Territory.

A school was conducted at Marietta during the winter of 1788 by Tupper

in the northwest blockhouse of Campus Martius. Teachers were employed

regularly every year thereafter in Campus Martius and “The Point.” On

July 16, 1790, the Ohio Company made its first appropriation of $150.00

for the support of schools. According to the contract of the Ohio Company

with Congress, two townships near the center of the purchase were to be

given by the national government for a university. Under this provision

Ohio University was established at Athens in 1808 as the first state

university in the world under democratic government.

CHAPTER VI

EVOLUTION OF THE STATES OF NORTHWEST TERRITORY

Adapted from R. G. Thwaites: see Wisconsin State Historical Society

_Collections_ (Madison, Wis.) XI (1888), 451-496.

As further evidence of George Washington’s interest in the West, it

was he who first suggested boundary lines for the northwestern states.

September 7, 1783, he wrote to James Duane, Congressman from New York,

regarding the future of the country beyond the Ohio. After giving some

wise suggestions as to the management of both Indians and whites, he

declared that the time was ripe for the creation of a state there. Here

are the bounds proposed by the veteran surveyor:

[Illustration: NORTHWEST TERRITORY _with future state boundaries as

specified by the ORDINANCE OF 1787_]

“From the mouth of the Great Miami River, which empties into the Ohio,

to its confluence with the Mad River, thence by a line to the Miami fort

and village on the other Miami River, which empties into Lake Erie, and

thence by a line to include the settlement of Detroit, would, with Lake

Erie to the northward, Pennsylvania to the eastward and the Ohio to

the southward, form a government sufficiently extensive to fulfill all

the public engagements and to receive moreover a large population by

emigrants. Were it not for the purpose of comprehending the settlement of

Detroit within the jurisdiction of the new government, a more compact and

better shaped district for a state would be, for the line to proceed from

the Miami fort and village along the river of that name, to Lake Erie;

leaving in that case the settlement of Detroit, and all the territory

north of the rivers Miami and St. Joseph’s between the Lakes Erie, St.

Clair, Huron, and Michigan, to form hereafter another state equally

large, compact and waterbounded.”

Thus did Washington roughly map out the present states of Ohio and

Michigan.

Early in March, 1784, Congress instructed a committee to fashion a plan

of government for the Northwest Territory. Thomas Jefferson, who was

chairman, is given credit for drafting the committee’s report, which

was first taken up by Congress on April 19, 1784 and adopted after

some amendment. The original draft is famous for Jefferson’s fantastic

proposal to divide the Northwest on parallels of latitude, into ten

states with severely classical names: Sylvania, Michigania, Assenisipia,

Illinoia, Polypotamia, Chersonesus, Metropotamia, Saratoga, Pelisipia,

and Washington. While Congress practically accepted this system of

territorial division, his proposed names were rejected, and each section

was left to choose its own title when it should enter the Union.

These resolutions of April 23, 1784, lasted, on paper, until July 13,

1787, when the Congress of the Confederation adopted the Ordinance of

1787. The ordinance was specific in its provisions as to boundaries of

the states to be later formed from the territory. Whether this reflected

Washington’s and Jefferson’s contemplated division, or whether, as is

more probable, the statements of these men merely expressed a general

feeling that the West and the nation itself would prosper best by

pre-determination of boundaries, is not known.

Jefferson, in supporting his theoretical plan for sub-division, had urged

a row of smaller or “buffer” states between the settled states of the

East and those larger and presumably-to-become more powerful states along

the Mississippi River.

In any case, the boundaries of states yet to be created were closely

defined in article five of the compact, which, by its own terms, could

only be altered by mutual consent of both parties. This was to result in

almost continuous dispute for the next sixty years. Probably some fine

points of law could be raised as to the meaning of “common consent” as

applied to the “original states and _the people and states in the said

Territory_.” Congress was apparently the qualified representative of the

original states, but who could express the wishes of the “people and

states of the said Territory?” Could any one state—or two states—consent

to alterations, or must the entire territory also accede? With a definite

authority for consent to alteration on one side, and vague power and

conflicting interests on the other, the effect was that Congress

essentially made the decisions as to altering the original terms of the

compact.

Certainly, at the time, the geography of the Northwest Territory was not

accurately determined and this accounts for the later logic of some of

the changes made. The source of the Mississippi River, and therefore the

western boundary of the territory, was not known until 1832. Maps of the

period put the southern extremity of Lake Michigan some twelve miles

north of where it actually was. But, beyond these physical reasons for

not abiding by the terms of the compact, politics and selfish interests

played a considerable part as the Northwest Territory was divided first

into smaller territories and then into states.

More cynical people have been inclined to scoff at the worth of this

“sacred compact,” so blithely violated upon several occasions. Not only

do they propound the state boundaries incidents, but point out that the

ordinance itself was adopted and put in effect unconstitutionally because

only eight states voted for it, while the Articles of Confederation, then

the constitutional law of the nation, provided that the vote of nine

states was necessary to adoption.

The real value of the study of history lies first in having the exact

facts, and then regarding them in the broad light of their major trends,

and giving weight to details only as they may affect the whole. It is

easy and rather tempting to select and over-emphasize lesser incidents

of history and so, perhaps, distort the more important conclusions to be

drawn.

Congress did violate the Articles of Confederation in adopting the

ordinance, and the terms of the compact itself in determining the

boundaries of states, but as in other history, the action was based upon

the best knowledge available at the time, and, on the whole, the course

pursued has proved to be right and posterity has approved it.

Twelve years after the ordinance was passed, Congress made its first

division of the Northwest Territory. The act provided:

“That from and after the fourth day of July next, all that part of the

territory of the United States northwest of the Ohio River which lies to

the westward of a line beginning at the Ohio, opposite to the mouth of

Kentucky River, and running thence to Fort Recovery, and thence north

until it shall intersect the territorial line between the United States

and Canada, shall, for the purposes of temporary government, constitute a

separate territory, and be called the Indiana Territory.”

The country east of this line was still to be called the Northwest

Territory, with its seat of government at Chillicothe, while Vincennes

was to be the seat of government for Indiana Territory. That portion

of the line running from the point of the Ohio, opposite the mouth of

the Kentucky, northeastward to Fort Recovery, was designed to be but a

temporary boundary, it being one of the lines established between the

white settlements and the Indians, by the Treaty of Greenville, August 3,

1795.

The subsequent act of Congress, approved April 30, 1802, enabled “the

people of the eastern division” of the Northwest Territory, Ohio, to

draft a state constitution, and obliged them to take in their northern

boundary and accept therefor “an east and west line drawn through the

southerly extreme of Lake Michigan,” in accordance with the limits

prescribed by the original ordinance. In the Ohio State Constitutional

Convention, meeting at Chillicothe in November, this line had been

acceded to, until the members learned that an experienced trapper,

then in the village, claimed that Lake Michigan extended farther south

than was ordinarily supposed. It appeared that in the Department of

State, at Washington, there was a map which placed the southern bend of

Lake Michigan at 42° 20´, about 12 miles north of its actual location.

This map had been used by the committee of Congress which drafted the

Ordinance of 1787, and a pencil line was discovered upon it. The line

passed due east from the bend and intersected the international line at

a point between the River Raisin and Detroit. The Chillicothe convention

became alarmed by the trapper’s report of the incorrectness of Mitchell’s

map, and attached a proviso to the boundary article, as follows:

[Illustration: 1800]

[Illustration: 1805]

“_Provided always, and it is hereby fully understood and declared by

this convention_, That if the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan

should extend so far south, that a line drawn due east from it should not

intersect Lake Erie, or if it should intersect the said Lake Erie east of

the mouth of the Miami River of the lake, then, and in that case, with

the assent of the Congress of the United States, the northern boundary

of this state shall be established by, and extending to, a direct

line, running from the southern extremity of Lake Michigan to the most

northerly cape of the Miami Bay.”

“The eastern division” of the Northwest Territory, now organized under

the name of the state of Ohio, was admitted to the Union in 1803.

[Illustration: 1809]

[Illustration: 1816]

On the eleventh of January, 1805, an act of Congress was approved,

erecting the Territory of Michigan out of “all that part of the Indiana

Territory which lies north of a line drawn east from the southerly

bend, or extreme, of Lake Michigan, until it shall intersect Lake Erie,

and east of a line drawn from the said southerly bend through the

middle of said lake to its northern extremity, and thence due north

to the northern boundary of the United States.” In short, the present

southern peninsula of Michigan had a southern boundary as established

by the Ordinance of 1787, and all that portion of the Upper Peninsula

lying east of the meridian of Mackinac. Congress had admitted Ohio to

the Union with a tacit recognition of the northern boundary laid down

in her constitutional proviso. Geographical knowledge of the West was

still so vague that this conflict of boundaries had been overlooked,

and Michigan Territory was allowed a southern limit which overlapped

the territory assigned to Ohio. Thus, when the southerly bend of Lake

Michigan became known, a serious boundary dispute arose. Michigan claimed

the ordinance was a compact which could not be broken by Congress, except

by common consent; but Ohio clung to the strip of country which the

constitution-makers at Chillicothe had secured for her in the eleventh

hour. The wedge shaped strip in dispute averaged six miles in width,

across Ohio, embraced 468 square miles, and included Toledo and the mouth

of the Maumee River. May 20, 1812, Congress passed an act to determine

the boundary; but owing to the impending war with Great Britain, the

lines were not run until 1818, and then not satisfactorily. July 14,

1832, another act of Congress for the settlement of the northern limit

of Ohio was passed. The situation of the compact had further complicated

the territorial boundary when Congress attached the northeastern part

of Louisiana purchase to Michigan Territory for temporary purposes of

government.

[Illustration: 1818]

[Illustration: 1837]

By that time Michigan had begun to urge her claims to statehood,

insisting on the southern boundary prescribed for the fourth and fifth

states by the ordinance. The state of Virginia, as the chief donor of

land, was asked to intercede in behalf of Michigan. Virginia officials

were in accord with Michigan’s contention, but failed to produce any

effect on Congress, to whose dominant party the political sympathy of

the actual state of Ohio was more important than the good-will of the

prospective state of Michigan. Without waiting for an enabling act,

a convention held at Detroit in May and June, 1835, adopted a state

constitution for submission to Congress, demanding entry into the Union,

“in conformity to the fifth article of the ordinance.” The boundaries

sought were those established by the fifth article. That summer there

were a few disturbances in the disputed territory, and some gunpowder was

harmlessly wasted. In December, President Andrew Jackson laid the matter

before Congress in a special message. Congress quietly determined to

arbitrate the quarrel by giving the disputed tract to Ohio and offering

Michigan the whole of what is today her Upper Peninsula. However,

Michigan did not want this supposedly barren and worthless country to

the northwest, and protested against what was deemed an outrage. It was

declared that Michigan had no interest in the north peninsula, and was

separated from it by natural barriers for one-half of the year. It was

further pointed out that the upper peninsula rightfully belonged to the

fifth state to be formed out of the Northwest Territory. But Congress

demanded the settlement of this dispute before the admission of Michigan

into the Union. In September, 1836, a state convention, called for the

sole purpose of deciding the question, rejected the proposition on the

ground that Congress had no right to annex such a condition, according to

the terms of the ordinance. A second convention, however, approved it on

December 15 of the same year, and Congress at once accepted this decision

as final. Thus Michigan came into the Union on January 22, 1837, with the

same boundaries which she possesses today.

The creation of Michigan Territory in 1805 had left Indiana Territory

with the Mississippi River as its western border, the Ohio River as its

southern, the international boundary line and the south line of Michigan

as its northern, while its eastern limits were the west line of Ohio, the

middle of Lake Michigan and the meridian of Mackinac. This included the

present states of Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, part of Minnesota, and

the greater part of the Michigan upper peninsula.

[Illustration: 1848]

[Illustration: 1858]

The next division was ordained by act of Congress, approved February 3,

1809, when that portion of Indiana Territory lying west of the lower

Wabash River and the meridian of Vincennes north of the Wabash became the

Territory of Illinois. Indiana was thus left with her present boundaries,

except that she owned a funnel-shaped strip of water and of land just

west of the middle of Lake Michigan, between the Vincennes meridian and

what was then western boundary of Michigan Territory, including that part

of the present upper Michigan peninsula between the meridians of Mackinac

and Vincennes, and her northern boundary was ten miles south of the

present state boundary.

When Indiana was admitted to the Union, December 11, 1816, by act

approved April 19, 1816, her northern boundary was established by

Congress on a line running due east of a point in the middle of Lake

Michigan ten miles north of the southern extreme of the lake. This

again was a flagrant violation of the ordinance, with the excuse that

Indiana must be given a share of the lake coast. Since there were then no

important harbors or towns involved, Michigan made no serious objection

to this encroachment on her territory.

The contraction of the northern boundaries of Indiana left the previously

mentioned strip of water in Lake Michigan and the northern peninsula

country literally a “No Man’s Land.” States and territories had been

formed around it, but this rich section of ore and pine lands was left

for a while unclaimed.

The act of April 18, 1818, enabling Illinois to become a state, cut down

her territory to its present limits. The northern boundary of Illinois

was fixed at 42° 30´, which is over 61 miles north of the southern bend

of Lake Michigan, the northern boundary prescribed by the ordinance for

the fourth and southern boundary of the fifth states to be formed. What

later became Wisconsin was thereby deprived of 8,500 square miles of

rich agricultural and mining country and numerous lake ports. This was

done through the manipulation of Nathaniel Pope, Illinois’ delegate in

Congress at that time. Pope argued that Illinois must become intimately

connected with the growing commerce of the northern lakes, or else her

commercial relations upon the rivers to the south might cause her to join

a southern confederacy in case the Union were disrupted. Illinois became

a state December 3, 1818. Congress assumed the right to govern and divide

the territory in the Northwest to suit itself, regardless of the solemn

compact of 1787, and there seemed nothing to do but submit. The future

proved that Michigan had been more than repaid for the loss of the Ohio

border strip when she acquired the northern peninsula. However, Wisconsin

lost this tract of territory which belongs to her geographically, and

also the southern part of the state, which had been contemplated by the

ordinance.

By act of June 12, 1838, Congress still further contracted the limits

of Wisconsin Territory by adding the trans-Mississippi tract she had

“inherited” from Michigan Territory to the new Territory of Iowa.

However, this was in accordance with an earlier design when the northern

Louisiana purchase country between the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers

was attached to Michigan Territory for purposes of temporary government.

Wisconsin remained so bounded until the act of Congress approved August

6, 1846, enabled her people to form a state constitution. Settlements

had now been established along the upper Mississippi and in the St.

Croix Valley. While this area had been part of the original Northwest

Territory, and was then part of Wisconsin Territory, it was far removed

from the bulk of settlement in southern and eastern Wisconsin, and

rather than be so remote from the rest of the state population, the

settlers desired to join the new Territory of Minnesota, which was to

be formed west of the Mississippi. They brought strong influences to

bear in Congress, and an enabling act gave Wisconsin practically the

same northwestern boundary that she has today—from the first rapids

of the St. Louis River due south to the St. Croix River and thence to

the Mississippi. This cut off an area of 26,000 more square miles from

Wisconsin and assigned it to Minnesota. There was a sharp fight over the

matter, both in Congress and in the Wisconsin Constitutional Convention

of 1846 and 1847-48, with the result that the people of the St. Croix

region won. Wisconsin was admitted into the Union, by act approved May

29, 1848.

The remaining portion of the original Northwest Territory west of

Wisconsin finally became a part of the Territory of Minnesota, admitted

as a state May 11, 1858.

CHAPTER VII

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ORDINANCE OF 1787

The name “Old Northwest” implies that the five states included in it

share a common historical and social background. Between its southern

end, which looks down upon the beautiful Ohio, and its northern

extremity, lapped by the blue waters of Huron and Superior, there are

wide variations of geographic and economic conditions; yet the teeming

millions who now inhabit this region are conscious of an identity of

interests, and of a common outlook upon life, which gives to this section

an individuality as distinct as that possessed by the people of New

England, or of the Old South.

Any explanation of this individuality leads inevitably to the Ordinance

of 1787. As mountain peaks overtop the surrounding plain, a few great

legislative acts in our history tower above the vast body of statutes

which fill the books in our law libraries. Magna Charta, extorted from

reluctant King John at Runnymede 700 years ago, is one such document;

the Quebec Act of 1774, fateful for the future of Canada and the United

States, is another. Of like character are our Federal Constitution,

and the Ordinance of 1787, both drafted in the same year; one for the

government of the American nation, the other for the government of the

land lying north and west of the Ohio River.

The Old Northwest was chiefly a wilderness in 1787, but it was not

a vacant wilderness. Everywhere were the native red men, who quite

naturally viewed the country as their own, to be defended to the last

extremity of their power. At many points—Detroit, Maumee Rapids, Fort

Wayne, Vincennes, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, St. Joseph, Prairie du Chien, Green

Bay, and Mackinac, to mention a few—were civilized communities which

had been founded by the French during the century which ended with the

English Conquest of Canada in 1760. Following this, British officials and

army officers, traders and adventurers, had entered the western country,

and in many instances had inter-married with the older French and Indian

population. Although the Treaty of Paris of 1783 had given the West to

the new United States, with the Great Lakes and the Mississippi as its

northern and western boundaries, the close of the Revolution found Great

Britain and the Indians in actual possession of all but the southern tip

of the Old Northwest, and this possession she did not surrender until the

summer of 1796.

Thus before settlers from the seaboard colonies could occupy the country

north of the Ohio, the British government must be expelled from it, and

the Indian tribes must be conquered by the United States. The leaders

who formed the Ohio Company were substantial New Englanders, many of

whom had been officers in the Revolutionary War. They were familiar from

infancy with the New England system of local government, and while they

were ready to remove to the western country, to develop new homes in the

wilderness, they had no thought of abandoning the shelter of organized

government. South of the Ohio, settlers had moved into the western

country on their individual responsibility, depending upon Virginia and

their own resources for protection against savages and wilderness alike.

This had been possible because the Kentucky country was not only a rich

land of mild climate, but because it had long been a vacant wilderness,

where no Indians lived, and no foreign government exercised jurisdiction.

So the Boones and Kentons, and their comrades, had moved in before

asking permission or protection from any civilized government. The New

Englanders, on the contrary, had occupied the wilderness by organized

communities, and from ancient habit had organized new towns as fast as

they pushed the line of frontier settlement westward and northward. The

Indians in the Ohio country were determined to keep the Americans out of

it, and they enjoyed the sympathy and support of the British officials.

Thus there was every reason why the intruding settlers should insist upon

having an organized government go with them into the Northwest.

[Illustration: LAND SURVEYS IN OHIO WITH EARLY POSTS AND SETTLEMENTS]

So their spokesman went to New York, and persuaded the Confederation

Congress to give them the government they wished, and the Ordinance of

1787 was passed. It has been described in earlier chapters, and the

purpose of this final section is to show how it influenced the future

development of the Old Northwest, and the United States.

The object of the Ordinance is fully stated in its title, “An Ordinance

for the Government of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the

Ohio River.” It contains two principal parts; the first describes the

actual scheme of the government to be erected, while the second contains

six articles which are declared to be a “compact” between the people of

the original states and the people of the Northwest Territory. At that

time the word “compact” was applied to the most solemn agreement known

to political science, and the six articles of the present one were to

“forever remain unalterable,” unless changed by the common consent of the

two parties concerned in it.

The thirteen colonies, which in 1776 declared their independence from

England, all lay east of the Alleghany Mountains, with their settled

portions extending barely two hundred miles inland from the seashore.

Today our country extends from ocean to ocean, a distance of three

thousand miles. It was the governmental conception which first found

concrete expression in the Ordinance of 1787 which made possible this

vast westward expansion of our country, and its development from a union

of thirteen seaboard states into a continent-wide nation of forty-eight.

It came about this way: Before the American Revolution, colonies were

universally regarded as dependencies, to be governed by the mother

country for the promotion of its own advantage. After the conquest of

Canada, the British ministry decided to maintain a standing army in

America, and since the colonies were to be protected by it, the ministry

determined that they should be taxed to support it. The colonists,

however, refused to submit to such taxation, and after a long period

of argument and debate, made good their refusal by waging a successful

war against their king. This success marked the death of the old

British Empire, and led directly to one of the most momentous political

discoveries in human history.

The colonists had refused to be treated any longer as mere dependents,

subject to the control of a distant parliament, in which they were

not represented. But even before independence had been won, they

found themselves face to face with the same problem, _how to govern a

dependency_, which had baffled the wit of the British ministry. Some of

the colonies had claims to portions of land west of the Alleghanies.

Other colonies had none, and Maryland in particular demanded that all

should share in the ownership of the western country which had been won

by the “common blood and treasure” of all the colonies.

[Illustration: “_No colony in America was ever settled under such

favorable auspices as that which has just commenced at the Muskingum.

I know most of the men personally, and there never were men better

calculated to promote the welfare of such a community._”—GEORGE

WASHINGTON.

“—_that ordinance was constantly looked to whenever a new territory was

to become a state. Congress always traced their course by the Ordinance

of 1787._”—ABRAHAM LINCOLN.]

The debate over this issue went on for several years in the Continental

Congress, Maryland, meanwhile, stoutly refusing to accept any federal

government until her demand concerning the western country should be met.

Out of the long debate was gradually evolved a new political conception

for the government of dependencies. The states having claims to lands

in the western wilderness ceded them to the general government, to be

administered for the common benefit of all; and Congress solemnly pledged

that the country thus given to the nation should be organized into new

states, which would be admitted to the Union _on a basis of equality with

the existing states_.

This program for the government of America’s own colonial domain

eliminated at a single stroke the grievance which had driven the older

colonies into rebellion against their king and country. For their

complaint, at bottom, was that they were regarded as politically

inferior to their countrymen at home, subject to be governed forever by

the latter, without regard to their own views or desires. The American

program said, in effect, to the western colonists: “While you are few in

numbers, strangers to one another, and menaced by hostile forces outside

yourselves, the nation will govern and protect you, as a parent governs

and protects his child; but as soon as you reach a state of maturity

where you can do these things for yourselves, you will be admitted to the

union of states, with the same powers and privileges that all the rest

enjoy.”

[Illustration: “_In truth the Ordinance of 1787 was so wide reaching in

its effect, was drawn in accordance with so lofty a morality and such far

seeing statesmanship, and was fraught with such weal for the nation, that

it will ever rank among the foremost of American State papers._”—THEODORE

ROOSEVELT.

“—_with respect to that third great charter—the Northwest Ordinance. The

principles therein embodied served as the highway, broad and safe, over

which poured the westward march of our civilization. On this plan was the

United States built._”—FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.]

Thus, and only thus, could the American nation ever have been extended

“from sea to shining sea.” The great political discovery which made

this extension possible was hammered out in the heat of debate over

the formation of our first national union, the government of the

Confederation, which came into being in 1781. But it was first given

concrete application in the Ordinance of 1787, which provided the form

of government for the territory northwest of the Ohio River. This

principle, unconfined by the boundaries of the Old Northwest, extends to

all the continental expansion of the United States; while Great Britain,

profiting by the lessons of experience, has granted self-rule to Canada,

South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia, and is gradually extending it

to India and Egypt.

The ordinance provided for two stages of government. In the beginning,

all political control was entrusted to a governor and three judges,

appointed by the federal government, who exercised the supreme executive,

legislative, and judicial powers of the territory, and were answerable

solely to the President and Congress of the United States. The territory

in this first stage was a colony, whose citizens were without the powers

of self-government.

As soon, however, as there were 5,000 free adult male inhabitants in

the territory, the second stage of government was to be set up. This

provided for a general assembly of two houses: the members of one elected

by the voters; of the other, by a procedure in which both the voters

and the national government shared. To resort again to the analogy of

the minor child, we may compare the territory in this second stage with

a boy of fourteen or fifteen, old enough to govern himself in ordinary

matters, but still in need of parental guidance and control whenever more

important problems arise. This state of partial self-government was to

be terminated whenever the population of any of the future states (for

which Article 5 of the compact made provision) should equal 60,000 free

inhabitants. At such time the people might frame a state constitution and

government, and be admitted to the Union “on an equal footing with the

original states in all respects whatever.” The child had now become a

man, invested with all the privileges and responsibilities of manhood’s

estate.

Turning to the articles of the compact, Article 5 provides that not

less than three, nor more than five, states should be formed from the

entire territory, and the north-south boundaries of the three were

fixed at approximately the present Ohio-Indiana and Indiana-Illinois

lines, extended northward to Canada. If Congress should later see fit

to do so, however, it might organize either one or two states in that

portion of the territory lying north of an east and west line through

the southern extreme of Lake Michigan. Congress eventually organized two

northern states, but the provision concerning their southern boundary was

ignored, and Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois all gained important accessions

of territory north of the “Ordinance line,” at the expense, of course,

of the two northern states. Although there was much opposition in

Michigan and Wisconsin to these changes, in the end the will of Congress

prevailed, and the compact of the ordinance with respect to boundaries

was disregarded.

Thus, the five great commonwealths of the Old Northwest owe their

existence, and the approximate location of their boundaries, to the

Ordinance of 1787. All were governed as territories on the plan

prescribed by the ordinance before their admission to statehood. The

territorial period for each was marked by political discord, and numerous

complaints were made against the officials the President placed over the

territories. Many of these complaints were well-founded, but one would

hesitate to affirm that any other form of government could have been

devised to operate better. The inhabitants always had the consolation of

knowing that their period of political dependence was but temporary, and

that as soon as they should have the necessary population they would be

invested with the powers and responsibilities of statehood.

We must now note briefly certain matters which are closely associated

with the story of the Ordinance of 1787.

The corner-stone of our civilization is the institution of private

property. Before the Northwest could be settled, the government had to

provide for the division of the land into suitable tracts, and its sale

to settlers. In 1785 the ordinance creating our national land-survey

system was passed, and not long thereafter the first survey of federal

lands, that of the Seven Ranges in southeastern Ohio, was begun.

Beginning in 1790, the government waged a five-year war in Ohio and

Indiana, resulting in the overthrow of the Indian Confederacy. In 1796

the British government withdrew its garrisons, and its _de facto_

government, which had continued until then in all the northern two-thirds

of the Old Northwest, ceased to exist. In 1812 the region was reconquered

by the British, but their rule this time lasted only a year, when it was

ended for all time by the gun-fire of Commodore Perry’s cannon in the

battle of Lake Erie. Meanwhile, by a long series of treaties with the

Indians, beginning with Anthony Wayne’s Treaty of Greenville in 1795, the

red man’s title to the country was quieted. Government surveyors swarmed

over the land, preparing it for purchase and occupancy by the oncoming

tide of white settlers. Just sixty years after the appearance on the Ohio

of the little band of Yankees who founded Marietta, Wisconsin, youngest

of the five commonwealths of the Old Northwest, was admitted to the Union

of States. The red race had given place to the white; civilization had

succeeded barbarism; the wilderness had been transformed into cultivated

fields and thriving cities and towns.

Certain of the articles of compact between the old states and the new

demonstrate the advanced thought of the men who framed the ordinance. The

first article guarantees forever complete freedom of religious belief

and worship. Probably most Americans accept this precious privilege as

they do the air they breathe, without giving any particular thought to

its value or how it came to them. Yet even today, in many parts of the

civilized world, freedom of religious belief and worship is conspicuously

lacking.

In other important respects, too, the framers of the ordinance were

far in advance of their age—in advance, even, of that more famous body

of legislators who framed our national constitution. Included in the

articles of compact is a provision guaranteeing the sanctity of private

contracts—the first appearance of such a guarantee in any charter of

government. This was copied into the United States Constitution, where

it became the basis of the vast development of private corporations with

which we are today familiar. In 1819 the Supreme Court, in the famous

Dartmouth College Case, carried this guarantee to its logical conclusion

by ruling that a charter or franchise is a contract, which, once granted

by a state legislature or other governing body, cannot be withdrawn.

Of tremendous portent to our social system of today was the abolition

of the age-old law of primogeniture, the concept that the eldest son

alone should inherit the real estate of his parents. Thomas Jefferson

had long contended in the Virginia legislature for the adoption of this

reform, but it remained for the Ordinance of 1787 to make the first legal

provision whereby children should share equally the estates of their

parents.

Another provision, well in advance of the age, affords perhaps the

most notable sentence in the entire document: “Religion, morality,

and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness

of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be

encouraged.” In 1787 “schools and the means of education” found very

little encouragement over most of the face of the globe. Today, America

is dedicated to the ideal of universal education, and nowhere is more

liberal encouragement extended to education than in the five states of

the Old Northwest.

In its original contract with the Ohio Company, Congress agreed to give

two townships of land for “the uses of a university.” In 1795, with

the ink scarcely dry on General Wayne’s treaty with the red men at

Greenville, the “college townships” were located and surveyed. In 1802

the legislature of the Northwest Territory passed an act establishing

a university in the village of Athens—the first legislative act passed

west of the Alleghany Mountains, for the advancement of higher education.

Today, each of the five states not only maintains at public expense a

great state university, but the pattern set in 1787 has resulted in a

nationwide system of colleges and universities aided by grants of public

lands. The principle, here originated, of devoting fixed portions of the

public lands to the support of schools and education has produced the

broadest plan of universal education in the world, providing thereby the

most essential aid to the existence of democratic self-government.

In still another respect the ordinance expressed a noble ideal, which,

unfortunately, was destined not to be realized. At a time when the

Indians of the Old Northwest were determined to prevent the Americans

from ever entering the country, the ordinance held out to them the

doctrine of the Golden Rule; they should ever be treated with the utmost

good faith, their rights and liberties should be respected, and “laws

founded in justice and humanity” should be enacted for preserving peace

and friendship with them. If such an ideal could be generally realized

between nations today, it would free a war-oppressed world from the

greatest menace which threatens the continued existence of civilized

society.

Another article in the compact proclaimed navigable waters leading into

the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence to be common highways, “forever

free” to the people of the United States. It is this guarantee which

permits the humblest citizen of our country to use and enjoy the rivers

and lakes of the Old Northwest for purposes of recreation and travel—a

freedom which, but for this guarantee, would frequently be denied him by

individual and corporate owners of real estate.

One final provision demands our attention. In 1787 the institution of

human slavery existed in all but one of the states of the Union. But many

humane and far-sighted men recognized its evils, and one in particular,

Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, was unwearied in his efforts to abate it.

Although Jefferson was not the author of the Ordinance of 1787, it was

largely because of his influence that its final article dedicated the Old

Northwest—then, of course, the _new_ Northwest—to freedom. “There shall

be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory ...”

the article begins, continuing with certain provisos respecting criminals

and fugitives from justice. Several decades were to pass before the soil

of the Old Northwest endured its last pollution from the footprints of a

slave, but the prohibition proved an effective ban against the widespread

expansion of slavery over the territory, and eventually exterminated it

here completely. In doing so, the ordinance prepared the way for its

ultimate extermination in the nation; for when civil war came and North

and South faced each other on the field of battle during four awful

years, it was the exuberant might of the free Northwest which decided the

issue in favor of permanent Union and human freedom.

In 1787 the United States was a feeble confederacy of less than three

million souls, almost all of whom dwelt within two hundred miles of the

Atlantic seaboard. Today it stretches from sea to sea with a population

of nearly 130,000,000. The thirteen original states have increased to

forty-eight great and harmonious commonwealths. In the five states of

the Old Northwest dwell 26,000,000 people. Mere numbers do not mean

everything, however, else China and India would be the world’s foremost

nations. The Old Northwest is today the political and industrial heart

of the nation and, although the territory comprises but one-twelfth of

the land area, one-fifth of the nation’s population lives within its

boundaries.

The time that has elapsed since 1787 may be spanned by the lives of two

elderly men, yet the changes which have been wrought in the Old Northwest

since the first feeble American beginnings at Marietta would have

staggered the imagination of any man then alive. Here began the political

expansion of the United States; here the principles which made possible

the development of the nation we know today were first concretely

applied. Such is the historical significance of the Ordinance of 1787.

[Illustration: FREE SCHOOLS, FREE CHURCHES, FREE SOIL, FREE MEN

_Drawn by Mary Brent Davis, Coshocton, Ohio_]

CONDENSED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS ON THE ORDINANCE OF 1787 AND THE HISTORY

OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORY

Compiled by GEORGE J. BLAZIER _Historian to the Commission_

This bibliography comprises general works relating to the Northwest

Territory. To students desiring a more complete reference list, an

extended bibliography prepared by the Commission will be sent without

charge upon request. For additional works on the subject, and for single

and local phases thereof, the reader is also directed to the best

bibliographical works as follows:

Bradford, Thomas L.; and Henkels, Stanislaus V. Bibliographer’s

manual of American history. Philadelphia, Henkels & Co., 1907-10.

5v.

Channing, Edward; Hart, Albert B.; and Turner, Frederick J. Guide

to the study and reading of American history. Rev. and augm. ed.

Boston, Ginn & Co., 1912. 650p.

Griffin, Grace G. Writings on American history, 1906-date.

New York, Macmillan Co.; Washington, Govt. print. off.; etc.,

1908-date. v.13-date published as Supplement to the Annual Report

of the American Historical Assn., 1918-.

Larned, Josephus H., ed. Literature of American history, a

bibliographical guide. Boston, A. L. A. pub. board, 1902.

596p. Supplement for 1900 and 1901, ed. by P. P. Wells. 37p.

Supplements for 1902, 1903 appeared in series: Annotated titles

of books on English and American history. Boston, A. L. A. pub.

board. Supplement for 1904. Boston, A. L. A. pub. board.

McLaughlin, Andrew C.; Slade, William A.; and Lewis, Ernest D.

Writings on American history, 1903. Washington, Carnegie Inst.,

1905. 172p.

Richardson, Ernest C.; and Morse, Anson E. Writings on American

history, 1902. Princeton, N. J., Univ. library, 1904. 294p. Same,

1903. Washington, Carnegie Inst., 1905. 172p.

_The reader is directed especially to the publications of the following

historical societies whose publications are not specifically listed here:_

American Historical Association.

Mississippi Valley Historical Association.

Ohio Valley Historical Association.

Illinois Catholic Historical Society.

Illinois State Historical Society.

Indiana Historical Society.

Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society.

Minnesota Historical Society.

Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio.

Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society.

Western Reserve Historical Society.

State Historical Society of Wisconsin.

_For information on manuscript collections, address the secretaries of

the historical societies listed above._

ABRIDGED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Henry. History of the United States of America. New York,

C. Scribner’s Sons, 1889-91. 9v.

Adams, Herbert B. Maryland’s influence upon land cessions to the

United States. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins university, 1885. 102p.

(Johns Hopkins university studies in historical and political

science. 3rd ser., I) See p. 44-54.

Adams, Randolph G. The papers of Lord George Germain; a brief

description of the Stopford-Sackville papers is now in the

William L. Clements library. Ann Arbor, William L. Clements

library, 1928. 46p.

Alden, George H. New government west of the Alleghanies before

1780. Madison, Wis., The university, 1879. 74p.

Alvord, Clarence W. Centennial history of Illinois. Springfield,

Ill., Illinois Centennial commission, 1920. 2v. The Mississippi

Valley in British politics. Cleveland, Arthur H. Clark Co., 1917.

2v.

Andrews, Israel W. The Northwest territory. Its ordinances and

its settlement. (In Magazine of American history, Aug. 1886, v.

16, p. 133-147.)

Avery, Elroy M. History of the United States and its people.

Cleveland, Burrows Bros. Co., 1904-10. 7v.

Baldwin, James. Conquest of the Old Northwest. New York;

Cincinnati, etc. American Bk. Co., 1901. 263p.

Bancroft, George. History of the formation of the Constitution.

New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1882. 2v. History of the United

States, from the discovery of the continent. Last revision. New

York, D. Appleton & Co., 1888. 6v.

Barce, Elmore. The Land of the Miamis; an account of the struggle

to secure possession of the Northwest from the end of the

Revolution until 1812. Fowler, Ind., Benton review shop, 1922.

422p.

Barrett, Jay A. Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787; with an

account of the earlier plans for the government of the Northwest

territory. New York, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891. 94p. (University

of Nebraska. Depts. of history and economics. Seminary papers,

No. 1) Authorities: p. 89-94.

Beer, George L. British Colonial policy, 1754-1765. New York, P.

Smith, 1933. 327p.

Bodley, Temple. George Rogers Clark; his life and public service.

Boston & New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1926. 425p.

Bond, Beverley W. The civilization of the Old Northwest; a study

of political, social, and economic development, 1788-1812. New

York, Macmillan Co., 1934. 543p.

Boyd, Thomas A. Mad Anthony Wayne. New York, London, C.

Scribner’s Sons, 1929. 351p.

Burnet, Jacob. Notes on the early settlement of the Northwest

territory. New York, D. Appleton & Co. Cincinnati, Derby, Bradley

& Co., 1847. 501p.

Carter, Clarence E. Great Britain and the Illinois country,

1763-1774. Washington, American Historical Assn., 1910. 223p.

Chaddock, Robert E. Ohio before 1850; a study of the early

influence of Pennsylvania and southern populations in Ohio. Ph.

D. thesis, Columbia Univ., 1908. 155p.

Channing, Edward. History of the United States. New York,

Macmillan Co., 1927-30. 6v.

Coles, Edward. History of the Ordinance of 1787. Read before the

Historical society of Pennsylvania, June 9, 1856. Philadelphia,

Press of the Society, 1856. 33p.

Cutler, William P. The Ordinance of July 13, 1787, for the

government of the territory northwest of the river Ohio. With

an appendix containing valuable historical facts. Marietta, O.,

E. R. Alderman & Sons, printers (1887?) 48p. Read before the

Ohio State Archaeological and historical society, Feb. 23, 1887.

Life, journals and correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler, LL.D.

By his grandchildren. Cincinnati, R. Clarke & Co., 1888. 2v.

The Ordinance of 1787, and its history, by Peter Force, v. 2, p.

407-427.

Dane, Nathan. Letters of Nathan Dane concerning the Ordinance of

1787. Indianapolis, Indiana historical society, 1831. 7p.

Darlington, William M., ed. Christopher Gist’s journals.

Pittsburgh, J. R. Weldin & Co. 1893. 296p.

Detroit, Public Library. The Burton historical collection of the

Detroit Public Library. Detroit, 1928? 16p.

Dillon, John B. History of the early settlement of the

Northwestern territory. Indianapolis, Ind., Sheets & Braden,

1854. 456p.

Doddridge, Joseph. Notes on the settlement and Indian wars of the

western parts of Virginia and Pennsylvania from 1763 to 1783.

Pittsburgh, Pa. J. S. Ritenour & W. T. Lindsey, 1912. 320p.

Donaldson, Thomas. The public domain. Washington, Govt. print.

off., 1884. 1343p. The Ordinance of 1787: p. 146-163.

Downes, Randolph Chandler. Frontier Ohio, 1788-1803. Columbus,

Ohio, Ohio state archaeological and historical society, 1935.

280p. (Ohio historical collections, v. 3) Bibliography: p.

253-268.

Dunn, Jacob P. Indiana, a redemption from slavery. Boston and New

York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1892. 453p. (American commonwealths,

ed. by H. E. Scudder. v. 12) See p. 177-218.

English, William H. Conquest of the Northwest, 1778-1783; and

life of Gen. George Rogers Clark. Indianapolis, Ind., & Kansas

City, Mo., Bowen-Merrill Co., 1896. 2v.

Farrand, Max. Development of the United States from colonies to a

world power. Boston & New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1918. 355p.

The legislation of Congress for the government of the organized

territories of the United States, 1789-1895. Newark, N. J. W. A.

Baker, printer, 1896. 101p. See p. 3-12. The United States. New

York, Century Co., 1920-. 3v.

Fiske, John. Critical period of American history, 1783-1789.

Boston & New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1888. 368p.

Gabriel, Ralph, ed. Pageant of America: a pictorial history of

the United States. New Haven, Yale Univ. Press, 1925-29. 15v.

Galbreath, Charles B. The Ordinance of 1787, its origin and

authorship. (In Ohio archaeological and historical quarterly,

1924, v. 33, p. 110-175.)

Gannett, Henry. Boundaries of the United States and the several

states and territories. (In U. S. Geological survey. Bulletin,

226.)

Gilmore, William E. The Ordinance of 1787. Some investigations

as to the authorship of the famous sixth article. (In Ohio

archaeological and historical quarterly, 1905, v. 14, p. 148-157.)

In support of the assertion that Nathan Dane was the author of

the article prohibiting slavery in the Northwest Territory.

Haight, Walter C. The binding effect of the Ordinance of 1787.

Ann Arbor, 1897. 60p. (Publications of the Michigan political

science association, vol. II, No. 8) Bibliography: p. 59-60.

Hall, Charles S. Life and letters of Samuel Holden Parsons, chief

judge of the Northwestern Territory, 1787-1789. Binghamton, N.

Y., Otseningo Pub. Co., 1905. 601p.

Hammell, George M. The Ordinance of 1787 and the Ohio

constitution of 1802. (In Twentieth Century magazine, Nov. 1911,

v. 5, p. 55-58.)

Hanna, Charles A. The wilderness trail. New York & London, G. P.

Putnam’s Sons, 1911. 2v.

Hart, Albert B., ed. The American nation: A history from original

sources by associated scholars. New York & London, Harper &

Bros., 1904-18. 28v.

Hildreth, Samuel P. Pioneer history. Cincinnati, H. W. Derby &

Co. New York, A. S. Barnes & Co., 1848. 525p.

Hinsdale, Burke A. The Old Northwest; the beginning of our

colonial system. Rev. ed. Boston, New York, Silver, Burdett and

Co., 1899. 430p. See chapters XV-XVI.

Hockett, Homer C. Political and social history of the United

States. New York, Macmillan Co., 1925. 438p.

Howard, Timothy E. Our charters. (In state bar association of

Indiana. Report, 1911, v. 15, p. 40-50.) On the Declaration of

Independence, the Ordinance and the Constitution.

Hulbert, Archer B. Frontiers. Boston, Little, Brown & Co.,

1929. 266p. Historic highways of America. Cleveland, O., A. H.

Clark Co., 1902-05. 16v. Ohio in the time of the confederation.

Marietta, O., Marietta historical commission, 1918. 220p. Pilots

of the republic. Chicago, A. C. McClurg & Co., 1906. 368p.

Washington and the West; being George Washington’s diary of Sept.

1784, kept during his journey into the Ohio basin. New York, The

Century Co., 1905. 217p.

Ingraham, Charles A. The Northwest territory and the Ordinance of

1787. (In Americans, Jan. 1918, v. 12, p. 104-113.) The George

Rogers Clark papers, 1771. Springfield, Ill., Trustees of the

Illinois state historical library, 1926. 572p. (Collections of

the Illinois state historical library, v. 19.)

James, James A. The life of George Rogers Clark. Chicago, Ill.,

Univ. of Chicago press, c1928. 534p.

Jefferson, Thomas. Writings. Washington, Taylor & Maury, 1853-54.

9v.

Jesuit relations and allied documents, Reuben G. Thwaites, ed.

Cleveland, Burrows Bros. Co., 1896-1901. 73v. Abridged ed.; Edna

Kenton, ed. New York, A. & C. Boni, 1925. 527p.

King, Rufus. The life and correspondence of Rufus King;

comprising his letters, private and official, his public

documents, and his speeches. Ed. by his grandson, Charles R.

King. New York, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894-1900. 6v. See Vol. I,

Chaps. II, V, VIII and XV. Ohio; first fruits of the Ordinance

of 1787. Boston and New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1896. 427p.

(American commonwealth, v. 13) Loring, G. B. Remarks on Dr.

Poole’s address. (In American historical association. Papers,

1888-89, v. 3, p. 300-308.)

Luce, Cyrus G. The Ordinance of 1787. (In Pioneer and historical

society of Michigan. Historical collections, 1887, 2d ed., v. II,

p. 140-144.)

McCarty, Dwight G. The Territorial governors of the Old

Northwest. Iowa City, Ia., State historical society of Iowa,

1910. 210p.

MacKibbin, Stuart. The authority of the Ordinance of 1787. (In

State bar association of Indiana. Report, 1916, p. 115-142.)

McMaster, John B. History of the people of the United States. New

York & London, D. Appleton & Co., 1927-29. 8v.

Mathews, Lois K. Expansion of New England. Boston, Houghton

Mifflin Co., 1909. 303p.

Merriam, John M. The legislative history of the Ordinance of

1787. (In American antiquarian society. Proceedings, 1888, n. s.

v. 5, p. 303-347.)

Minnigerode, Meade. Black Forest. An historical movie of the

Ordinance of 1787 and the westward start of America. Farrar &

Rinehart. Ready Oct. 1937.

Moore, Charles. The Northwest under three flags, 1635-1796. New

York & London, Harper & Bros., 1900. 401p.

Nevins, Allen. American States during and after the Revolution,

1775-1789. New York, Macmillan Co., 1924. 728p.

Ogg, F. A. Old Northwest: a chronicle of the Ohio Valley and

beyond. New Haven, Yale Univ. press, 1921. 220p. (Chronicles of

America series, v. 19.)

Ohio. Laws, statutes, etc. The statutes of Ohio and of the

Northwestern territory, adopted or enacted from 1788 to 1835

inclusive: together with the Ordinance of 1787; numerous

references and notes and copious indexes, ed. by Salmon P. Chase.

Cincinnati, Corey & Fairbank, 1833-1835. 3v.

Parkman, Francis. France and England in North America. Boston,

Little, Brown & Co., 1910. 13v.

Patterson, Isaac F., comp. The constitutions of Ohio. Cleveland,

O., Arthur H. Clark Co., 1912. 358p.

Paxson, Frederick L. History of the American frontier, 1763-1893.

Boston & New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1924. 598p.

Pershing, Benjamin H. Winthrop Sargeant, 1753-1820. (In Ohio

archaeological and historical quarterly, v. 35, Oct., 1926. p.

583-602.)

Pickering, Octavius; Upham, Charles W. Life of Timothy Pickering.

Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1867-73. 4v.

Pierce, James O. Some legacies of the Ordinance of 1787. (In

Minnesota historical society. Collections. St. Paul, 1901. v. 9,

p. 509-518.)

Poole, William F. The early Northwest; an address before the

American historical association, Dec. 26, 1888. New York,

The Knickerbocker press, 1889. 26p. (In American historical

association. Papers, 1888-89, v. 3, p. 277-300.) Ordinance of

1787, p. 287-294. The Ordinance of 1787, and Dr. Manasseh Cutler

was an agent in its formation. Cambridge, Mass., Welch, Bigelow

and Co., 1876. 38p. (In North American review, April 1876.) The

Ordinance of 1787. A reply. Ann Arbor, Mich., Priv. print., 1892.

15p. (In The Inlander, Jan. 1892.) A reply to an article by Henry

A. Chaney in The Inlander for Nov. 1891.

Powell, John W. Physiographic regions of United States. New York;

Chicago, etc., American Bk. Co., 1895. (National geographic

monographs, v. 1, no. 3.)

Priestly, Herbert L. Coming of the white man, 1492-1846. New

York, Macmillan Co., 1929. 411p. (History of American life. v. 1.)

Roberts, Kenneth. Northwest Passage, an historical movie of the

Northwest during and after the French and Indian War. New York,

Doubleday & Doran, 1937.

Roosevelt, Theodore. Winning of the West; an account of the

exploration and settlement of our country from the Alleghanies to

the Pacific. New Library ed. New York & London, G. P. Putnam’s

Sons, 1920. 6v. in 3.

Royce, Charles G. comp. Indian land cession in the United States.

(In U. S. Bureau of American ethnology. 18th annual report,

1896-97. Washington 1899. Pt. 2, p. 521-997.)

Sato, Shosuke. History of the land question in the United

States. Baltimore, Publication agency of the Johns Hopkins

University press, 1886. 181p. (Johns Hopkins University studies

in historical and political science, 4th ser., no. VII-IX) See p.

68-120.

Semple, Ellen C. American history and its geographic conditions.

Boston; New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1903. 466p.

Smith, William H., ed. The St. Clair papers. Cincinnati, R.

Clarke & Co., 1882. 2v.

Smucker, Isaac. Brief history of the territory northwest of the

river Ohio. (In Ohio. Secretary of State. Annual report, 1876. p.

9-34.)

Speed, Thomas. Wilderness Road, a description of the routes of

travel by which the pioneers and early settlers came to Kentucky.

Louisville, Ky., J. P. Morton & Co., 1886. 75p.

Stone, Frederick D. The Ordinance of 1787. Philadelphia, 1889.

34p. Reprinted from the Pennsylvania magazine of history and

biography, concerning the part taken by Manasseh Cutler in

securing the adoption of the Ordinance.

Swayne, Wager. The Ordinance of 1787 and the War of 1861. New

York, Printed by C. M. Burgoyne, 1892. 90p.

Thwaites, Reuben G. Father Marquette. New York, D. Appleton &

Co., 1902. 244p. Early western travels, 1748-1846; a series of

annotated reprints. Cleveland, O., A. H. Clark Co., 1904-07.

32v. Important Western papers. (In Wisconsin, State Historical

society, Collections, 1888, v. 11, p. 25-63.) Includes the

Ordinance of 1787. Kellogg, Louise P. Documentary history of

Dunmore’s war. Madison, Wisconsin historical society, 1905. 472p.

The Revolution on the upper Ohio, 1775-77. Madison, Wisconsin

historical society, 1908. 275p.

Treat, Payson J. The national land system, 1785-1820. New York,

E. B. Treat & Co., 1910. 426p.

Turner, Frederick J. Frontier in American history. New York, H.

Holt & Co., 1920. 375p.

U. S. Constitution. The United States Constitution annotated,

with references to Corpus juris-Cyc system; also the text of the

Declaration of Independence, the Articles of confederation, and

the Ordinance of 1787. Brooklyn, N. Y., The American Law Book

Co., 1924. 280p.

U. S. Continental Congress. Journals of the Continental Congress,

1774-1789. Washington, Govt. print. off., 1904-36. 33v. The

Ordinance of 1787. An ordinance for the government of the

territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio.

Boston, Directors of the Old South work, 1896. 11p. (Old South

leaflets. General series, v. 1, no. 13.)

U. S. Dept. of State. Territorial papers of the United States;

Clarence E. Carter, comp. Washington, Govt. print. off., 1934-36,

Northwest territory; v. 2-3.

U. S. Northwest Territory. Journal of the convention of the

territory of the United States northwest of the Ohio—1802.

Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1933. 46p.

Van Tyne, Claude H. Causes of the War of Independence. Boston &

New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1922. 499p.

Volwiler, Albert T. George Croghan and the westward movement,

1741-1782. Cleveland, Arthur H. Clark Co., 1926. 370p.

Wilson, Woodrow. History of the American people. New York &

London, Harper & Bros., c1918. 10v.

Winsor, Justin. Cartier to Frontenac. Boston & New York, Houghton

Mifflin Co., 1894. 379p. The Mississippi basin. Boston & New

York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1898. 484p. Ordinance of 1787. (In

his narrative and critical history of America, v. 7. Boston,

1888. p. 537-539.) Authorship and references.

JUVENILE BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following list of books is selected particularly for younger readers.

The Commission is indebted to Mrs. Katherine Van Fossen, of Columbus,

Ohio, and to the Juvenile Departments of the Cincinnati and Cleveland

Public Libraries for help in its compilation and checking.

GENERAL

Baldwin, James Conquest of the Old Northwest, 1901.

Baldwin, James Discovery of the Old Northwest, 1901.

Ferris, Jacob States and Territories of the Great West,

1856.

Grinnell, G. B. Trails of the Pathfinders, 1911.

Hall, James Romance of Western History, 1857.

McKnight, Charles Our Western Border, 1883.

Moore, Charles The Northwest Under Three Flags, 1900.

OHIO

Black, Alexander Story of Ohio, 1888.

Chaddock, R. E. Ohio Before 1850.

Crow, G. H. & Smith, C. P. My State—Ohio, 1936.

Downes, R. C. Frontier Ohio, 1788-1803, 1934.

Everson, Florence M. &

Power, E. L. Early Days in Ohio, 1928.

Howells, W. D. Stories of Ohio, 1897.

McSpadden, J. W. Ohio; a Romantic Story for Young People,

1926.

Palmer, Frederick Clark of the Ohio, 1929.

Randall, E. O. & Ryan, D. J. History of Ohio, 1912. 5v.

Roseboom, E. H. &

Weisenburger, F. P. History of Ohio, 1934.

Winter, N. O. A History of Northwest Ohio, 1917.

INDIANA

Bowlus, R. J. Log Cabin Days in Indiana, 1923.

Cockrum, W. M. Pioneer History of Indiana, 1907.

Duncan, R. B. Old Settlers, 1894.

Dunn, J. P. Indiana and Indians, 1919.

Esarey, Logan History of Indiana, 1879.

Fisher, R. S. Indiana, 1885.

Hall, B. R. New Purchase, 1916.

Hendricks, T. A. A Popular History of Indiana, 1891.

Hodgin, C. W. Short Sketch of the History of Indiana,

1911.

Lindley, Harlow Indiana as Seen by Early Travelers, 1916.

Levering, Julia H. Historic Indiana, 1909.

McSpadden, J. W. Indiana; a Romantic Story for Young

People, 1926.

Nicholson, Meredith The Hoosiers, 1915.

Roll, Charles Indiana, One Hundred and Fifty Years of

American Development, 1931. 5v.

Smith, W. H. History of Indiana, 1897.

Thompson, Maurice Stories of Indiana, 1898.

ILLINOIS

Alvord, C. W. Centennial History of Illinois,

1917-1920. 5v.

Blanchard, Rufus History of Illinois, 1883.

Brown, Henry History of Illinois, 1844.

Conger, J. L. & Hull, W. E. History of the Illinois River Valley,

1932.

Davidson, A. & Stuve, B. Complete History of Illinois, 1673-1873,

1874.

McSpadden, J. W. Illinois; a Romantic Story for Young

People, 1926.

Nida, W. L. Story of Illinois and Its People, 1921.

Parrish, Randall Historic Illinois, 1905.

Pease, T. C. Story of Illinois, 1925.

Quaife, M. M. Chicago and the Old Northwest, 1673-1835,

1913.

Smith, G. W. Student’s History of Illinois, 1921.

MICHIGAN

Cook, Webster Michigan: History and Government, 1905.

Cooley, T. M. Michigan: A History of Governments, 1905.

Fuller, G. N. Historic Michigan, 1924.

Lanham, J. H. History of Michigan, 1839.

McSpadden, J. W. Michigan; a Romantic Story for Young

People, 1927.

Tuttle, C. R. History of Michigan, 1874.

WISCONSIN

Doudna, E. G. Our Wisconsin, 1920.

Fitzpatrick, E. A. Wisconsin, 1928.

Quaife, M. M. Wisconsin, Its History, and Its People,

1634-1924, 1924. 4v.

Skinner, H. M. Story of Wisconsin, 1913.

Strong, M. M. History of Wisconsin Territory, 1885. 2v.

Thwaites, R. G. Wisconsin in Three Centuries, 1905.

MINNESOTA

Buck, S. J. & E. Stories of Early Minnesota, 1925.

Forster, G. F. Stories of Minnesota, 1903.

Folwell, W. W. Minnesota, The North Star State, 1908.

McSpadden, J. W. Minnesota; a Romantic Story for Young

People, 1928.

Neill, E. D. History of Minnesota, 1882.

Parsons, E. D. Story of Minnesota, 1916.

ANNOUNCING THE NORTHWEST TERRITORY CELEBRATION SCHOOL CONTESTS

Beginning October 15, 1937, and closing on February 15, 1938, the

following contests will be held for all college and school students in

Northwest Territory.

The contests follow:

CONTEST No. 1—for Grade School Students—4 Divisions.

The pupils in public, private and parochial schools, up to and including

the 8th grade may enter. Grades 1, 2, 3, 4 will compete through art

classes. Grades 5, 6, 7, 8 through essays.

The following classifications are made for purposes of even competition:

Division I—for Grades 1 and 2.

Each child entering is to submit two drawings or art projects, dealing

with each of the following subjects:

(A) The American Bill of Rights—Free Speech—Religious Tolerance—Free

Education, etc.

(B) Willingness to undergo suffering and hardships to accomplish one’s

purpose (such as the trek of the pioneers across the mountains in the

dead of winter, etc.)

Drawings are to be 9 x 12 in size, and award will be made for idea

conceived as well as execution.

Division II—for Grades 3 and 4.

Competition will be on same basis as is outlined for Division I—that is,

based upon drawings or art projects, and same conditions.

Division III—for Grades 5 and 6.

Competition will be based upon an essay of not less than 600 or more than

1000 words. The subject shall be: “The Ordinance of 1787 and what it

means to the United States and me today.”

All essays shall be submitted on white paper 8½ x 11 sheets, written

legibly on one side only. All sheets to be neatly fastened at the top.

Division IV—for Grades 7 and 8.

Competition also on essays, of not less than 1000 nor more than 1500

words. Essays are to be submitted as above under Division III.

CONTEST No. 2—for High School Students.

Students of public, private and parochial schools may enter.

There shall be two divisions of the contest for high school students.

Division I—for Students of the 9th and 10th Grades.

Competition shall be based upon essays of not less than 1500 nor more

than 2000 words. Subject of essays to be your choice of the two following:

“Advent of the principles of the ‘rights of men’ into government and

effect of their expression in the Ordinance of 1787 upon our nation

today.”

“The development of public lands and colonial policies in America and our

debt to the Ordinance of 1787.”

Division II—for Students of the 11th and 12th Grades

of public, private and parochial schools.

Competition to be based upon essays of not less than 1800 nor more than

2500 words. Subjects same as in Division I of Contest No. 2.

CONTEST No. 3—for College Students.

Open to all regularly entered undergraduates in the colleges and

universities of Northwest Territory.

There will be but one division in this contest. Freshman to seniors

compete in the same class. Competition will be based upon essays of 2500

to 3000 words. The subject chosen is optional with the entrant, but must

relate to the Ordinance of 1787 and establishment of Northwest Territory.

Any angle or phase of that history; or combination of phases may be

treated. Specialized theses, particularly premises and original research

(while not necessary) are encouraged.

GENERAL CONTEST RULES

for all divisions of Contest

No. 1. These contests will begin October 15, 1937, and close February

15, 1938. Begin now on your reading and study. On or before February 15,

1938, submit your drawings or essay (as provided for your division) to

your teacher or professor.

Read and follow the rules below very carefully.

No. 2. At the top right-hand corner of the front page put the _grade_ you

are in. Do not put your name on the essay where it can be read.

The student shall put his or her name, age, grade, teacher, name of

school, with home street address, city and state, into an envelope; seal

the envelope and paste it firmly to the back of his or her essay or

drawing, as the case may be.

No. 3. All essays must be legibly and neatly written or typed, and on the

last page show the number of words contained (in the case of essays) and

the contest number and division for which entry is made.

No. 4. You may if you wish, and the Commission will appreciate it if

you do, append a list of the books you have read and the adults you

have talked to about Northwest Territory history in preparation for

your essay. This list is not _required_, and if submitted, is to be in

_addition_ to your essay.

No. 5. The preparation of your drawing or essay must be your own work.

Read all you will, discuss the subject with others, but prepare your own

submission. Right is reserved for the judges to refuse consideration to

any entry which shows sufficient evidence of not being prepared by the

student. When any sentence or other quotation from other source is made,

be sure to use quotation marks around the quotation and to “indent” the

lines quoted at least one inch from left margin of your own copy.

No. 6. Illustrations may be used in essays if desired but will not

replace words. They may be either hand drawn or pasted-in illustrations

clipped from other sources.

No. 7. Submit your essay or drawings (as the case may be) to your

teacher by February 15, 1938. Announcement of awards will be made as

soon as possible, probably before June 15th, by the Northwest Territory

Celebration Commission.

No. 8. The recommendations of the judges will be final and entries

submitted become the property of the Commission, with full rights of

publication. The Commission assumes no responsibility for acts of the

judges or miscarriage of mails, etc.

PRIZES

For Contest No. 1—Divisions I, II, III, IV.

That is for all grade students.

The winning entrant in each division of the contest, from each state of

Northwest Territory, will receive a trip to Washington, D. C. and other

points of interest along the route, under the following conditions:

A. The trip will be made by railroad train, with air-cooled Pullman from

Chicago and return.

B. Special chaperons will be provided from each state to accompany the

four children from that state. The chaperon will be the teacher in grades

1 to 8 inclusive, whose room turns in the highest percentage of entrants

as related to scholars, in that particular state. In case of ties the

chaperon will be chosen by lot or agreement.

C. All meals, berths, rail fare, sight seeing buses and proper expenses

of both winning students and chaperons will be paid by the Commission.

D. Three full days in Washington, Mount Vernon, Arlington, and all the

sights of the Nation’s Capital.

E. The chaperons will take charge of the four winners from each state at

the state capital. The Commission will pay the rail fare of each winner

from his or her home to the state capital. Also the rail fare necessary

for one parent of each winner to take the winner to and from the state

capital where the chaperons take charge.

F. An engraved certificate of achievement will be given each child by

a high officer of the United States Government while the party is in

Washington.

G. There will be four winners from each state, or twenty-four from the

territory, with six chaperons.

For Contest No. 2—Divisions I and II.

That is for all high school students.

The cash prizes offered in this contest are territory-wide. The

scholarship prizes will be awarded within the states where the

cooperating colleges are located.

Division I—9th and 10th Grades

1st cash prize to boy $125.00 1st cash prize to girl $125.00

2nd “ “ “ “ 75.00 2nd “ “ “ “ 75.00

3rd “ “ “ “ 37.50 3rd “ “ “ “ 37.50

4th “ “ “ “ 25.00 4th “ “ “ “ 25.00

5th “ “ “ “ 12.50 5th “ “ “ “ 12.50

Ten cash prizes $550.00 total

Division II—11th and 12th Grades.

1st cash prize to boy $125.00 1st cash prize to girl $125.00

2nd “ “ “ “ 75.00 2nd “ “ “ “ 75.00

3rd “ “ “ “ 37.50 3rd “ “ “ “ 37.50

4th “ “ “ “ 25.00 4th “ “ “ “ 25.00

5th “ “ “ “ 12.50 5th “ “ “ “ 12.50

Ten cash prizes $550.00 total

Besides this, the following universities and colleges have offered

scholarships amounting to $15,000 in value. These will be distributed

first to winners in each state. If certain winners prefer a scholarship

at a school listed but outside their own state, this will be available

only if the scholarship has not been claimed by a winning contestant from

the state where the college is located; and provided the entrant from

another state is acceptable to the college.

Some of the scholarships offered are subject to prescribed high school

standings and entrance requirements. These will be explained to the

winning competitors. Most of the scholarships can be deferred if you

are only a freshman, sophomore, or junior in high school, and will be

available when you graduate.

INDIANA

Earlham College, Richmond, Ind. Co-ed

1 scholarship—$100.00 a year, subject to entrance

requirements.

Hanover College, Hanover, Ind. Co-ed

1 scholarship—$100.00

Huntington College, Huntington, Ind. Co-ed

1 scholarship—$150.00

Indiana Central College, Indianapolis, Ind. Co-ed

1 scholarship—$100.00—freshman year, B average or better.

Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind. Co-ed

4 four-year scholarships—freshman to senior.

St. Marys College, Notre Dame, Ind. Girl

1 scholarship—$250.00

St. Marys of the Woods College, St. Marys of the Woods, Ind. Girl

1 scholarship—$250.00 a year and renewable for 3 remaining

years for students with A record and satisfactory

character.

Rose Polytechnic Institute, Terre Haute, Ind. Boy

1 four-year scholarship—$200.00 a year.

Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Ind. Co-ed

2 scholarships—full tuition for 1 year, subject to

entrance requirements.

ILLINOIS

Carthage College, Carthage, Ill. Co-ed

1 scholarship—4 years, $100.00 a year.

College of St. Francis, Joliet, Ill. Girl

1 scholarship—$150.00 a year, renewable if student’s work

is satisfactory.

Elmhurst College, Elmhurst, Ill. Co-ed

1 four-year scholarship, subject to selective requirements

for renewal.

Lake Forest College, Lake Forest, Ill. Co-ed

1 scholarship—$275.00—1 year, subject to entrance

requirements.

McKendree College, Lebanon, Ill. Co-ed

1 scholarship—$50.00 a semester for 1 year, extension of

3 years at $25.00 a semester for satisfactory record.

Monmouth College, Monmouth, Ill. Co-ed

1 scholarship—$100.00, extended for at least two years.

Rockford College, Rockford, Ill. Girl

1 scholarship—$250.00—a girl with satisfactory entrance

requirements—in upper third of her high school class.

MICHIGAN

Alma College, Alma, Mich. Co-ed

1 scholarship—1 year, $100.00

Battle Creek College, Battle Creek, Mich. Co-ed

1 scholarship, 1 year—$100.00, subject to ability of

student.

Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, Mich. Co-ed

1 scholarship—$100.00 per year toward degree.

University of Detroit, Detroit, Mich. Co-ed

1 scholarship, 1 year—$200.00, subject to entrance

requirements.

MINNESOTA

Augsberg Theological Seminary & College, Minneapolis, Minn. Co-ed

Scholarship to high school student who might take first

place in contest.

College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph, Minn. Girl

Complete tuition for one year.

College of St. Catherine, St. Paul, Minn. Girl

1 scholarship, 1 year—$150.00, renewable on B average

or better.

Hamline University, St. Paul, Minn. Co-ed

$75.00—payable second semester.

Macalester College, St. Paul, Minn. Co-ed

$75.00—one semester.

OHIO

Ashland College, Ashland, Ohio Co-ed

1 scholarship, 1st year—$100.00, each year after, $80.00,

subject to achievement.

Baldwin-Wallace College, Berea, Ohio Co-ed

1 four-year scholarship—$100.00 a year, B average or

better.

Bluffton College, Bluffton, Ohio Co-ed

$100.00 to be distributed over a period of two years.

Cedarville College, Cedarville, Ohio Co-ed

1 four-year scholarship—$50.00 a year.

College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio Co-ed

1 scholarship—$110.00, subject to renewal each year on

B average for 4 years.

Findlay College, Findlay, Ohio Co-ed

1 scholarship for 4 years—$100.00 a year.

Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio Co-ed

1 scholarship, 1 year.

Hiram College, Hiram, Ohio Co-ed

1 scholarship, 1 year—$100.00.

Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio Boy

2 scholarships—$150.00, must meet entrance requirements.

Lake Erie College, Painesville, Ohio Girl

1 four-year scholarship—$300.00 a year.

Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio Co-ed

1 scholarship, $100.00 a year for two years.

Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Co-ed

1 scholarship, 1 year, extension beyond one year depends

upon rank of recipient.

Mount Union College, Alliance, Ohio Co-ed

1 scholarship, 1 year—$100.00, subject to entrance

requirements, also entrant must reside within 50 miles

of school.

Muskingum College, New Concord, Ohio Co-ed

1 scholarship, 4 years—$50.00 a year.

Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Co-ed

2 two-year scholarships for high school seniors—$60.00 a

year.

University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio Co-ed

1 scholarship, 1 year—$100.00.

Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio Co-ed

1 scholarship, tuition for 1 year for boy.

1 scholarship, tuition for 1 year for girl. Both subject

to entrance requirements.

Wilmington College, Wilmington, Ohio Co-ed

1 four-year scholarship—$160.00 a year.

Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio Co-ed

One tuition scholarship.

WISCONSIN

Carroll College, Waukesha, Wisc. Co-ed

1 scholarship, 1 year—$100.00 a year.

Lawrence College, Appleton, Wisc. Co-ed

2 scholarships—$100.00 each, renewal subject to entrance

requirements.

Ripon College, Ripon, Wisc. Co-ed

1 scholarship, 2 years—$150.00 a year.

Contest No. 3—College Students.

This contest is Territory wide also.

1st prize to boy $300.00 1st prize to girl $300.00

2nd “ “ “ 200.00 2nd “ “ “ 200.00

3rd “ “ “ 100.00 3rd “ “ “ 100.00

4th “ “ “ 75.00 4th “ “ “ 75.00

5th “ “ “ 50.00 5th “ “ “ 50.00

6th “ “ “ 25.00 6th “ “ “ 25.00

12 prizes $1500.00 total in cash

Also:

University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Co-ed

1 scholarship—$300.00 for post-graduate work, to one of

first four winners in College Division.

METHOD OF JUDGING—FOR GRADE SCHOOL CONTEST—CONTEST No. 1

Each school principal will be in charge of judging the entries from that

school. The actual work can be parcelled out among the teachers under the

principal’s supervision.

The _two best_ entries from _each division_ of this contest should be

selected and forwarded within two weeks of the close of the contest,

February 15, 1938, to either the city superintendent or the county

superintendent as the case may be. This _individual school_ judging

should be completed by March 1st, 1938. In the case of city schools the

city superintendent of schools will arrange for judging the entries

selected by school principals and will submit the one best _in each of

the four divisions_ from his city, to the State Department of Education

in his state. This city judging should be completed within two weeks or

by March 15, 1938.

In the case of country schools, the county superintendent will provide

for the judging of the school winners in each division submitted by

principals, and will forward the _one_ best in each of the four divisions

to the State Department of Education in his state. As in the case of city

schools, this should be accomplished by March 15th, 1938.

The State Departments of Education will judge the winners as submitted

by county and city superintendents, and notify the Northwest Territory

Celebration Commission (Federal) at Marietta, Ohio, as to the one winner

in each of the four divisions of the grade schools within that state.

This advice should reach the Commission by May 15th, and awards will be

made at once. Parochial and private schools shall follow the procedure

outlined above, submitting to city or county superintendents of public

instructions and through them to State Departments of Education, etc.

There will thus be four winners, one from each division of the contest,

within each state.

METHOD OF JUDGING—FOR HIGH SCHOOL CONTEST—CONTEST No. 2

The procedure for judging the two divisions of high school students shall

be the same as in Contest No. 1—except that the _two winners from each

division of the contest_ should be sent by county superintendents to the

State Department of Education.

From these essays the State Department of Education shall submit the

_twenty-five_ best essays from that state to the Northwest Territory

Celebration Commission by May 15th, 1938.

This Commission will select cash prize winners from each state of the

territory and will award scholarship prizes in accordance with population

of state and number of colleges and universities in each state which

offer scholarship prizes.

METHOD OF JUDGING COLLEGE ENTRIES

Each college will appoint its own board of judges of its own entries and

the board shall choose the best entry made by a male and the best entry

made by a female student and shall submit them to the Northwest Territory

Celebration Commission (Federal), Marietta, Ohio, by May 15th, 1938.

GENERAL

This division of the work of judging does not place an extreme burden on

anyone and yet is fair.

The Commission assumes no responsibility for the failure of any of the

judges to perform their functions properly and promptly.