THE ORDINANCE OF 1787. SOME INVESTIGATIONS AS TO THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE COL. W. E. GILMORE, CHILLICOTHE. Senator Roberts, of Pennsylvania, in the great debate over the bill for the admission of Missouri to the Union, in 1820, characterized the Ordinance of 1787 as "that immortal Ordinance which, with its elder sister, the Declaration of American Independence, will shed eternal and inextinguishable lustre over the annals of our country." Daniel Webster, in a speech upon the Foote Resolution (1829), said: "We are accustomed to praise the law-givers of antiquity; we help to perpetuate the fame of Solon and Lycurgus; but I doubt whether one single law of any law-giver, ancient or mcdern, has produced effects of more distinct, marked and lasting character than the Ordinance of 1787." Salmon P. Chase, in his preface to his Statutes at Large of Ohio, says of it: "Never in the history, of the world did a measure of legislation so accurately fulfill, and yet so mightily exceed, the expectation of the legislators." "Whatever," said Senator George F. Hoar in his magnificent oration at the Marietta Centennial Celebration, "whatever of these gifts nature has not given, is to be traced directly to the institutions of civil and religious liberty the wisdom of your fathers established; above all in the great Ordinance of 1787. 'The spirit of the Ordinance pervades all these States' (of the Northwest). Here was the first human government under which absolute civil and religious liberty has always prevailed. Here, no witch or wizard was ever hanged or burned. Here, no heretic was ever molested. Here, no slave was ever born or dwelt. "When older States and nations, where the chains of human bondage have been broken, shall utter the proud boast, 'with a great sum obtained I this freedom'; each sister of the imperial group Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin - may lift her queenly head with the yet prouder answer, 'but I was free-born!'" The rays of the resplendent glory of having originated and pushed into legislation the Ordinance of 1787 illuminate many names, but chiefly concentrate upon those of Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, Rufus King and Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts; and in lesser degree, William Grayson, of Virginia, and Timothy Pickering, of Pennsylvania. To make a just, equitable and truthful partition of this glory is the object of this paper. It is wonderful, and it excites curious reflections upon the reliability of history, that there has been so much and such various assertion upon a matter as yet but a little over a century old, and which concerns national legislation! Not only have Jefferson, King, Grayson and Dane, in turn, in Congress and otherwise, been glorified as the one to whom all the honor belongs - particularly for the VIth Article of the Ordinance; the article which forever prohibited slavery in the Territory northwest of the river Ohio, and the States to be carved out of it but Rev. Dr. Manasseh Cutler is now, in 1888, vehemently asserted to have been the great benefactor of all the Northwest, in that he wrote that article and secured its passage through the Old Congress, through Dane. And this latest, and too late claimant for the honor, finds supporters in such reputable writers as Dr. Hinsdale (in his "Old Northwest"), Hon. Daniel J. Ryan (History of Ohio, 1888), and Dr. William E. Poole, President of the American Historical Association, (Address of December 26, 1888, at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Society), and a number of others. Well may the Hon. Rufus King, of Cincinnati, in his recently published volume Ohio, of the American Commonwealth series, exclaim: "This subject seems to have fallen under that morbid infirmity in literature which delights in denying Homer and Shakespeare their works; and has not spared even the Holy Scriptures!" Several of the original thirteen States claimed ownership in lands outside of their present State lines, in 1780. That Con gress might legislate for the government of these Territories, it was necessary these States should quit claim them to the National Government. This was done in the following order: In 1781, New York limited and defined her northern and western boundaries and ceded all her claims to lands outside of the lines so established. In 1784, Virginia likewise ceded all her claims to territory northwest of the Ohio river. In 1785, Massachusetts ceded all her claims to territory to the west of her prescribed boundaries. And in 1786, Connecticut ceded her claim to a portion of the territory west of the Ohio river. It is to be noted that the subject of negro slavery was so little considered in those times, that no one of these deeds of cession contained any exclusion of that domestic institution, or even any restriction of it whatever. Nevertheless, there were individual men, both North and South, as we will see, whose consciences were awakened and impressed by the moral wrongfulness and political impolicy of slavery, and the inconsistency of maintaining it in this country, in the face of the grand democratic doctrines of the Declaration of Independence. First, in point of time, and most famous of these, was Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, himself a slave owner. On the 19th of April, 1784, immediately after the cession of Virginia's claims to the territory, he, as chairman of a committee appointed for the purpose, of which committee Mr. Chase, of Maryland, and Mr. Howell, of Rhode Island, were the other members, reported to Congress a "Plan of Government" for the Territories. In this plan for the first time appeared a clause intended, first, to limit and restrict, and then extinguish and exclude negro slavery from the Northwestern Territories and States to grow out of them. It has always been accepted as a fact that Jefferson was the author of that clause. Upon the motion of Mr. Speight, of North Carolina, these words were stricken out of the reported plan: "That after the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the States" (to be organized thereafter under the provisions of the 'Plan') "otherwise than in punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been convicted to have been personally guilty." Much controversy occurred in after years as to whether the legislation which ultimately excluded slavery from the Northwest had been attained despite the opposition of the old slaveholding States, or by their willing assent and co-operation. Therefore I give the vote by individuals and States upon the motion of Mr. Speight to strike out the above clause, noting the fact that it required two votes to have a State counted, and therefore New Jersey, then represented on this vote by Mr. Dick only, did not count, nor did North Carolina, whose vote was divided. The question was presented by the formula "Shall the words moved to be stricken out, stand?" And the vote was: aye. aye. New Hampshire - Foster, aye; Blanchard, aye. The State, Massachusetts-Gerry, aye; Partridge, aye, The State, aye. New York - DeWitt, aye; Paine, aye. The State, aye. Pennsylvania - Hand, aye; Mifflin, aye; Montgomery, aye. The State, aye. Maryland McHenry, aye; Stone, aye. The State, aye. Virginia Jefferson, aye; Hardy, no; Mercer, no. The State, no. North Carolina-Williamson, aye; Speight, no. State, no. The South Carolina - Reed, no; Beresford, no. The State, no. And so the necessary number of States (at that time seven) not having voted to retain the clause, it was stricken out. It is only fair to say that Southern statesmen always insisted that it was stricken out only because not accompanied with a provision for the rendition of fugitive slaves, as provided for afterwards in the Constitution of the United States. In the next year Timothy Pickering wrote to Rufus King, of Massachusetts, (March 8th, 1775), "For God's sake, then, let one more effort be made to prevent so terrible a calamity”— (i. e., as the introduction of slavery). "It will be infinitely easier to prevent the evil at first than to eradicate it, or check it at any future time." Moved by such appeals, and his own opposition to the institutions of slavery, Mr. King accordingly moved to commit the consideration of the subject of Jefferson's rejected clause to a committee for report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ellery, of Rhode Island, and prevailed. Mr. King, Mr. Ellery and Mr. Howell were appointed to constitute the committee, and on the 6th of April, 1785, made their report to Congress. This report, which was in the handwriting of Mr. King, recommended the adoption of a resolve or ordinance, in the nature of a supplement to the "Plan of Government," by Mr. Jefferson - which had passed Congress after the elimination of the slavery restriction clause-and was in the words following: "That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the states described in the resolve of April 23d, 1784, otherwise than in punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been personally guilty; and that this regulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the Constitution between the thirteen original states, and each of the states described in said resolve of April 23, 1784." This proposition, so far as we can ascertain, was never voted upon by Congress. Bancroft's History of the Constitution says that it was never called up. (Vol. 1, pp. 179-180). It is to be noted that it differed from the clause of Mr. Jefferson's "Plan," in that it made the exclusion of slavery immediate as well as perpetual; and asserted the regulation to be a compact between the future states and the original thirteen. Southern members of Congress in the 'debate on the Missouri Bill afterwards scouted the idea of a compact made between a tract of territory having, as yet, no inhabitants, with the thirteen states. Mr. King's motion to raise the committee of which he was chairman, was made in March, and upon that motion, of course, a vote was taken; the report of the committee was made on April 6th, as stated. This explanation will untangle the confusion of statements which have been made in regard to the "vote upon King's proposition," and also of dates. |