CHAPTER II

HISTORY OF THE ORDINANCE OF 1787

A century and a half ago, on the thirteenth day of July, 1787, the Congress of the United States, in session at New York, among its last acts under the Articles of Confederation, enacted an ordinance for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of the Ohio River. We know of no legislative enactment, proposed and accomplished in any country, in any age, by monarch, by representatives, or by the peoples themselves, that has received praise so exalted, and at the same time so richly deserved, as has this same Ordinance of 1787.

It has been lauded by our great statesmen, great jurists, great orators, and great educators.

In his notable speech in reply to Robert Young Hayne, delivered in the United States Senate in January, 1830, Daniel Webster said of it:

“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 modern, has produced effects of more distinct, marked, and lasting character than the Ordinance of 1787. We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow.”

Judge Timothy Walker, in an address delivered in 1837 at Cincinnati, spoke upon this subject in the following words:

“Upon the surpassing excellence of this ordinance no language of panegyric would be extravagant. It approaches as nearly to absolute perfection as anything to be found in the legislation of mankind; for after the experience of fifty years, it would perhaps be impossible to alter without marring it. In short, it is one of those matchless specimens of sagacious forecast which even the reckless spirit of innovation would not venture to assail. The emigrant knew beforehand that this was a land of the highest political, as well as national, promise, and, under the auspices of another Moses, he journeyed with confidence to his new Canaan.”

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase said of it:

“Never, probably, in the history of the world, did a measure of legislation so accurately fulfill, and yet so mightily exceed, the anticipations of the legislators. The Ordinance has well been described as having been a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night in the settlement and government of the Northwestern States.”

Peter Force, in 1847, in tracing its history, declared:

“It has been distinguished as one of the greatest monuments of civil jurisprudence.”

George V. N. Lothrop, LL.D., in an address delivered at the annual commencement of the University of Michigan, June 27, 1878, said substantially:

“In advance of the coming millions, it had, as it were, shaped the earth and the heavens of the sleeping empire. The Great Charter of the Northwest had consecrated it irrevocably to human freedom, to religion, learning, and free thought. This one act is the most dominant one in our whole history, since the landing of the Pilgrims. It is the act that became decisive in the Great Rebellion. Without it, so far as human judgment can discover, the victory of free labor would have been impossible.”

Notwithstanding the high praises that have been bestowed upon the ordinance, and the many and great benefits that have flowed from it, its authorship was, for nearly a century, a matter of dispute. No less than four different persons have had claims to authorship advanced for them by their friends.

Who, if any one man, was primarily the author of the ordinance, is uncertain, and now of little moment. The long contention which was waged as to its authorship serves its greatest purpose in emphasizing the importance which was then and has since been attributed to the document.

Because of the geographic implications later involved it is worth while, however, to consider briefly the various assertions of authorship.

Webster, in his famous two-day speech in reply to Hayne, gives to Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, the entire credit for devising the ordinance, and such was the confidence in Webster’s statement, that many writers since have accepted it as a demonstrated fact.

Thomas H. Benton, in the debate following Webster’s speech, replied:

“He [Webster] has brought before us a certain Nathan Dane, of Beverly, Mass., and loaded him with such an exuberance of blushing honors as no modern name has been known to merit or claim. So much glory was caused by a single act, and that act the supposed authorship of the Ordinance of 1787, and especially the clause in it which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. So much encomium and such greatful consequences it seems a pity to spoil, but spoilt it must be; for Mr. Dane was no more the author of that Ordinance, sir, than you or I.... That Ordinance, and especially the non-slavery clause, was not the work of Nathan Dane of Massachusetts, but of Thomas Jefferson of Virginia.”

Charles King, president of Columbia College, in 1855 published a paper on the Northwest Territory in which he claimed for his father, Rufus King, the authorship of the non-slavery clause.

Ex-Governor Edward Coles, in a paper on the “History of the Ordinance of 1787,” prepared for the Pennsylvania Historical Society in 1850, disputed Webster’s claim for Dane, and asserted the claim of Thomas Jefferson.

Force undertook to gather from the archives of Congress materials for a complete history of this document, but he found nothing that settled the question of authorship; and although he probably knew more of the original documents pertaining to the Northwest Territory than any other man since its adoption, he died in ignorance of the real author.

Hon. R. W. Thompson, in an eloquent address on “Education,” ascribed the ordinance to the wise statesmanship and the unselfish and far-reaching patriotism of Jefferson.

Lothrop, in his Ann Arbor address in 1878, on “Education as a Public Duty,” said:

“It was a graduate of Harvard, who, in 1787, when framing the Great Charter for the Northwest, had consecrated it irrevocably to Human Freedom, to Religion, Learning, and Free Thought. It was the proud boast of Themistocles, that he knew how to make of a small city a great state. Greater than his was the wisdom and prescience of Nathan Dane, who knew how to take pledges of the future, and to snatch from the wilderness an inviolable Republic of Free Labor and Free Thought.”

In 1876, a year in which many buried historical facts were unearthed, William Frederick Poole, in an admirable article published in the _North American Review_, presented the history of the Ordinance in a most scholarly manner. But discarding the absoluteness of the claims heretofore set forth, he presents, as the chief actor in this mysterious drama, Dr. Manasseh Cutler, of Massachusetts.

Following, in a general way, the line of argument laid down by Poole, it is interesting to examine the foregoing claims in the light of the known facts. In January, 1781, Thomas Jefferson, then Governor of Virginia, acting under instructions from his state, ceded to the general government Virginia’s claims to that magnificent tract of country known as the Northwest Territory, which had been acquired by Virginia by king’s charter and also as a result of its conquest by George Rogers Clark in 1778-79. The Virginia cession, regarded as the most crucial of the necessary relinquishments of state claims, was not completed in form satisfactory to the United States until 1784. On the first of March of the same year Jefferson, then a member of Congress and chairman of a committee appointed for the purpose, presented an ordinance for the government of all the territory lying westward of the 13 original states to the Mississippi River. There were two notable features in this paper; first, it provided for the exclusion of slavery and involuntary servitude _after the year 1800_; second, it provided for _Articles of Compact_, the non-slavery clause being one of them. By this provision there were five articles that could never be set aside without the consent of both Congress and the people of the territory. The non-slavery article was rejected by Congress, and the rest was adopted with some unimportant modifications, on the twenty-third of April, 1784. Whether even this ordinance was actually drafted by Jefferson is disputed, because it was an almost identical copy of the plan submitted by David Howell of Rhode Island in the previous year. However, on the tenth of May, 17 days after the Ordinance of 1784 was adopted, Jefferson resigned his seat in Congress to assume the duties of United States Minister to France. As the Ordinance of 1787 was not adopted until three years after Jefferson had gone to France, and since he did not return until December, 1789, more than two years after its passage, there is serious question as to his possible influence upon it.

Moreover, careful comparison of the Ordinance of 1784 with that of 1787, shows no similarity, except in the two points referred to above: the anti-slavery provision, and the articles of compact. The Ordinance of 1784 contains none of those broad provisions found in the later document concerning religious freedom, fostering of education, equal distribution of estates of intestates, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, trial by jury, moderation in fines and punishments, the taking of private property for public use, and interference by law with the obligation of private contracts. No provision was made for distribution or sale of lands, and under this Ordinance of 1784 no settlements were ever made in the territory.

[Illustration: MANASSEH CUTLER

_Drawn by Marie Kellogg, Superior, Wisconsin_]

In 1785, on motion of Rufus King, an attempt was made to re-insert some sort of anti-slavery provision, but it was not carried. This, so far as we can learn, is the extent of the grounds for King’s claims to authorship.

In March, 1786, a report on the western territory was made by the grand committee of the House, which, proving unsatisfactory, resulted in the appointment of a new committee. It reported an ordinance that was recommitted and discussed at intervals until September of the same year, when another committee was appointed. Of this, Dane was a member. A report was made which was under discussion for several months. In April, 1787, this same committee reported another ordinance which passed its first and second readings, and the tenth of May was set for its third reading, but for some reason final action was postponed. This paper came down to the ninth of July without further change. Poole has given us the full text as it appeared only four days before the final passage of the great ordinance. This bears less likeness to the finally adopted version than does the Ordinance of 1784.

Force, in gathering up the old papers, found this July 9 version in its crude and unstatesmanlike condition, and wondered how such radical changes could have been so suddenly effected; for in the brief space of four days the new ordinance was drafted, passed its three readings, was put upon its final passage, and was adopted by the unanimous vote of all the states present.

This rapid and fundamental change in the ordinance tends to discredit all of the foregoing claims.

Authorship of public documents which attain greatness is usually a matter for later dispute.

Such documents have probably never been the work of any one author, but are rather the coordinated expressions of thought which have developed over long periods of time and in many men’s minds. Least of all entitled to credit is the “Scribe” who merely recorded the thought propounded by others, but whose name often becomes associated with the document.

At the close of the Revolutionary War, Congress, in adjusting the claims of officers and soldiers, gave them interest-bearing continental certificates. The United States Treasury was in a state of such depletion and uncertainty, that these certificates were actually worth only about one-sixth of their face value. At the close of the war many of these officers were destitute, notwithstanding the fact that they held thousands of dollars in these depreciated “promissory notes” of the government.

On the eve of the disbandment of the army in 1783, 288 officers petitioned Congress for a grant of land in the western territory. Their petition went beyond a request for lands, however, and set forth certain provisions of government as essential to their petition. In this humble and little-known document known variously as the “Pickering” or “Army” Plan, were contained many of the proposals which later found their way into the Ordinance of 1787. Included for instance was the then radical prohibition of slavery clause. This document bears a closer resemblance in principles and in wording, to the Ordinance of 1787 when it was adopted than does any other contemporary document. Among the petitioners was General Rufus Putnam. It was his plan, if Congress should comply with the petition, to form a colony and remove to the Ohio Valley. On the sixteenth of June, 1783, Putnam addressed a letter to General George Washington elaborating the soldiers’ plan and setting forth the advantages that would arise if Congress should grant the petition, and urged him to use his influence to secure favorable action upon it. This letter is of great interest in the development of the history of the Northwest. It is printed in full in Charles M. Walker’s _History of Athens County, Ohio_, pp. 30-36.

The chief advantages of this project, as set forth by Putnam were, the friendship of the Indians, secured through traffic with them; the protection of the frontier; the promotion of land sales to other than soldiers, thus aiding the treasury; and the prevention of the return of said territory to any European power. There were, in the letter, other suggestions of far-reaching interest; (1) That the territory should be surveyed into six-mile townships, one of the first suggestions for our present admirable system of government surveys; (2) that in the proposed grant, a portion of land should be set apart for the support of the ministry; and (3) that another portion should be reserved for the maintenance of free schools.

One year later Washington wrote to Putnam that, although he had urged upon Congress the necessity and the duty of complying with the petition, no action had been taken. The failure of this plan led to the development of another and better one. It is interesting to note, however, that the men under whose sponsorship and virtual insistence the Ordinance of 1787 was finally evolved had been subscribers to the Pickering Plan of 1783.

In 1785, Congress adopted the system of surveys suggested by Putnam, and tendered him the office of Government Surveyor. He declined, but through his influence, his friend and fellow-soldier, General Benjamin Tupper, was appointed. In the fall of 1785, and again in 1786, Tupper visited the territory and in the latter year he completed the survey of the “seven ranges” in eastern Ohio. In the winter of 1785-86 he held a conference with Putnam at the home of the latter, in Rutland, Massachusetts. Here they talked over the beauty and value of “the Ohio country” and devised a new plan for “filling it with inhabitants.” They issued a call to all officers, soldiers, and others, “who desire to become adventurers in that delightful region” to meet in convention for the purpose of organizing “an association by the name of _The Ohio Company of Associates_.” The term “Ohio” as used here related to the “Ohio country” or the “Territory north and west of the River Ohio,” as the present state of Ohio was then of course non-existent.

Also the name, “Ohio Company of Associates,” is not to be confused with the earlier “Ohio Company” of the 1750’s which had been one of the earlier land schemes, operating south of the Ohio River. No man in the “Ohio Company of Associates” had been a part of the former Ohio Company, and there was no relation between the two companies.

Delegates from various New England counties met at Boston, March 1, 1786. A committee, consisting of Putnam, Cutler, Colonel John Brooks, Major Winthrop Sargent, and Captain Thomas H. Cushing was appointed to draft a plan of association. Two days later they made a report, some of the most important points of which were: (1) That a stock company should be formed with a capital of one million dollars of the Continental Certificates already mentioned; (2) that this fund should be devoted to the purchase of lands northwest of the River Ohio; (3) that each share should consist of one thousand dollars of certificates, and ten dollars of gold or silver to be used in defraying expenses; (4) that directors and agents be appointed to carry out the purposes of the company.

Subscription books were opened at different places, and at the end of the year, a sufficient number of shares had been subscribed to justify further proceedings. On the eighth of March, 1787, another meeting was held in Boston, and General Samuel Holden Parsons, Putnam, Cutler and General James M. Varnum were appointed directors, and were ordered to make proposals to Congress for the purchase of lands in accordance with the plans of the company. Later, the directors employed Cutler to act as their agent and make a contract with Congress for a body of land in the “Great Western Territory of the Union.”

To those who have studied this transaction of the Ohio Company of Associates in its various bearings, there can be no doubt that through it the Ordinance of 1787 came to be. The two were intimately related parts of one whole. Either studied alone presents inexplicable difficulties; studied together each explains the other. Through the agency of Cutler the purchase of land was effected and those radical changes in the ordinance were made between the ninth and thirteenth of July, 1787.

Cutler was born at Killingly, Connecticut, May 3, 1742. At the age of twenty-three he graduated from Yale. The two years following were devoted to the whaling business and to storekeeping at Edgartown, on Martha’s Vineyard. He did not enjoy this occupation, however, and studied law in his spare time. In 1767 he was admitted to the Massachusetts bar. This profession proved little more congenial, and he determined to study theology. In 1771 he was ordained at Ipswich, where he continued preaching until the outbreak of the Revolution, when he entered the army as a chaplain. In one engagement he took such an active and gallant part that the colonel of his regiment presented him with a fine horse captured from the enemy. Cutler returned to his parish before the war closed and decided to study medicine. He received his M.D. degree, and for several years served in the double capacity of minister and doctor. He was now a graduate in all the so-called learned professions—law, divinity, and medicine. In scientific pursuits he was probably the equal of any man in America, excepting Benjamin Franklin, and perhaps Benjamin Rush. He was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and several other learned bodies. Two years before his journey to New York, he had published four articles in the memoirs of the American Academy, dealing with astronomy, meteorology and botany. The last mentioned was the first attempt made by any one to describe scientifically the plants of New England. Employing the Linnaean system, he classified 350 species of plants found in his neighborhood. His articles brought him prominence among learned groups throughout the country, and secured for him a cordial welcome into the literary and scientific circles of New York and Philadelphia. Cutler was well fitted, therefore, to become, as has already been related, a leading spirit in the enterprise of the Ohio Company. In 1795 Washington offered him the judgeship of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territory, which he declined. He became a member of the Massachusetts Legislature, and from 1800 to 1804 served his district as its Representative in Congress. He declined re-election and returned to his pastorate. At the time of his death in 1820 he had served there for nearly 50 years.

He was a man of commanding presence, “stately and elegant in form, courtly in manners, and at the same time easy, affable, and communicative. He was given to relating anecdotes and making himself agreeable.” His character, attainments, manners and knowledge of men fitted him admirably for the task of uniting the diverse elements of Congress to promote the scheme he was sent there to represent. How he accomplished this is an interesting story.

Cutler’s diary reveals that he left his home in Ipswich, 25 miles northwest of Boston, on Sunday, June 24, 1787. He preached that day in Lynn, and spent the night at Cambridge. He also stopped at Middletown to confer with Parsons. Here the plan of operations was perfected, and he pursued his journey, arriving at New York on the afternoon of July 5, 1787. He had armed himself with about 50 letters of introduction. One of these he delivered immediately to a well-to-do merchant of the city, who received him very cordially and insisted that Cutler stay with him as long as he remained in the city.

The next morning Cutler was on the floor of Congress early, presenting letters of introduction to the members. He was particularly anxious to become acquainted with southern men, and they received him with much warmth and politeness. He was so genteel in his manners, and so much more like a southerner than a New England clergyman, that they took a fancy to him at once.

During the morning he prepared his applications to Congress for the proposed purchase of western land for the Ohio Company. He was introduced to the House by Colonel Edward Carrington, after which he delivered his petition, and proposed terms of the purchase. A committee was appointed to discuss terms of negotiation.

It must be remembered that Cutler was employed not only to make a purchase of land, but to see that the frame of government for the territory was acceptable to his constituents. Thus he had a motive in making himself agreeable to the southern men. Among the New England members there existed some antagonism toward the Ohio Company’s scheme, since its success would cause many enterprising citizens to leave that section. Massachusetts had a large tract of land in Maine, and she desired to turn the tide of emigration in that direction; for this reason Massachusetts members stood in the way of the western movement. Cutler felt, however, that their support of the company’s scheme might be relied upon when brought to a test.

Cutler was invited to dinners and teas, where his engaging manner made him the center of attraction. He used every occasion as a means of setting before the members the great advantages that would follow consummation of the proposed plan.

In the first place, Congress could thus pay a large amount of the national debt to its most worthy creditors without money. Again, it would open up the Northwest to settlement, thus insuring large sales of land to civilians. Further, it would establish a barrier between older settlements and the western Indians, thus furnishing protection without expense to the government.

In three or four days he had so fully succeeded in enlisting the favor of Congress that by July 9 a new committee was appointed to prepare a frame of government for the territory. It was at this point that the ordinance under consideration bore so little resemblance to the final document which was adopted four days later. This committee was composed of Carrington, Nathan Dane of Massachusetts, Richard Henry Lee and two others. It is quite probable that the members of this committee were selected in accordance with Cutler’s wishes.

The next morning after the committee was appointed, it called Cutler into its councils, having previously sent him a copy of the ordinance, which had already passed two readings. He was asked to make suggestions and propose amendments, which he did, returning the paper to the committee with his suggestions.

On July 10, he left for Philadelphia to visit his scientific correspondents, Franklin and Rush, and also to look in upon the Constitutional Convention, which was then in session.

The day following his departure, the committee presented to Congress a new ordinance prepared in accordance with Cutler’s suggestions. If Force could have had access to Cutler’s diary in writing up the history of the Ordinance of 1787, the mystery of the radical changes that he found between the ninth and the eleventh of July would have been solved.

On the eighteenth Cutler was again in New York. On the nineteenth he made this entry in his diary:

“Called on members of Congress very early in the morning, and was furnished with the ordinance establishing a government in the western Federal territory. It is, in a degree, new modeled. The amendments I proposed have all been made except one, and that is better qualified.”

The frame of government having been satisfactorily settled, Congress proceeded to state the conditions on which the sale of lands should be based. On the twentieth these terms were shown to Cutler, who rejected them. He said:

“I informed the committee that I should not contract on the terms proposed; that I should greatly prefer purchasing lands from some of the states, who would give incomparably better terms; and therefore proposed to leave the city immediately.”

Thus it appears quite certain that the distinctive flavor of the ordinance and the provisions which have given it greatness among all the credos of mankind were injected into it after July 9, and after Cutler had been requested to make suggestions and amendments.

But that these vital changes were not original with Cutler is evidenced by his later statement, “I only represented my principals, who would accept nothing less.”

And so the real responsibility for authorship of the ordinance may be traced to the men at the Bunch of Grapes Tavern, to the signers of the Pickering Plan, to the sober-minded and unsung men who had fought and thought a new nation into potential greatness.

At this time a number of other leading persons who held government certificates proposed to make Cutler their agent for the purchase of lands for themselves. This would give him control of some four millions more of the debt with which to influence Congress. He agreed to act for them, on the condition that the affair be conducted secretly. The next day several members called on him. They found him unwilling to accept their conditions, and proposing to leave immediately. They assured him that Congress was disposed to give him better terms. He appeared very indifferent, and they became more and more anxious. His ruse was working admirably. He finally told them that if Congress would accede to his terms, he would extend his proposed purchase. In this way, Congress could pay more than four millions of the public debt. He explained that the intention of his company was an immediate settlement by the most robust and industrious people in America, which would instantly enhance the value of federal lands. He proposed to renew the negotiations on his own terms, if Congress was so disposed.

On the twenty-fourth he wrote out his terms and sent them to the Board of Treasury, which had been empowered to complete the contract. These terms specified that the general government should survey the tract at its expense, stated the method of payment, number of payments, and the time at which the deed should be given. The most striking provisions of the contract set apart the sixteenth section of each township for the support of free schools, the twenty-ninth section of each township for the ministry; and two entire townships for the establishment and maintenance of a university.

These terms called forth much opposition, and taxed Cutler’s lobbying powers to their utmost. He said:

“Every machine in the city that it was possible to set to work, we now set in motion. My friends made every exertion in private conversation to bring over my opponents. In order to get at some of them so as to work powerfully on their minds, we were obliged to engage three or four persons before we could get at them. In some instances we engaged one person, who engaged a second, and he a third, and soon to the fourth before we could effect our purpose. In these maneuvers I am much beholden to Col. Duer and Maj. Sargent.”

It had been the purpose of the company to secure the governorship of the new territory for Parsons, but it became known that General Arthur St. Clair, the president of the Continental Congress, wanted the position. St. Clair was withholding his influence. Cutler sought an interview with him. “After that,” said Cutler, “our matters went on much better.” It will be remembered that St. Clair became the first Governor of the Northwest Territory.

On the twenty-seventh, Congress directed the Board of Treasury “to take order and close the contract.” That evening Cutler left New York for his home, authorizing Sargent to act in his stead. On the twenty-ninth of August he made a report to the directors and agents at a meeting in Boston. A great number of proprietors attended, and all fully approved of the proposed contract and it was finally executed October 27, 1787.

The Ordinance of 1787 undoubtedly represented the most advanced thought of that time on the subject of free government.

This ordinance irrevocably fixed the character of the immigration, and determined the social, political, industrial, educational, and religious institutions of the territory.

As soon as it was adopted by Congress, it was sent to the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, and some of its most important provisions were embodied in the new Constitution. Notable among these was one in the second Article of Compact, in the ordinance, stating that, “for the just preservation of rights and property, no law ought ever to be made, or have force in said Territory, that shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with, or affect private contracts or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.” This appears in Paragraph 1, Section 10, Article 1 of the Constitution, prohibiting a state from passing any “law impairing the obligation of contracts.” This is said to be the first enactment of the kind in the history of constitutional law.

The fact that the Constitutional Convention included this one proviso in the draft of the Constitution, indicates that consideration was given the provisions of the ordinance, and thereby suggests their deliberate omission from the Constitution, for reasons unknown, inasmuch as the debates of that convention were, by agreement, not recorded.

However, after the Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification it quickly became apparent that the people were determined upon specific provision for the rights of men in their fundamental law, and while ratification of the Constitution by nine states was accomplished in 1789, it was only possible by assurance that such provisions would be immediately added as amendments.

In some form, every one of the states admitted from the Northwest Territory later embodied similar provisions in their fundamental law. The adoption or rejection of these principles was not left to the discretion of the states; being “Articles of Compact,” they could not be discarded without the consent of Congress.

The sixth article of this compact prohibited slavery forever, within the bounds of the Northwest Territory. But for this form of compact in the ordinance, it is perhaps possible that Indiana and Illinois would have entered the Union as slave states. In 1802 General William Henry Harrison, then Governor of Indiana Territory, called a convention of delegates to consider the means by which slavery could be introduced into the territory, and he himself presided over its deliberations. In the language of Poole,

“The Convention voted to give its consent to the suspension of the sixth article of the compact, and to memorialize Congress for its consent to the same. The memorial laid before Congress stated that the suspension of the sixth article would be highly ‘advantageous to the Territory’ and ‘would meet with the approbation of at least nine-tenths of the good citizens of the same.’ The subject was referred to a committee of which John Randolph of Virginia was chairman, who reported adversely as follows: ‘That the rapidly increasing population of the State of Ohio evinces in the opinion of your committee, that the labor of slaves is not necessary to promote the growth and settlement of colonies in that region. That this labor, demonstrably the dearest of any, can only be employed to advantage in the cultivation of products more valuable than any known in that quarter of the United States; that the committee deem it highly dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the northwestern country, and to give strength and security to that extensive frontier. In the salutary operation of this sagacious and salutary restraint, it is believed that the inhabitants of the Territory will, at no very distant day, find ample remuneration for a temporary privation of labor and of emigration.’”

When Ohio was admitted to the Union, the advocates of slavery made strenuous efforts to secure its introduction, but were defeated. Indiana and Illinois territories later asked that the anti-slavery provision be set aside. More than one committee reported in favor of repealing it, but Congress firmly maintained the compact.

The enlightened provisions of the ordinance attracted the thrifty Yankee from New England, the enterprising Dutchman from Pennsylvania, the conscientious Quaker from Carolina and Virginia, and some of the sturdiest pioneer stock from the frontier of Kentucky. Even the light-hearted French contributed to this great melting pot.

Some historians refer to the spirit of the Northwest Territory as the “first American civilization,” brought about by welding into a national entity the diverse and imported civilizations of the earlier colonies.

[Illustration: Northwest Territory

_The FIRST COLONY of the UNITED STATES_]

It is at least an interesting speculation as to whether the newly born United States would have prevailed as one nation, except for the opportunity given by the Northwest Territory with its new lands, common problems, and forward looking government for this merging of the older states’ discordant traditional concepts of government and social relations.

Comparison of the social, industrial, and educational conditions in the states of the Old Northwest with those in neighboring states not born under the influence of the ordinance creates further evidence of the value of the principles enunciated by the ordinance.

If, in 1861, the principles and institutions of Kentucky and Missouri, instead of those of the Ordinance of 1787, had prevailed in the five states formed from the Northwest Territory, it would have required no seer to predict another end for the great struggle between the states. As Lothrop says, “It [the Ordinance of 1787] is the act that became decisive in the Great Rebellion. Without it so far as human judgment can discover, the victory of Free Labor would have been impossible.”

While it is not claimed that the ordinance was the source of all the blessings that have crowned these states, still it is certain that it was the germ from which many of them have been developed. Neither is it claimed that all the ills of the Southern States arose from the absence of similar provisions; however, their presence and influence on the one hand, and their absence on the other, tended to widen the gulf between North and South and, when the final struggle came, had a determining influence on the result.