Chapter III

Back Home Up

CHAPTER III.

THE WEST.

1784, 1785.

 

Page 168

The desire to hold and to people the great western domain mingled with every effort for imparting greater energy to the union. In that happy region each state saw the means of granting lands to its soldiers of the revolution and a possession of inestimable promise. Washington took up the office of securing the national allegiance of the transmontane woodsmen by improving the channels of communication with the states on the Atlantic. For that purpose, more than to look after lands of his own, he, on the first day of September, began a tour to the westward to make an examination of the portages between the nearest navigable branches of the Potomac and James river on the one side and of the Ohio and the Kanawha on the other. Wherever he came, he sought and closely questioned the men famed for personal observation of the streams and paths on each side of the Alleghanies.

From Fort Cumberland he took the usual road

Chap.
III.
1784.

 

 

 

Sept.
1.

over the mountains to the valley of the Yohogany, [1] and studied closely the branches of that stream. The country between the Little Kanawha and the branches of the James river being at that moment infested with hostile Indians, he returned through the houseless solitude between affluents of the Cheat river and of the Potomac. As he traced the way for commerce over that wild region he was compelled to pass a night on a rough mountain-side in a pouring rain, with no companion but a servant and no protection but his cloak; one day he was without food; sometimes he could find no path except the track of buffaloes; and in unceasing showers his ride through the close bushes seemed to him little better than the swimming of rivulets. [2]

Reaching home after an absence of thirty-three days, he declared himself pleased with the results of his tour. Combining his observations with the reminiscences of his youthful mission to the French in the heart of Ohio; of an affluent of the Ohio with the Cuyahoga; and so from the site of Cleveland to Detroit, and onward to the Lake of the Woods.

Six days after his return he sent a most able report to Harrison, then governor of Virginia. "We should do our part toward opening the communication for the fur and peltry trade of the lakes," such were his

Chap.
III.
1784.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oct.
4.

 

 

  
10.

Page 169


1.  Yohogany is the "phonetical" mode of spelling for yOugHIOgany, as the English wrote the Indian name; the French, discarding the gutturals, wrote Ohio. So at the north-east, in Passam-

aquoddy, the French dropped the first two syllables and made of the last three Acadie. The name, Belle Rivière, is a translation of Allegh-any.
2.  Washington's Journal. MS.

words, "and for the produce of the country, which will be settled faster than any other ever was, or any one would imagine. But there is a political consideration for so doing which is of still greater importance.

"I need not remark to you, sir, that the flanks and roar of the United States area possessed by other powers, and formidable ones too; nor how necessary it is to apply interest to bind all parts of the union together by indissoluble bonds. The western states, I speak now from my own observation, stand as it were upon a pivot; the touch of a feather would turn them any way. They have looked down the Mississippi until the Spaniards threw difficulties in their way. The untoward disposition of the Spaniards on the one hand and the policy of Great Britain on the other to retain as long as possible the posts of Detroit, Niagara, and Oswego, may be improved to the greatest advantage by this state if she would open the avenues to the trade of that country." [1]

Harrison heartily approved the views of Washington, and laid his letter before the assembly of Virginia, whose members gladly accepted its large views and stood ready to give them legislative support. [2]

Meantime Lafayette, who was making a tour through the United States and receiving everywhere a grateful and joyous welcome, was expected in Virginia. For the occasion, Washington repaired to Richmond; and there the assembly, to mark their reverence and affection, sent Patrick Henry, Madison, and others to


Chap.
III.
1784.
Oct.
10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
Nov.
14.
15.


Page 170


1.  Washington to Harrison, 10 Oct., 1784. Sparks, ix. 58.

2.  Harrison to Washington, 13 Nov., 1784. Sparks, ix. 68.

assure him that they retained the most lasting impressions of the transcendent services rendered in his late public character, and had proofs that no change of situation could turn his thoughts from the welfare of his country.

Three days later the house, by the same committee, addressed Lafayette, recalling "his cool intrepidity and wise conduct during his command in the campaign of 1781, and, as the wish most suitable to his character, desired that those who might emulate his glory would equally pursue the interests of humanity."

From Richmond Lafayette accompanied Washington to Mount Vernon, and after a short visit was attended by his host as far as Annapolis, where he received the congratulations of Maryland. Near the middle of December, congress, in a public session, took leave of him with every mark of honor. In his answer he repeated the great injunctions of Washington's farewell letter, and, having travelled widely in the country, bore witness to "the prevailing disposition of the people to strengthen the confederation." In his love for America, his three "hobbies," as he called them, were the closer federal union, the alliance with France, and the abolition of slavery. He embarked for his native land "fraught with affection to America, and disposed to render it every possible service." [1] To Washington he announced from Europe that he was about to attempt the relief of the protestants in France. [2]


Chap.
III.
1784.
Nov.

  
18.

 

 

 

 

 

Dec.
13.


Page 171


1.  Jefferson to Madison, 18 March, 1785.

2.  Lafayette to Washington, 11 May, 1785.

The conversation of Washington during his stay in Richmond had still further impressed members of the legislature with the magnitude of his designs. Shortly after his departure a joint memorial from inhabitants of Maryland and of Virginia, representing the advantages which would flow from establishing under the authority of the two states a company for improving the navigation of the Potomac, was presented to the general assembly of each of them. But the proposed plan had defects, and moreover previous communication between the two states could alone secure uniformity of action. It was decided to consult with Maryland, and the negotiation was committed to Washington himself. Leaving Mount Vernon at a few hours' notice, the general hastened to Annapolis. Amendments of the plan were thoughtfully digested, rapidly carried through both houses, and despatched to Richmond. There a law of the same tenor was immediately passed [1] without opposition, "to the mutual satisfaction of both states," and, as Washington hoped, "to the advantage of the union." [2]

At the same time the two governments made appropriations for opening a road from the highest practicable navigation of the Potomac to that of the river Cheat or Monongahela, and they concurred in an application to Pennsylvania for permission to open another road from Fort Cumberland to the Yohogany. Like measures were initiated by Virginia for connecting James river with some affluent of the Great Kanawha. Moreover, the executive was authorized to


Chap.
III.
1784.

 

 

 

 

Dec.
14.


Page 172


1.  Hening, x. 510.

2.  Madison, i. 123, 124. Sparks, ix. 82.

appoint commissioners to examine the most convenient course for a canal between Elizabeth river and the waters of the Roanoke, and contingently to make application to the legislature of North Carolina for its concurrence. [1]

Early in 1785 the legislature of Virginia, repeating, in words written by Madison, "their sense of the unexampled merits of George Washington toward his country," vested in him shares in both the companies alike of the Potomac and of James river. [2] But, animated by a pure zeal for the general good and conscious of the weight of his counsels, he was resolved never to suffer his influence to be impaired by any suspicion of interested motives, and, not able to undo an act of the legislature, held the shares, but only as a trustee for the public.

Another question between Maryland and Virginia remained for solution. The charter to Lord Baltimore, which Virginia had resisted as a severance of her territory, bounded his jurisdiction by the "further bank" of the Potomac. When both states assumed independence, Virginia welcomed her northern neighbor to the common war for liberty by releasing every claim to its territory, but she reserved the navigation of the border stream. To define with exactness their respective rights on its waters, the Virginia legislature in June, 1784, led the way by naming George Mason, Edmund Randolph, Madison, and Alexander Henderson, as their commissioners to frame, "in concert with commissioners of Maryland, liberal, equit-


Chap.
III.
1784.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

June
28.


Page 173


1.  Washington to R. H. Lee, 8 Feb., 1785. Sparks, ix. 91.

2.  Hening, xi. 525, 526.

able and mutually advantageous regulations touching the jurisdiction and navigation of the river." [1] Maryland gladly accepted the invitation, and in the following March the joint commission was to meet at Alexandria, hard by Mount Vernon. In this manner, through the acts and appropriations of the legislature of Virginia, Washington connected the interests and hopes of her people with the largest and noblest conceptions, and to the states alike on her southern and her northern border and to the rising empire in the west, where she would surely meet New York and New England, she gave the weightiest pledges of inviolable attachment to the union. To carry forward these designs, the next step must be taken by congress, which should have met at Trenton on the first day of November, but, from the tardy arrival of its members, was not organized until the thirtieth. It was the rule of congress that its president should be chosen in succession from each one of the different states. In eight years, beginning with Virginia, it had proceeded by rotation through them all except New Hampshire, Rhode Island, North Carolina and Georgia. But now the rule, which in itself was a bad one, was broken, [2] and Richard Henry Lee was elected president. The rule of rotation was never again followed; but this want of fidelity to a custom that had long been respected tended to increase the jealousy of the small states. Before Christmas and before finishing any important business, congress, not finding sufficient accommodations

Chap.
III.
1784.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nov.
30.


Page 174


1.  Journals of House of Delegates for 28 June, 1784.

2.  Madison, i. 117. Compare Otto to Vergennes, 15 June, 1786. MS.

in Trenton, adjourned to the eleventh of January, 1785, and to New York as its abode.

Congress had put at its head the most determined and the most restlessly indefatigable opponent of any change whatever in the articles of confederation. Lee renewed intimate relations with Gerry, the leading member of congress from Massachusetts. He sought to revive his earlier influence in Boston through Samuel Adams. The venerable patriot shared his jealousy of conferring too great powers on a body far removed from its constituents, but had always supported a strict enforcement of the just authority of government, and he replied: "It would have been better to have fallen in the struggle than now to become a contemptible nation." [1]

The harbor at the mouth of the Hudson was at that time the most convenient port of entry for New Jersey and Connecticut, and the state of New York, through its custom-house, levied on their inhabitants as well as on its own an ever increasing revenue by imposts. The collector was a stubborn partisan. The last legislature had elected to the fifth congress Jay, Robert R. Livingston, Egbert Benson, and Lansing, of whom, even after Jay became the minister for foreign affairs, a majority favored the founding of a nation. But the opinions of the president of congress, who was respected as one of the most illustrious statesmen of Virginia, assisted to bring about a revolution in the politics of New York. [2] On the


Chap.
III.
1784.


Page 175


1.  S. Adams to R. H. Lee, 23 Dec., 1784. MS..

2.  Jay to Washington, 27 June, 1786. Letters to Washington, iv. 136.

nineteenth of March its legislature appointed three "additional delegates" to congress, of whom Haring and Melancton Smith, like Lansing, opposed federal measures; and for the next four years the state of New York obstinately resisted a thorough revision of the constitution. Of the city of New York, the aspirations for a national union could not be repressed.

Immediately on the organization of congress, Washington, with a careful discrimination between the office of that body and the functions of the states, urged through its president that congress should have the western waters well explored, their capacities for navigation ascertained as far as the communications between Lake Erie and the Wabash, and between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi, and a complete and perfect map made of the country at least as far west as the Miamis, which run into the Ohio and Lake Erie. And he pointed out the Miami village as the place for a very important post for the union. The expense attending such an undertaking could not be great; the advantages would be unbounded. "Nature," he said, "has made such a display of her bounty in those regions that the more the country is explored the more it will rise in estimation. The spirit of emigration is great; people have got impatient; and, though you cannot stop the road, it is yet in your power to mark the way. A little while and you will not be able to do either." [1]

In the same week in which the legislature of New York reversed its position on national policy, Wash-


Chap.
III.
1785.
March
19.

 

 

1784
Dec.
14.


Page 176


1.  Washington to R. H. Lee, 14 Dec., 1784. Sparks, ix. 80, 81.


ington renewed his admonitions to Lee on planting the western territory. "The mission of congress will now be to fix a medium price on these lands and to point out the most advantageous mode of seating them, so that law and good government may be administered, and the union strengthened and supported. Progressive seating is the only means by which this can be effected;" and, resisting the politicians who might wish to balance northern states by southern, he insisted that to mark out but one new state would better advance the public welfare than to mark out ten. [1]

On the eleventh of March William Grayson took his seat for the first time as a member of congress. He had been educated in England at Oxford and had resided at the Temple in London. His short career furnishes only glimpses of his character. In 1776 he had been an aide-de-camp to Washington, with whom he kept up affectionate relations; in 1777 he commanded a Virginia regiment and gained honors at Monmouth. His private life appears to have been faultless; his public acts show independence, courage, and a humane and noble nature. In the state legislature of the previous winter he was chairman of the committee to which Washington's report on the negotiations with Maryland had been referred. [2] The first evidence of his arrival in New York is a letter of the tenth of March, 1785, to his former chief, announcing that Jefferson's ordinance for disposing of western lands, which had had its first read-


Chap.
III.
1785.
March.

 

 

 

 

11.


Page 177


1.  Washington to R. H. Lee, 15 March, 1785. MS.

2.  Journals Virginia House of Delegates, 99.

ing in May, 1784, had been brought once more before congress.

Not Washington alone had reminded congress of its duties to the West. Informed by Gerry of the course of public business, Timothy Pickering, from Philadelphia, addressed most earnest letters to Rufus King. He complained that no reservation of land was made for the support of ministers of the gospel, nor even for schools and academies, and he further wrote: "Congress once made this important declaration, 'that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'; and these truths were held to be self-evident. To suffer the continuance of slaves till they can gradually be emancipated, in states already overrun with them, may be pardonable, because unavoidable without hazarding greater evils; but to introduce them into countries where none now exist can never be forgiven. For God's sake, then, let one more effort be made to prevent so terrible a calamity! The fundamental constitutions for those states are yet liable to alterations, and this is probably the only time when the evil can certainly be prevented." Nor would Pickering harbor the thought of delay in the exclusion of slavery. "It will be infinitely easier," he said, "to prevent the evil at first than to eradicate it or check it in any future time." [1]

The sixteenth of March was fixed for the discussion of the affairs of the West. The report that was


Chap.
III.
1785.
March
8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16.


Page 178


1.  Pickering to King, 8 March, 1785. Pickering's Pickering, i. 509, 510.


before congress was Jefferson's scheme for "locating and disposing of land in the western territory;" and it was readily referred to a committee of one from each state, Grayson being the member from Virginia and King from Massachusetts. King, seconded by Ellery of Rhode Island, proposed that a part of the rejected anti-slavery clause in Jefferson's ordinance for the government of the western territory should be referred to a committee; [1?] all that related to the western territory of the three southern states was omitted; and so too was the clause postponing the prohibition of slavery.

On the question for committing this proposition, the four New England states, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, voted unanimously in the affirmative; Maryland by a majority, McHenry going with the South, John Henry and William Hindman with the North. For Virginia, Grayson voted aye, but was overpowered by Hardy and Richard Henry Lee. The two Carolinas were unanimous for the negative. So the vote stood, eight states against three; eighteen members against eight; [2] and the motion was forthwith committed to King, Howell, and Ellery. [3]

On the sixth of April, King from his committee reported his resolution, which is entirely in his own handwriting [4] and which consists of two clauses: it


Chap.
III.
1785.
March
16.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

April
6.


Page 179


1.  The original motion of Rufus King for the reference, in his handwriting, is preserved in Papers of Old Congress, vol. xxxi. MS.
2.  Journals of Congress, iv. 481, 482.
3.  It is endorsed in the handwrit-

ing of Charles Thomson: "Motion for preventing slavery in new states, March 16, 1785. Referred to Mr. King, Mr. Howell, Mr. Ellery."
4.  It is to be found in Papers of Old Congress, xxxi. 329, and

allowed slavery in the North-west until the first day of the year 1801, but no longer; and it "provided that always, upon the escape of any person into any of the states described in the resolve of congress of the twenty-third day of April, 1784, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the thirteen original states, such fugitive might be lawfully reclaimed and carried back to the person claiming his labor or service, this resolve notwithstanding." [1] King reserved his resolution to be brought forward as a separate measure, after the land ordinance should be passed. "I expect," wrote Grayson to Madison, "seven states may be found liberal enough to adopt it;" [2] but there is no evidence that it was ever again called up in that congress.

On the twelfth of April [3] the committee for framing an ordinance for the disposal of the western lands made their report. It was written by Grayson, [4] who formed it out of a conflict of opinions, and took the chief part in conducting it through the house. As an inducement for neighborhoods of the same re-


Chap.
III.
1785.
April
6.

 

 

 

 

 

  
12.


Page 180


is endorsed in the handwriting of Rufus King: "Report on Mr. King's motion for the exclusion of slavery in the new states." And it is further endorsed in the handwriting of Charles Thomson: "Mr. King, Mr, Howell, Mr. Ellery. Entered 6 April, 1785, read. Thursday, April 14, assigned for consideration."
1.  The printed copy of this report of King is to be found in Papers of Old Congress, xxxi. 331, and is endorsed in the handwriting of Charles Thomson: "To prevent

slavery in the new states. Included in substance in the ordinance for a temporary government passed the 13 July, 1787."
2.  Grayson to Madison, 1 May, 1785. MS. The ordinance for the sale of lands required the consent of nine states; the regulative ordinance, of but seven.
3.  Grayson to Washington, 15 April, 1785. MS.
4.  The original report in the handwriting of Grayson is preserved in the Papers of Old Congress, lvi. 451.

ligious sentiments to confederate for the purpose of purchasing and settling together, it was a land law for a people going forth to take possession of a seemingly endless domain. Its division was to be into townships, with a perpetual reservation of one mile square in every township for the support of religion, and another for education. The house refused its assent to the reservation for the support of religion, as connecting the church with the state; but the reservation for the support of schools received a general welcome. Jefferson had proposed townships of ten miles square; the committee, of seven; but the motion of Grayson, that they should be six miles square, [1] was finally accepted. The South, accustomed to the mode of indiscriminate locations and settlements, insisted on the rule which would give the most free scope to the roving emigrant; and, as the bill required the vote of nine states for adoption, and during the debates on the subject more than ten were never present, the eastern people, though "amazingly attached to their own custom of planting by townships," yielded to the compromise that every other township should be sold by sections. [2] The surveys were to be confined to one state and to five ranges, extending from the Ohio to Lake Erie, and were to be made under the direction of the geographer of the United States. The bounds of every parcel that was sold were fixed beyond a question; the mode of registry was simple, convenient, and almost without cost; the form of conveyance most concise

Chap.
III.
1785.
May
20.


Page 181


1.  Journals of Congress, iv. 512.

2.  Grayson to Madison, 1 May, 1785. MS.

and clear. Never was land offered to a poor man at less cost or with a safer title. For one bad provision, which, however, was three years after repealed, the consent of congress was for the moment extorted; the lands, as surveyed, were to be drawn for by lot by the several states in proportion to the requisitions made upon them, and were to be sold publicly within the states. But it was carefully provided that they should be paid for in the obligations of the United States, at the rate of a dollar an acre. To secure the promises made to Virginia, chiefly on behalf of the officers and soldiers who took part in conquering the North-west from British authority, it was agreed, after a discussion of four days, [1] to reserve the district between the Little Miami and the Scioto.

The land ordinance of Jefferson, as amended from 1784 to 1788, definitively settled the character of the national land laws, which are still treasured up as one of the most precious heritages from the founders of the republic.

The frontier settlements at the west needed the protection of a military force. In 1784, soon after the exchange of the ratifications of peace, Gerry at Annapolis protested against the right of Congress on its own authority to raise standing armies or even a few armed men in time of peace. His conduct was approved by his state, whose delegation was instructed to oppose and protest on all occasions against the exercise of the power. From that time congress had done no more than recommend the states to raise


Chap.
III.
1785.
May
20.


Page 182


1.  Grayson to Madison, 1 May, 1785. MS.


troops. it was now thought necessary to raise seven hundred men to protect the West. The recommendation should have been proportioned among all the states; but congress ventured to call only on Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania as the states most conveniently situated to furnish troops who were to be formed into one regiment and for three years guard the north-western frontiers and the public stores.

Chap.
III.
1785.
April
12.


Page 183