| 
   
 |  | 
 
      
  
    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
  | 
   
 
 
  
  |