Ohio History Journal

THE NEGRO IN EARLY OHIO*

 

BY CHARLES JAY WILSON

 

"If men were angels," wrote John Jay in the fifth

of the Federalist papers, "no government would be

necessary." Few people of today who live the richer

intellectual life which follows naturally upon an en-

deavor to sound out modern social phenomena and strike

something deeper than the superficial aspects will find

much in this principle with which to quarrel. In fact,

a majority more likely would contend that the New York

barrister should have carried his statement a little far-

ther to say, "If men were angels, there would be no his-

tory." After all, history is the story of the relative

strengths and weaknesses of mankind, and if there were

no weaknesses to throw the strengths into greater relief,

there would be no story worth the telling. Quite con-

sistently, then, the historical field affords an abundance

of proof in support of the truism that when the lamb of

idealism and the lion of practicality lie down together,

very frequently it is the lion alone which arises again.

No better example of the modification of a nebulous

theory in the light of the cold facts presented by practical

considerations can be found than the change in the atti-

tude of the people of Ohio toward the negro between

 

* Awarded the annual prize offered by the Ohio Society of Colonial

Wars for the best essay in early Western history and offered as a thesis for

the degree of Master of Arts in the University of Cincinnati, June, 1929,

History Department.

(717)

• 1
 

718      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

1787 and 1815. It is not within the province of a his-

torical discussion to argue the merits and demerits of

such a transition in its ethical relations. The problem

of the student of history is to note the change, assign the

causes responsible for it, and sound the warning that in

case similar conditions should present themselves in the

future, history probably will repeat itself.

In view of this fact it will be the endeavor of this

paper to show that in their attitude toward the negro, the

people comprising the population centering in Ohio be-

tween 1787 and 1815 varied at the time of their immi-

gration. A further attempt will be made to prove that,

except in cases embodying unusual circumstances, com-

mon exposure to common conditions led to the adoption

of a common attitude toward the black man, regardless

of previous views in the matter.

Influenced by the environment they had known be-

fore coming into the Northwest, the early settlers rep-

resented different degrees of experience in relation to

the negro, and, accordingly, different degrees of ideal-

ism concerning him. This variety of attitudes was re-

flected in their political and social dealings with the

black, and the result was that the negro could expect

treatment of an entirely different nature in each section

of Ohio during the early years of statehood. In time,

however, the opinion of those whose altruism for the

colored man had been based upon inexperience gradually

swung around to square with the viewpoint of those who

understood thoroughly from the beginning the problems

involved in racial intermixture. Association with the

blacks killed any sentimentality that may have existed

in the hearts of the erstwhile theorists, and they became

• 2
 

The Negro in Early Ohio         719

practical in their racial relations to the fullest extent.

Yet, one element of this theoretical group, being settled

in a section of the state remote from any contact with

the negro, tended to retain its idealism intact. Practical

conditions had not required the subversion of theory.

In order to make an intelligent investigation into

the negro question in early Ohio, it is necessary for one

who would understand the problem thoroughly to allow

two general premises and to keep these thoroughly in

mind throughout the course of his analysis. The first

of these is that there was at no time in the history of the

state any preponderant pro-slavery sentiment in Ohio;1

and the second is that the ultimate disagreement in the

state over the negro question was not a struggle waged

by pro-slavery against anti-slavery forces as such. It

was a clash between one element instilled with the

humanitarian spirit in the apotheosis of its idealism and

another group which was grimly determined to prevent

the admission of negroes into the state under any cir-

cumstances. The former wished to make Ohio a haven

for negroes who had escaped bondage elsewhere, while

the latter was decidedly opposed to the presence of the

negro in the state whether as slave or freeman. Both

rejected slavery in principle. It was largely a struggle

between a theoretical group which understood compara-

tively nothing about the problems involved in the daily

contact of whites and blacks as opposed to a very prac-

tical group which understood the negro thoroughly and

which desired his exclusion from the state on economic

and social grounds. The idealists considered him

1 E. O. Randall and D. J. Ryan, History of Ohio (6 vols., New York,

1912), Vol. IV, p. 119.

• 3
 

720      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

"God's image in ebony," while the practical element

viewed him as a cloud on the horizon at the dawn of

statehood. The latter group in general was somewhat

apathetic as to the condition of the negro, for his status

concerned them little, but they were emphatic that he

should not remain among them, whatever his condition.²

It is not hard to understand the attitude of this class

when it is noted that many of them were Southerners

who had left the South not only to get away from the

evils of slavery, but because they did not particularly

relish an environment which was marred by the presence

of a shiftless, ignorant, and irresponsible race. Their

opposition to the theorists of early Ohio was based on

several points. The first was their feeling that the

state was being made the dumping grounds for pen-

niless blacks from the South;3 the second was their dis-

trust of the innate characteristics of the negro;4 and

the third was their fear that an overly cordial reception

to negroes escaping slavery either legitimately or ille-

gitimately would disrupt amicable commercial and social

relations that had been established with the South by

means of the Ohio River.⁵ While the practical and theo-

retical groups were important, they did not include all

elements in the state. They were merely the active

classes, and among the non-rioting citizens every shade

of opinion on the negro question was represented. Yet,

even so, the history of Ohio reveals in a majority of the

inhabitants a consistent and unwavering opposition to

 

2 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. IV, p. 119.

3 Robert E. Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850 (New York, 1908), p. 82.

4 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. IV, p. 122.

5 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 81.

• 4
 

The Negro in Early Ohio          721

the attempts of a stubborn minority both within and

without the state to bring about the introduction of

slavery. Furthermore, events indicate an increasing op-

position to the settlement of negroes within the state

under any circumstances.

In order to appreciate the attitude toward the negro

in Ohio, it is necessary to know something of the back-

ground of the people who comprised the population of

the state in its embryo form as a part of the Northwest

Territory. In a sense, Ohio between 1787 and 1800,

when it was divided off as a separate territory, had been

a melting pot for reducing to common metal the people

of diverse sections of the country.⁶ The most important

routes of travel at the time focused the streams of im-

migrants seeking a new life in the West into the present

confines of Ohio. It is a well-established principle that

in general only the hardest-handed, sternest-willed, and

stoutest-hearted elements of a population possess the

initiative and the determination necessary to emigration

to the wilds of a pioneer country and to adaptation to

frontier conditions. In this sense Ohio drew the cream

of a population on the seaboard which represented a

transplantation of some of the healthiest elements of

European civilization.

One of the most important classes of people coming

into Ohio was the Scotch-Irish. A large part of them

were from Pennsylvania and the Middle States, but the

same type flocked in by the hundreds from Virginia and

Kentucky as well.⁷ Although these people represented

 

6 B. A. Hinsdale, The Old Northwest (New York, 1888), p. 284.

7 Jervace Cutler, Ohio, Indiana Territory and Kentucky, (Boston 1812),

p. 17.

Vol. XXXIX--46.

• 5
 

722      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

all sections of their original states, many of them came

from the back-country as this region began to fill in.⁸

This Scotch-Irish element rather generally scattered

itself along the counties facing the river. Those from

Virginia and Kentucky, representing the poorer, more

democratic, non-slave-holding class from these states,

centered to a great extent in the Virginia Military Dis-

trict.⁹ The Pennsylvanians, on the other hand, dispersed

themselves over the lands of the Ohio Company, the

Symmes Purchase and the seven ranges retained by

Congress. While the Scotch-Irish were largely united

in their opposition to slavery, their reason tended to be

economic rather than moral. They were interested in

bettering their financial condition, and this seemed im-

possible so long as they were competing with slave labor.

So far as the Southerners were concerned, they had been

attracted to this region by the prohibition of slavery in

the Ordinance of 1787 as much as by anything else.10

Yet, while they were opposed to slavery, these men

looked with decided disfavor upon the presence of the

free negro in Ohio. Many of them had never been slave-

holders, many others had freed their slaves before cross-

ing the Ohio River, and practically all of them dreamed

of establishing a new home on free soil.11 Those who in-

sisted upon slavery very largely stayed in Kentucky. Of

the southern Scotch-Irish who crossed the Ohio River,

it would seem that they made the mental reservation that

"free" applied only to white persons, for at no time did

8 F. J. Turner, Rise of the New World, (Amer. Nat. Ser. New York,

1906), p. 76.

9 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 33.

10 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. IV, p. 119.

11 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 78.

• 6
 

The Negro in Early Ohio           723

they indicate in any manner that they intended to permit

Ohio to become a dumping-grounds for escaped or

emanicipated blacks.¹² They distrusted the negro's in-

nate qualities, and they did not intend to assume "the

white man's burden" if this entailed permitting the

negro to reside among them. Their Southern background

enabled them to see too clearly the train of social and

economic problems that was bound to follow. Accord-

ingly, it naturally would be expected that the Virginians

would stand opposed to slavery in Ohio, but that they

would favor any restrictive legislation aimed at keeping

the negro out of the state. Thomas Worthington and

Edward Tiffin, brothers-in-law, both of whom were later

governors of Ohio, are excellent examples of settlers

from Virginia who freed their slaves and then came into

the Northwest.¹³ Yet it was Tiffin, as president of the

state constitutional convention, who cast the deciding

vote to deprive the negro of the ballot,¹⁴ and it was dur-

ing his terms as governor that the repressive "black

codes," directed against the negro were passed in 1804

and in 1807.

Of the Scotch-Irish from Pennsylvania and the other

Middle States, few had ever held slaves. Whatever

slavery they had seen had failed to be profitable enough

to cause them to favor the institution. They felt that its

introduction into Ohio not only would lower the status of

free labor and create a difficult form of competition, but

that it would also create a situation unfriendly to the

simplicity and industry they desired.¹⁵ Then, too, they

12 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 82.

13 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. IV, p. 119.

14 Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, p. 24.

15 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 79.

• 7
 

724      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

represented the transition region between the intolerance

of New England and the grim determination of the

lower South, in so far as these attitudes were developed

at the time. For these reasons, the Middle States men

might reasonably be expected to be rather liberal. That

they had personal convictions, for whatever reasons,

was amply attested by the fact that they did not hold

slaves themselves. Yet they were not particularly op-

posed to the practice by other people provided this slav-

ery did not interfere with their well-being. Accordingly,

they were opposed to slavery in Ohio, but their moral

sensibilities seemingly were not sufficiently developed to

cause them to concern themselves with the slaves of

other states. Certainly if they did not want the negro

among them as a slave, they would not desire him as

a free man. It is not surprising, then, that the Middle

States Scotch-Irish lined up with Southerners of their

racial type, not only in opposing slavery, but also in

supporting legislation to discourage colored immigra-

tion into Ohio.

One of the most important as well as interesting of

the groups which came into early Ohio was the New

England delegation. These people settled almost ex-

clusively either in the Western Reserve or on the lands

of the Ohio Company centering around the Muskingum

River. In both Cleveland and Marietta, then, settlers

of the substantial Puritan type were to be found.  A

number were former Revolutionary War officers; they

were efficient, law-abiding, educated, and, unlike the

Scotch-Irish, they were opposed to slavery on humani-

tarian and moral grounds, as distinct from economic rea-

• 8
 

The Negro in Early Ohio          725

sons.¹⁶ Having had little practical experience with the

negro, they were in a position to theorize about his vir-

tues. Distance appears to have lent enchantment, for as

long as the negro remained a novelty to both settlements,

he was regarded with favorable eyes. It was only after

the people of Marietta had experienced some of the

problems involved in the constant association of whites

with blacks that the edge was taken off their idealism.

As a result of their somewhat rude awakening, they split

in opinion with their New England brethren in the Re-

serve, and they tended to accept the more mundane at-

titude of other settlers in the state who were very prac-

tical in their views concerning the negro.

Another interesting element of population in the

state was the Quaker group. They were divided into a

northern and a southern branch, the former coming

largely from Pennsylvania, and the latter representing

southern Virginia and the Carolinas.¹⁷ Regardless of

the region from which they came, the Quakers were op-

posed to slavery. In fact the emigration of the south-

ern Quakers was but a concrete form of protest against

the institution.¹⁸ Even though these latter had experi-

enced contact with the negro, and were as fully aware of

his shortcomings as anyone, the peculiar mildness of

their religion led them to shut their eyes to practical con-

siderations and to cling tightly to their ideals of the

rights of the negro as a man. Their consistency was

ample testimony of their sincerity. To a large extent,

the Quakers settled in the central and the southeastern

 

16 Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, p. 351.

17 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 35-36.

18 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. IV, p. 124.

• 9
 

726      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

counties of the state, and, together with the New Eng-

landers at Marietta, they comprised a majority in this

region that at first was disposed to accord the negro fair

treatment. Later, when the New Englanders reversed

opinions previously held and the balance swung over to

oppression of the blacks, the Quakers, with dogged de-

termination, composed a stubborn minority that fought

bitterly for what it believed was right. It was partly

from this group that the ardent Ohio Abolitionists of the

'thirties and 'forties were drawn.

Ohio, then, was the meeting-place for the population

of many states. Some regions of the present state, such

as the Virginia Military District and the Western Re-

serve, were settled almost entirely by homogeneous peo-

ple. Others, such as the Symmes Purchase, represented

a curious mixture of cosmopolitan elements. Yet in

the state as a whole there was a measure of unity in pur-

poses, beliefs, and ideals, one of the most striking of

which was a deep-seated opposition to slavery.¹⁹ It is

true that this common viewpoint was reached through

entirely different channels of reasoning, but this fact

rendered no less impenetrable the united front presented

to attempts from outside Ohio to introduce slavery into

the state. The diversity in the processes of reasoning

by which this common attitude was evolved is indicated

by the various stands taken toward permitting the negro

to live in Ohio at all. While agreeing completely that

slavery should not be permitted in the state, the early

settlers could not reconcile preconceived ideas of the ad-

visability of admitting the colored man into the com-

munity as a freeman.

19 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 46.

• 10
 

The Negro in Early Ohio         727

During the early history of the state, the religious

denominations taking the most decided stand against

slavery were the Quaker, the Baptist, the Methodist, and

the Presbyterian. The pressure of religious teaching

was important in maintaining the attitude against

slavery and in nourishing the fair-minded viewpoint

that the negro should be treated humanely and fairly.

However, as the social and economic life of the settlers

became more closely identified with that of the South,

which bordered Ohio for more than 150 miles in the

case of Kentucky and 225 in the case of Virginia,²⁰ the

earlier moral attitude was transmuted. The new view-

point became one of not objecting to slavery in principle

except in Ohio.²¹ Gradually was engrafted upon this

conception the quite logical conclusion that if slavery

itself were not permitted in the state, the negro was not

wanted at all, for in his free condition he created prob-

lems that bore heavily upon the whites. Yet, in spite of

this switch of general opinion, which was evident chiefly

among the New Englanders of Marietta, there remained

the little group of irreconcilables who formed the nucleus

of the later militant Abolitionists. Subsequently, when

the question of affording freed and escaped negroes a

haven in the state became acute, those few in Ohio who

seriously wished the introduction of slavery joined with

those opposed to the presence of the negro in making life

miserable for the Abolitionists. On the surface it would

appear that an analogous situation exists today, when,

as is charged by some modern politicians, the prohibi-

tionists and those engaged in the illicit liquor traffic, al-

 

20 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. IV, p. 121.

21 Ibid, p. 119.

• 11
 

728       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

though they differ entirely in motive, join forces and

fight shoulder to shoulder against the "wets" submerg-

ing their differences temporarily in the face of the

activities of the common foe.

It is not to be assumed that the fact that a majority

of the early settlers in Ohio opposed slavery was a mere

coincidence. The definite provision of the sixth article

of compact in the Ordinance of 1787 that "there shall

be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said

territory, otherwise than in the punishment of

crimes--"²² was sufficient, as has been indicated, to keep

many slaveholders out of the state. It also acted as a

magnet to attract many persons who were flying from

the economic evils of slavery.   In spite of the fact that

the Ordinance specifically forbade slavery, there is no

doubt that the institution existed on a small scale and

for a limited time in the Northwest Territory.²³ How-

ever it did not exist, except, perhaps in isolated cases,

in that part of the territory which subsequently became

the state of Ohio.

The first official mention of slavery in connection

with the West is contained in Jefferson's ill-fated Ordi-

nance of 1784. This document provided for deferred

emancipation, stipulating that after the year 1800

neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should be per-

mitted in any of the land between the Appalachians and

the Mississippi River.²⁴ While the Ordinance was

²² Laws of the Northwest Territory, (Cincinnati, 1796), p. 13.

23 Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, p. 350.

24 Charles T. Hickok, The Negro in Ohio (Cleveland, 1896), p. 10, and

C. B. Galbreath, "Thomas Jefferson's Views on Slavery" in Ohio Archaeo-

logical and Historical Society Publications, Vol. XXXIV (Columbus, 1925),

p. 189.

• 12
 

The Negro in Early Ohio            729

passed by Congress, the slavery clause was eliminated

but in the end the whole instrument was abandoned and

an entirely new scheme of government was adopted.

However, had the Ordinance of 1787 in its proposed

form been adopted, and not the Ordinance of 1787 been

substituted for it, slavery would have had legal existence

in the Northwest Territory until January 1, 1801.25

The next step leading to the Ordinance of 1787 was

a motion offered by Nathan Dane of Massachusetts for

the formation of a committee to report a form of tem-

porary government for the territory. The motion

passed Congress, and Monroe was made chairman of

the committee. On May 10, 1786, a bill was reported,

but no provision in regard to slavery was incorporated

in the scheme of government.²⁶ After a long series of

delays and re-appointments to the committee, an entirely

new bill was reported to Congress on July 11, 1787.

This bill likewise contained no reference to slavery, and

it was not until the next day, when the bill was up for

a second reading, that Dane moved that an anti-slavery

provision be attached as the sixth article of compact.²⁷

The next day, July 13, 1787, the Ordinance passed with

the unanimous vote of all the states represented.²⁸ Of the

eighteen men voting, only one, Abraham Yates of New

York, cast a dissenting ballot. It has been rather neatly

said of him that he "insisted on leaving to all future

25 Jay A. Barrett, The Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787 (New York,

1891), p. 18, and C. B. Galbreath, "Thomas Jefferson's Views on Slavery,"

p. 190.

26 Barrett, Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787, p. 30.

27 Charles R. King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King (6

vols., New  York, 1894), Vol. VI, p. 278.

28 William H. Smith, The St. Clair Papers (2 vols., Cincinnati, 1882),

Vol. 1, p. 131.

• 13
 

730       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ages a record of his want of good judgment, right feel-

ing and common sense."²⁹ The fact that the southern

states voted to support a measure which incorporated an

anti-slavery clause is probably best explained through

the financial embarrassment of the government, which

was seized upon as an opportunity to sell laud in the

West to the Ohio Company. One of the conditions of

sale these New Englanders insisted upon was that

slavery be forever prohibited in the region of their pur-

chase.³⁰

Although the facts indicate that there was never

much pro-slavery sentiment in that part of the Territory

which was to become Ohio, there can be no doubt that

considerable feeling was worked up in Indiana and in

Illinois against the sixth article of compact. Some of

the old French "habitants" at Vincennes and at Kas-

kaskia, together with some of the southern settlers who

took slaves into that part of the Northwest in the hope

that the sixth article of compact might be repealed be-

came so insistent in the matter that Governor St. Clair

deemed it advisable to issue a statement as to what was

implied in the anti-slavery clause. He took as the

occasion to offer this definition the presentation of a

petition by Bartholomew Tardiveau, representing the

"habitants" of Illinois. The petition challenged the

legality of the Ordinance, yet asked St. Clair to request

Congress to modify the sixth article.³1 While the Gov-

29 Bancroft, History of the United States, quoted in Hickok, The Negro

in Ohio, p. 19.

30 Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, p. 346, and W. P. and J. P. Cutler,

The Life, Journal and Correspondence of the Rev. Manasseh Cutler (2

vols., Cincinnati, 1888), Vol. I, p. 242.

31 Smith, The St. Clair Papers, Vol. II, p. 117.

• 14
 

The Negro in Early Ohio           731

ernor did not take this action, his statement recognized

the claim of the "habitants" that the sixth article ap-

proximated ex post facto legislation so far as they were

concerned. Therefore he declared that the clause was

not intended to be retroactive, but merely to prevent the

importation of slaves into the Territory. It was not,

he stated, designed to free those in the Territory who

were in bondage at the time of the passage of the Ordi-

nance, for slavery was recognized by French and Eng-

lish laws when the United States assumed jurisdiction.³²

Inasmuch as this interpretation came in 1789, it applied

to Ohio, which, of course, was still a part of the North-

west Territory. However, the application was purely

incidental, so far as the Ohio country was concerned,

and the importance of the matter for the purposes of this

paper is negative. It indicates simply that whatever

slavery sentiment existed in the Northwest was outside

the limits of present-day Ohio.

The first mention of slavery in connection with

legislation in the Northwest Territory came on May 29,

1795, in a meeting of the Governor and the Judges at

Cincinnati. Judge Turner proposed that a law be

adopted authorizing the courts of common pleas to bind

out for a reasonable term the free children born of

slaves. The motion was ordered to lie upon the table

and was not reconsidered.³³ Inasmuch as the laws

adopted subsequently do not include such a provision,

apparently nothing was done about the matter. The im-

portance of this incident is that it indicates that St. Clair

and the Judges were acting upon the interpretation the

 

32 Smith, The St. Clair Papers, Vol. II, p. 118.

33 The Western Spy, August 22, 1795, p. 2.

• 15
 

732      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Governor had made of the sixth article of compact in re-

sponse to Tardiveau's petition. Obviously slavery was

being practiced in the Territory. Equally as obvious was

the fact that the Governor and the Judges were aware of

this, but that they winked at the matter. Actually, then,

gradual emancipation was carried out in the Northwest

Territory, although the importation of slaves was for-

bidden.

More evidence in support of this contention was

forthcoming in 1796, when the first active attempt was

made while the Territory was a unit to upset the sixth

article of compact. This was in the form of a petition

to Congress stating that while slavery was being per-

mitted in the territory, it was desirable that a law be

passed legalizing the enslavement of the children of

slaves, a condition which was not being tolerated, al-

though apparently there was no law on the subject. It

further asked that the sixth article be modified or re-

pealed, an action which would have profoundly affected

Ohio.^{34  T}here were thousands of slaveholders just

across the river eagerly awaiting an opportunity to

transfer their property into the fertile valleys of this

rich region with some assurance that the slaves could

not be taken away from them legally. However, the

hopes of the petitioners were dashed somewhat rudely

when the Congressional Committee to whom the petition

was referred rather summarily recommended the re-

fusal of the plea.³⁵ It is to be noted that this petition

originated in the Indiana and Illinois counties, a fact

which accentuates the point that the slavery sentiment in

34 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. III, p. 55,

35 Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, p. 351.

• 16
 

The Negro in Early Ohio           733

the Northwest Territory was not found within the limits

of what was to become Ohio, but centered in the area

that later was to be incorporated as other states.

In September, 1799, the first Legislature of the

Northwest Territory met in Cincinnati.³⁶ A petition

from Kentucky was introduced on September 25th at

the instance of several former officers of the Virginia

line "praying" that they be allowed to settle with their

slaves in the Virginia Military District.³⁷ This peti-

tion bore directly upon the future of Ohio, for had it

been granted, the action would have established slavery

in the state in spite of the explicit prohibition contained

in the sixth article of compact. As a result, slave-

holders would have poured into this region in such

numbers that it is even conceivable that slavery might

have been guaranteed in the constitution of Ohio, which

was drafted three years later. It was possible to make

out a fairly strong case in favor of granting the wish of

the petitioners, but the members of the Territorial Legis-

lature felt strictly bound by the terms of the Ordinance,

and they unanimously agreed, September 27th, with the

report of the committee composed of William Goforth

of Hamilton County; Thomas Worthington and Elias

Langham of Ross County, and John Small of Knox

County, Indiana, that the petition was incompatible with

the provisions of the Ordinance and should be rejected.³⁸

Subsequently, (November 18th) a similar petition from

Thomas Posey, on behalf of himself and several other

officers of the Virginia line was presented.³⁹ This me-

36 Journal Territorial House of Representatives, 1799, p. 1.

37 Ibid, p. 6.

38 Ibid, pp. 19-20.

39 Ibid, p. 108.

• 17
 

734      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

morial "prayed" that an act be passed authorizing per-

sons "holding slaves under the laws of the state in which

they acquire that species of property and removing into

this territory to bring their slaves with them under cer-

tain restrictions."⁴⁰ On November 22nd, the matter

was discussed in the committee of the whole house with

the final resolution that it be referred to a committee

composed of Elias Langham of Ross County; John

Smith of Hamilton County, and Paul Fearing of Wash-

ington County, "to report thereon by bill or otherwise."41

No report was ever made, and the proposition apparently

was killed in committee. After the fate of the original

petition from the officers of the Virginia line, nothing

else could have been expected. Jacob Burnet, in speak-

ing of the rejection of the first memorial, stated, "Their

only course was to reject the petition, although it was

apparent that if the application could have been granted

it would have brought into the territory a great acces-

sion of wealth, strength and intelligence. Yet the pub-

lic feeling on the admitting of slaves was such that the

request would have been denied by a unanimous vote of

the Legislature had they possessed the power of grant-

ing it."⁴² This statement indicates with singular frank-

ness that any pro-slavery sentiment in Ohio, at least, was

in a hopeless minority.

In this same session of the Territorial Legislature a

motion passed, November 15th, that a committee be ap-

pointed to draw up bills on the subject of "persons

escaping into this territory from whom labor or service

40 Journal Territorial House of Representatives, 1799, 108.

41 Ibid, p. 117.

42 Jacob Burnet, Notes on the Northwestern Territory (Cincinnati,

1847), p. 306.

• 18
 

The Negro in Early Ohio         735

is lawfully claimed by any other persons" and on "ad-

mission of people of color by indenture." Both matters

were referred to a committee composed of Elias Lang-

ham of Ross County, and John Smith of Hamilton

County.⁴³ What the bills contained is unknown, except

by inference. At any rate, both of them came up for

final vote on December 2nd. The fugitive slave pro-

posal was hopelessly snowed under 16-1, Langham alone

voting for it.⁴⁴ The unanimity of opinion is probably

best explained by the fact that the Southerners of Ross

County were more opposed to the institution of slavery

at the time than they were to the admission of a few

scattered negroes to refuge in Ohio, while the Hamilton

County people had not yet become closely enough asso-

ciated with the South through commerce to cause them

to be especially considerate of the Southern viewpoint

in the matter. Quite likely the representatives of other

regions opposed the bill for humanitarian reasons.

An explanation of the failure of the indenture bill,

which was voted down the same day, presents a greater

obstacle. When it was up for final vote, a motion was

made to strike out after the word "no" the phrase "per-

son shall be held to labor or service for a longer time

than until he or she arrives at the age of 35 years" and

substitute the words "species of slavery shall be ad-

mitted into this territory under any qualification what-

ever, nor shall any contract made without this territory

with any black or mulatto person be binding on such

black or mulatto person herein."⁴⁵ It is rather surpris-

 

43 Journal Territorial House of Representatives, 1799, pp. 100-101.

44 Ibid, p. 139.

45 Ibid.

• 19
 

736      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ing to notice that this amendment failed 15-2, Langham

of Ross County and Goforth of Hamilton County, alone

favoring it.⁴⁶ Inasmuch as the general tenor of the

whole bill is unknown, it is difficult to assign a reason for

this vote. It might be argued that the people of Ohio

were benefiting from indentures arranged through the

slaveholders of Kentucky and Virginia, but it is hard

to reconcile the votes of the Marietta delegates with such

a theory. The matter is complicated still more by the

rejection of the entire bill, 16-1, Langham playing a lone

hand in support of his measure. Perhaps the members

of the Legislature opposing slavery for moral reasons

voted with those whose opposition was based on eco-

nomic grounds in defeating a definition of indenture

because they believed it to be a local matter to be inter-

preted as the people of each district saw fit. After all,

indenture was not forbidden by the Ordinance. What-

ever the motive, the Legislature of that year adjourned

without taking specific action on the question, but inas-

much as the issue was far from a dead one, it was bound

to reappear in a subsequent session.

In 1800 the Northwest Territory was divided. That

part of the original region which approximates the pres-

ent limits of Ohio became the Northwest Territory, and

the balance became the Indiana Territory. In the ses-

sions of the Northwest Territorial Legislature after

1800 then (until 1803, when Ohio became a state) ex-

pressions of sentiment are tantamount to indications of

the will of the people of Ohio. In view of this assump-

tion, two petitions presented during the legislative ses-

sion of 1801 are of particular interest. One of these

46 Ibid, p. 140.

• 20
 

The Negro in Early Ohio           737

was offered by Jacob and Katharine Hubbard, whose

place of residence was unspecified, while the second one

originated with "a number of citizens from the terri-

tory." Both of them requested that a definite act be

passed declaring the intent of the sixth article of com-

pact and authorizing the courts to compel the perform-

ance of indentures entered into.⁴⁷  These memorials

called for positive as distinct from negative action of a

nature that would, to say the least, contravene the spirit

of the Ordinance, so they were tabled with the under-

standing that they would not be taken up. Burnet

states that every member of the Assembly favored the

tabling arrangement,⁴⁸ but even so it is impossible to

determine whether this sentiment was inspired by a de-

sire to prevent indenture or whether it simply indicated

a laissez-faire policy of permitting the different regions

to act in the matter as they saw fit. At any rate, on

December 24, 1801, Jacob White of Hamilton County,

and Zenas Kimberley of Jefferson County, were ap-

pointed to prepare a bill on the subject of indentured

servants and apprentices. What the bill contained is

problematical as the journal of the Legislature gives no

clue, but it was voted down, December 29th, with no

record of the vote.⁴9 On the same day, Elias Langham

of Ross County, moved to lay before the House a reso-

lution concerning refugee negroes. Here again it is

possible merely to guess as to the content, for there is

no record of what the resolution actually embodied, but

the proposition was voted down December 31st, also

 

⁴⁷ Journal Territorial House of Representatives, 1801, p. 79.

48 Burnet, Notes on the Northwestern Territory, p. 332.

49 Journal Territorial House of Representatives, 1801, p. 87.

Vol. XXXIX--47.

• 21
 

738      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

without a record of the vote.⁵⁰ The similarity between

these instances and those appearing in 1799 makes it pos-

sible to hazard the opinion that both sets of measures

bore a pronounced resemblance, that the vote on both

was approximately the same and that they were defeated

for about the same reasons, for there is no evidence to

show that there was any particular reason for a great

shift of opinion in regard to the negro between 1799 and

1801. One thing is certain from the nature of the peti-

tions presented in 1801. The spirit of the Ordinance in

regard to slavery was being contravened and indentures

were being made outside the Territory calling for per-

formance within it. The petitions merely requested

that this practice be recognized, and that the courts be

empowered to prevent fraud on the part of unscrupulous

masters. The Legislature of 1799 had adopted a laissez-

faire policy in the matter of indentures, and the local dis-

tricts of the Territory apparently had taken their cue

from this attitude. The people residing there simply

were making the most of the opportunities presented by

the indenture system of reaping the benefits of slave

labor while undergoing none of the inconveniences

usually associated with it. Yet the practice could not go

on entirely unregulated, and it was necessary either that

it be legalized or that it be definitely outlawed. Since the

Legislatures obviously shied away from taking any

positive action, it would seem logical that the question

should be threshed out once and for all in the constitu-

tional convention whenever the Territory should become

a state. The events of 1802 justify this assumption.

The Ohio State Constitutional Convention began its

50 Ibid, p. 106.

• 22
 

The Negro in Early Ohio           739

sessions at Chillicothe, November 1, 1802. Although

there were fewer than five hundred negroes in Ohio, (a

ratio of about one to ten with the whites) more than

one hundred propositions concerning the colored people

in the state were presented to the Convention.⁵¹ Almost

every shade of opinion was represented in these peti-

tions. Some indicated the wish to make the blacks citi-

zens and to encourage their immigration, others to grant

them merely the protection of the law, and still others

to exclude them from the courts as witnesses against the

whites.⁵² The noteworthy feature is that, so far as is

known, there was no demand for the legalization of

slavery. Yet there doubtless was an element in the Con-

vention that favored the institution. Another group of

vacillating individuals did not seem to know exactly

what it wanted. Some of them were not opposed to

slavery except in Ohio, some felt that slavery was a

necessary evil, and some few believed that it was neces-

sary in order to maintain friendly relations with the

South, something to be accomplished at all costs.⁵³ If

this wavering group could be won over by the pro-

slavery element there was danger that involuntary servi-

tude might be introduced into the state, for, in spite of

the Ordinance of 1787, there were those who felt that

the sixth article of compact was not binding upon the

state when it entered the Union. Then, according to

this view, the people were free to decide upon all points

at issue.⁵⁴ With such a highly differentiated set of

51 Hickok, The Negro in Ohio, p. 33, and Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850,

p. 79.

52 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 78.

53 Ibid, p. 81.

54 Ibid, pp. 79-80.

• 23
 

740      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

opinions it is easy to see why there was little fixed judg-

ment in the Convention and thus the continual shifting

of ground by the delegates is explained.⁵⁵

Such a warmth of opinion developed over the negro

question before the Convention opened that there were

fears the main object of the assembly might be wrecked

upon a minor point. Accordingly it was tacitly agreed

to table all the petitions and to attempt to fight the mat-

ter out in committee.⁵⁶ This plan, in a measure, was

successful, and the anticipated explosion was largely

avoided, but an unlooked-for bomb was dropped into

camp when the question of the qualifications for electors

came onto the floor of the Convention for discussion.

The original plan had been to draw up a constitution

based upon a population of free whites, who alone were

represented, and while this was finally accomplished, the

scheme was seriously endangered for a time when the

theorists appeared to have the upper hand.⁵⁷

It is commonly believed that the Convention came

within one vote of establishing slavery in Ohio,⁵⁸ but

the actual fact is that it came closer to establishing negro

suffrage.⁵⁹  Whatever pro-slavery element existed was

unable to win the support of the doubtful group, and

there is no evidence to show that there was any attempt

on the floor of the Convention actually to introduce

slavery. The journal of the assembly contains noth-

ing to support such a charge, for there is not even a

 

55 Hickok, The Negro in Ohio, p. 36.

56 Burnet, Notes on the Northwestern Territory, p. 355.

57 Ibid, p. 356.

58 J. P. Cutler, The Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler (Cincinnati,

1890), p. 77.

59 Burnet, Notes on the Northwestern Territory, p. 356,

• 24
 

The Negro in Early Ohio          741

record of anything that might be construed as an at-

tempt to prevent the adoption of the anti-slavery sec-

tion of the bill of rights. In other words, there was not

only no positive attempt to fasten involuntary servitude

onto the state, but there was not even a negative effort

made to prevent its being definitely outlawed. The

actual point of attack, so far as the bill of rights was

concerned, was not the section prohibiting slavery, but

the clause forbidding indentures under specified condi-

tions grafted onto Section II of the bill of rights.⁶⁰

Seeing at an early time that the effort for slavery in its

fullest sense was hopeless, those favoring the institution

evidently hoped to preserve for themselves a limited

form of servitude by ridding the constitution of any

reference to indenture, then interpreting the word so

broadly as to permit virtual slavery in the state through

connivance with Kentucky and Virginia owners. This

was merely consistent with what they had been doing

since the failure of the Territorial Legislature to act in

1799 and in 1801. But the anti-slavery sentiment in the

state was too strong, and the hopes of the pro-slavery

group were completely shattered when the motion to

strike out the anti-indenture clause was defeated.

Superficially it may appear strange that a majority could

be rallied in the Convention to support an anti-indenture

clause when only three years previously, by an over-

whelming majority, the same kind of proposal had been

rejected, and just a year before (1801) the Legislature

had refused to deal with a measure of a similar nature.

Yet these instances do not indicate that anti-slavery

sentiment was dead at the time. It must be remembered

60 Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, 1802, p. 20.

• 25
 

742      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

that under the Ordinance of 1787 there were property

restrictions on the franchise.⁶¹ Members of the Terri-

torial Legislature were thus chosen by a restricted vote.

Under the enabling act for Ohio, however, virtual man-

hood suffrage was provided, and accordingly, members

of the Constitutional Convention were chosen under this

widely extended suffrage provision. Naturally, then,

the latter group more nearly represented popular opin-

ion, and certainly the landless day-laborer would be more

likely to oppose indenture than the large property-

holder. It is also quite likely that while those who op-

posed slavery for moral reasons might have been willing

to let each region determine for itself the question of in-

denture without a specific law on the subject so long as

Ohio was a territory, they now realized that the situa-

tion facing them was different. In 1802 a constitution,

representing the fundamental law of the state was being

framed. The laissez-faire attitude had to be abandoned

and a definite stand taken one way or another. Under

these circumstances, the moralists asserted themselves,

and they combined with other groups to defeat inden-

ture. Although the lines were rather tightly drawn on

this point, it must be admitted that the vote did not rep-

resent the relative strength of the pro- and anti-slavery

forces, for undoubtedly many representatives who fa-

vored indenture would have opposed an attempt to intro-

duce slavery into Ohio.

In order to understand clearly exactly what hap-

pened in the Convention with reference to the negro, it is

wise to divide the discussions involving him, for con-

venience's sake, into distinct groups, keeping in mind

61 The Laws of the Northwestern Territory, 1796, pp. 6-7.

• 26
 

The Negro in Early Ohio           743

that these are related only in a remote manner. The first

of these groups is the discussion over the bill of rights,

the second is that over the qualifications of electors, and

the third is the debate over the negro's civil rights.

In accordance with the agreement to keep the discus-

sion of slavery as much as possible off the floor of the

Convention, President Tiffin referred the troublesome

question to the committee on the bill of rights, a group

of nine men whose chairman, John W. Browne of Ham-

ilton County, frankly was in favor of the introduction

of slavery into Ohio, at least in a limited form. The

bulwark of the committee, so far as the anti-slavery

forces were concerned, was that independent and sturdy

New England Federalist, Ephraim Cutler. Of the re-

maining seven members, two were from        Hamilton

County, two from Ross and one each from Adams, Jef-

ferson, and Belmont Counties.⁶² Inasmuch as the com-

mittee was considering such an important question, it

was invited to hold its sessions at the home of President

Tiffin.⁶3 At the first meeting, Chairman Browne, when

the slavery question arose, proposed a section which

would have permitted the enslavement of negro men

until they were thirty-five years of age, and of negro

women until they were twenty-five. Cutler was sure

the proposal was in Jefferson's handwriting, a thing

which is quite possible when it is noted that Jefferson

had told Thomas Worthington, before the Convention

was called, that he hoped some such plan would be ac-

cepted.⁶⁴ Even after the constitution had been adopted

 

⁶² Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, I803, p. 12.

63 W. E. Gilmore, The Life of Edward Tiffin (Chillicothe, 1897), p. 316.

64 Cutler, The Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler, p. 74.

• 27
 

744      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

with the total exclusion of slavery, Jefferson told Jere-

miah Morrow, "It would have been more judicious to

have admitted slavery for a limited time."⁶⁵ At any

rate, Cutler was opposed to such a proposition, an oppo-

sition to be expected when his New England antecedents

and environment are considered, so he suggested that at

the next meeting of the committee each member should

present a section expressing his views on the subject.

Called upon the next morning for his ideas, Cutler read

the second section of the eighth article as it now stands,

definitely forbidding slavery, prohibiting indenture ex-

cept by free will and for a consideration, and declaring

illegal all indentures made outside the state, and those

within the state for longer than a year. On the vote

within the committee, Cutler's proposal was accepted

5-4.66 It naturally would be expected that the two Ross

County Southerners would be opposed to the measure,

not because it prohibited slavery but because it prevented

indentures which might be profitable to them--a pro-

hibition which might prevent other Southerners from

coming into the state. While both men were opposed to

it, one of them, Baldwin, supported Cutler's proposal.

The explanation of this action is to be found in the fact

that Baldwin believed he faced the alternatives of ac-

cepting Cutler's plan or of supporting a measure that

legalized a limited form of slavery. Inasmuch as he

felt the latter to be illegal, Baldwin sacrificed his wishes

concerning indenture. In this committee, then, the

chances for slavery reached their peak, and by one vote

it was decided to recommend to the Convention the pro-

 

65 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. III, p. 127.

66 Cutler, Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler, p. 77.

• 28
 

The Negro in Early Ohio         745

hibition of slavery and the regulation of indenture. Yet

it is to be noted that even if Cutler's proposal had not

been accepted by the committee, the most the slavery

advocates would have received was the recommendation

to the Convention of a limited form of slavery on the

basis of Browne's proposal. There simply was not

much pro-slavery sentiment in Ohio.⁶⁷

When the committee's report was read before the

Convention, several attempts were made from the floor

to weaken it, but only one of these suggestions from the

opposition came to a vote. This was the one previously

mentioned as proposing to strike out the entire part con-

cerning indentures. The motion failed 21-12; but be-

cause of the modification of actual attitudes by the ad-

vantage to be derived from the practice of indenture,

the vote does not represent the true sentiment of the

various delegations. For example, the group from

Hamilton County gave a majority in favor of eliminat-

ing the indenture clause, but on every other motion in

which the black man was involved, it contributed more

votes in his favor than it did against him. However,

reflecting the diverse elements which had settled at Cin-

cinnati, it remained split on the negro problem through-

out the Convention. The vote of Ross County on this

proposal was also unorthodox, as a majority of the Chil-

licothe men cast their votes in favor of retaining the

clause. On first glance, this might be considered as an

indication that the Ross County men were taking a sym-

pathetic view toward the negro, but the actual fact prob-

ably is that they were willing to sacrifice the advantages

of indenture in order to make sure that slavery itself

67 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 81.

• 29
 

746      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

would not be given a foothold in Ohio. In this sense, of

course the vote represented the true sentiment in the

Virginia Military District. The delegates from Wash-

ington County left little doubt in anyone's mind as to

what the sentiment was at Marietta when they cast a

unanimous vote against striking out the provision pro-

hibiting indenture. The two Trumbull County dele-

gates, representing the New Englanders in the Western

Reserve, divided equally on the motion, and the chances

are that the one supporting it simply wished the old

laissez-faire policy to be carried on. Perhaps he felt

that inasmuch as the Western Reserve was not troubled

with negro problems and had nothing to gain or lose by

permitting indenture to be practiced he should not con-

cern himself with an attempt to restrain those sections

more vitally interested in the matter.⁶⁸

Of the constructive suggestions concerning the bill

of rights only one, a measure which provided that the

clause regulating indenture be modified to apply specifi-

cally to persons of color, came to a vote. On this ballot

a slightly truer indication of the sentiment in the differ-

ent regions of Ohio was evident. The motion passed,

20-13,69 and while Hamilton County gave it a majority,

the delegation was badly split. The Ross County votes

were evenly divided, and in the Washington County

group, which contributed three votes in favor and one in

opposition, the first signs of heresy from a humani-

tarian viewpoint appear.⁷⁰ John McIntire, who opposed

the insertion of the words "negro or mulatto" in the

 

68 Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, 1803, p. 24.

69 Ibid, p. 26.

70 Ibid.

• 30
 

The Negro in Early Ohio         747

clause regulating indenture, voted consistently, during

the remainder of the Convention, against every proposi-

tion intended to favor the negro. Little is known of

McIntire's ancestry, inasmuch as his name is not to be

found in the pioneer biographies or county histories, but

from external evidence it does not seem unlikely that he

may have been a Scotch-Irish Southerner who had

drifted into Washington County, and that he was at this

time voting from personal convictions and not concern-

ing himself greatly with the views of his constituency.

It may or may not be significant that he was not a mem-

ber of the first State Legislature the following year. At

any rate he represented a change of sentiment which was

to work itself out at Marietta within a few years, but

whether or not he was a true representative of feeling

in 1802 seems somewhat doubtful. The two Trumbull

County delegates supported the motion making the appli-

cation of indentures specific, and this, of course, was an

attitude logically to be expected from them, even though

their stand with regard to the negro was not always

consistent. Yet on this ballot they contributed to the

majority, and the bill of rights, as thus amended, is the

one which was finally adopted.71

The question of negro suffrage was the one which

brought out the truest indications of sentiment in refer-

ence to the colored man, and also the one which best rep-

resented the indecision of the Convention as a whole.

The matter was opened on November 22nd, when a

motion was made to strike out the word "white" in the

provision of Section IV which read "all white males

shall enjoy the right of an elector." This, of course,

71 Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, 1803, p. 26.

• 31
 

748      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

would have established negro suffrage by implication.

The motion failed, 19-14, and the tally bore character-

istics that were to be expected. Hamilton County was

again split, although a majority favored the motion. In

Ross County, three of the delegates opposed the pro-

posal, but one, James Grubb, voted in its favor. In

previous votes Grubb had favored the negro, and he

continued to do so until the latter part of the Convention

when he executed an about face, and voted with the bal-

ance of his delegation. McIntire was the only one of

the Washington County delegates to oppose, and only

one of the Trumbull County men voted. He opposed

the motion but as he had indicated in earlier votes that

he was not entirely orthodox, this was not surprising.⁷²

In this indirect fashion, then, the proposal for negro

suffrage first made its appearance in the Convention.

While it was defeated, the theorists were not discour-

aged, for the matter had not been put squarely before

the delegates to accept or reject as such. It was the be-

lief of those favoring colored enfranchisement that the

indirect method of giving the negro the ballot had been

rejected because it was not sufficiently specific. Ac-

cordingly, they immediately proposed to add to the

qualifications of electors that all negroes and mulattoes

then residing in the Territory should be entitled to the

ballot, if, within a specified time, they made a record of

their citizenship. The faith of the idealists was justi-

fied when the motion passed 19-15.⁷³ On this vote,

Hamilton County was overwhelmingly in favor of the

motion, a fact that can be best explained with the sug-

 

⁷² Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, 1803, p. 21.

73 Ibid.

• 32
 

The Negro in Early Ohio         749

gestion that the Cincinnati men, seeing that the negro

was to be among them as a free man, desired that he

should bear his part of governmental responsibility. In

Ross and Washington Counties, the votes remained un-

changed, as Grubb and McIntire again stood out alone

against their colleagues who opposed the measure in the

former case and supported it in the latter. The Trum-

bull County delegates again split in opinion, and one

voted in favor of the motion while the other rejected it.

It is hardly safe, however, to attempt any conclusions

from this fact.

The theorists, elated at their victory, now attempted

to strike while the iron was hot, and introduced a new

provision to extend the suffrage to the descendants of

the colored people just enfranchised. This motion was

barely lost--17-16. Hamilton County voted for it 9-1,

while Ross and Washington Counties remained dead-

locked as before. Both of the Trumbull County New

Englanders opposed the motion, a fact that can be ac-

counted for only by suggesting that the natural con-

servatism of these men led them to believe that the step

of binding the state irrevocably to negro suffrage was

being taken in too hasty a fashion.⁷⁴

But with all the foregoing shifting of ground, the

climax of inconsistency had not yet been reached. On

the 26th of November, one of the men opposing negro

suffrage offered a motion to strike out the section

adopted only four days previously enfranchising the

blacks. When the ballots were tallied, it developed that

a 17-17 tie had resulted. President Tiffin, an Englishman

by birth, a Virginian by early residence, and a citizen

74 Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, 1803, p. 26.

• 33
 

750      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of Ross County by choice, was therefore called upon to

break the deadlock. There was little doubt as to what

a man of his background would do, and he effectively

quashed the enfranchising clause when he voted in favor

of the motion.75 In addition to Tiffin's personal convic-

tions in the matter, he doubtlessly realized that with the

close proximity of Kentucky and Virginia, two slave

states, it was dangerous for Ohio to offer too great in-

ducement to negroes lest they over-run the state. On

this question nine of the ten Hamilton County delegates

voted to retain the measure. The Ross County

Southerners were unanimous in voting to abolish the

negro's right to vote, for apparently, in some manner,

Grubb's powers of resistance had been beaten down.

Washington County still remained deadlocked 3-1, in-

asmuch as McIntire, with that singleness of purpose

which is dubbed stupidity in some relations and genius

in others, doggedly held to his convictions. He is of

especial interest as his attitude denoted that the New

England Federalist stronghold was being broken down

in Washington County, and his stand in the Convention

was, of course, the forerunner of a complete change of

sentiment toward the negro in southeastern Ohio.

Trumbull County's vote remained unchanged, and thus

by the narrow margin of one vote was the negro pre-

vented from voting in Ohio.76

The question of endowing the negro with civil rights

now remained to be settled. When Article VII, the ar-

ticle embodying the general provisions of the constitu-

tion came up for consideration, a motion was made to

 

75 Ibid.

76 Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, 1803, p. 26.

• 34
 

The Negro in Early Ohio         751

deprive the negro of civil rights and obligations such as

holding office, giving oath in court against white persons,

and being subject to military duty or payment of poll

tax. The Hamilton County men had favored negro

suffrage, and in view of this it would be logical to expect

them to oppose this limitation of rights. The vote by

which the motion passed 19-16, reveals this to be the

case, although the delegation remained split. For some

unaccountable reason, Tiffin voted on this motion, and

all five of the Ross County delegates supported it. Even

Grubb retained his change of heart and dutifully fol-

lowed the lead of his chief. The monotonous 3-1 vote in

Washington County remained intact, as McIntire cast

his dissenting ballot with the patience worthy of a saint.

Both of the Federalists from the north voted against

the motion, indicating an attitude more consistent with

the views of the inhabitants of the Reserve.77

Four days later, on November 26th, a motion was

made to strike out this very same section, and the Con-

vention again reversed a former decision by agreeing,

17-16. The Hamilton and Trumbull County delegations

remained consistent with their previous vote. The Ross

County men likewise stood pat with the important excep-

tion that Tiffin did not vote. Probably much to the relief

of the Washington County representatives, McIntire

was absent, and this fact, coupled with Tiffin's failure

to vote and the change of vote on the part of an Adams

County delegate enabled the motion to pass.⁷⁸ But the

matter was not entirely settled, for on the next day a

motion was offered to revive the civil rights limitation in

such a way as to render the negro forever ineligible to

77 Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, 1803, p. 25.

78 Ibid, p. 22.

• 35
 

752      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

any office as well as to relieve him from military duty.

On the question as to whether the motion should be put

to the Convention, it was resolved in the negative, and

the motion was squelched without a record of the vote.

Yet the closeness of the vote by which the limitation of

the negro's rights was stricken out indicated that there

was considerable sentiment in Ohio for restricting the

negro and making conditions unpleasant for him within

the state. Having failed to accomplish this purpose in

the Convention, it is only natural that the proponents of

the idea should seize the first opportunity which pre-

sented itself to incorporate this view in the laws of the

state. The procedure of the Legislative Session of 1803-

04, proves the validity of this conception.

While it is evident from the foregoing votes that the

Convention was really controlled by men formerly of the

slave-holding states of Virginia and Kentucky, it is to

be noted that this majority agreed on only one thing,

and that was that they did not want slavery in Ohio.

On other questions concerning the negro, they could ef-

fect no compromise. Byrd, a native Virginian from

Hamilton County, consistently stood firmly for negro

suffrage, but, on the other hand, Huntington of Trum-

bull County, a scion of New England stock, voted with

Massie and Worthington of Ross County, against it.

But these men were exceptions to the general rule. As

a usual thing, the Virginians stood opposed to the negro

on all questions, while the Washington County Federal-

ists favored him. Hamilton County, although disagree-

ing radically on most questions, was inclined to be sym-

pathetic with the black man, and the Puritans from the

northern part of the state, while not consistent on all

• 36
 

The Negro in Early Ohio          753

occasions, on the whole indicated a favorable attitude.⁷⁹

Following upon this, the results of the Convention, in-

sofar as the negro was concerned, can be summed up

with the statement that slavery was definitely prohibited,

and, by the indenture clause it was made reasonably

certain that there would be no circumvention of the

will of the majority. The framers of the Constitution

of 1802 evidently intended the negro to occupy the same

position in relation to the state as the Indian does to

the Federal Government today. He was permitted to

live in the state and he was extended the protection of

the laws, but he had no part in the government. No

duties were demanded of him, but, on the other hand, no

privileges of citizenship were extended to him.⁸⁰

However, those who were disappointed in the pro-

visions of the constitution concerning the negro were

not content to take their medicine without a struggle.

When the Legislature met under the new constitution,

in December, 1803, they appeared in force, this time

comparatively well organized, and they pushed through

the Assembly a series of provisions known as the first

of the "black codes." The negro problem was becoming

acute. There had been 337 blacks in the Territory in

1800; by 1810 this number was to be increased to 1,899,

most of whom probably had come in before the stringent

"black codes" were passed.81 A tabulation of the adver-

tisements for fugitive slaves reveals that there are more

of them in the Cincinnati newspaper in 1795, before the

first "black code" was passed than there are in 1805,

after the act was put into effect. This probably indi-

79 Massie, Life of Nathaniel Massie, p. 87.

80 Hickok, The Negro in Ohio, p. 39.

81 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 82.

Vol. XXXIX--48.

• 37
 

754      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

cates that the negro was not so anxious to escape slavery

when he realized he would be given a very cold recep-

tion in free territory.

The "black code" of 1804 was the product of south-

ern men from the river counties of Ohio who wished

to render conditions in the state so uncomfortable for

the negro that he would be discouraged so far as immi-

gration was concerned. Furthermore, they wished to

persuade those free negroes living in Ohio to go else-

where. These men can hardly be blamed for their at-

titude. They felt that the state was being made a

dumping-grounds, and as most of the negroes settled in

southern Ohio, the inhabitants there had to protect

themselves. Another reason was that the Kentuckians

and Virginians were protesting at the escape of negroes,

and in order to maintain economic relations with them,

it was necessary to engineer through the Assembly a

law which would have the content of a fugitive slave

measure without advertising the fact in the title in such

a way as to offend the moralists in the state.⁸² The New

England element in the north, to whom as late as the

Civil War the negro was a novelty, were in position

to theorize about the rights of man, and naturally it is

to be expected that they would oppose restrictive legis-

lation. The attitude of the Puritans of Marietta is of

most interest, however, for it is here that the earlier

moral view was modified by experience.⁸³

The bill which became a law in January, 1804, con-

tained the following provisions: no negro or mulatto

was to settle in the state unless he furnished a certifi-

cate of freedom from a United States court. The blacks

82 Ibid, p. 81.

83 Hickok, The Negro in Ohio, p. 40.

• 38
 

The Negro in Early Ohio           755

already in the state were to be registered, together with

their children, by June 1st, at the office of the clerk of

the county court, and a registration fee of 12 1/2 cents a

head was to be charged. It was made a penal offense

to employ a negro for more than an hour unless he could

present a certificate of freedom, and violators were sub-

jected to a fine of not less than $10 or more than $50.

It was further provided that the same penalty should be

assessed against any one aiding a fugitive slave, and

that the fine should be raised to $100 if the slave were

to be assisted in escaping from the state, the informer

to receive one-half of the fine. Finally it was provided

that anyone employing a negro without a certificate

was liable to a payment of fifty cents a day to the slave's

master in addition to the fine.⁸⁴ The bill passed the

House 19-8. Most of the southern counties favored it,

but Washington County and Trumbull County, New

England centers, opposed.⁸⁵ With slight modifications

the bill passed the Senate, 9-5. Strange to say, the vote

in the Senate did not show the sectional characteris-

tics of that in the House. Two Hamilton County men

supported it and two opposed, reflecting again the hetero-

geneity of Cincinnati; but, of course, both of the South-

erners from Ross County supported the measure. The

interesting point is that both of the Senators from

Marietta also voted to restrict the negro.⁸⁶ The moral

viewpoint was beginning to show signs of strain.

Articles on slavery in the newspapers of early Ohio

attest the fact that the people of the southern part of

the state were interested in emancipation, but it is im-

84 Acts of the Ohio State Legislature, 1803, pp. 63-66.

85 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. IV, p. 121.

86 Journal Ohio State Senate, 1803, p. 72.

• 39
 

756      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

possible to avoid the attitude evidenced by the vote of

their delegates on the "black code" that they did not

want free negroes in Ohio. This position is not hard to

understand when one reads the Centinel of the North-

western Territory and the Western Spy, newspapers

of the time, and encounters the constantly recurring

items concerning negro felons. James Dorsey, a free

negro, is dubbed an incorrigible offender, and is pun-

ished with appropriate severity;87 a mulatto person is

apprehended with a gun which he says he stole from a

canoe at Cincinnati;88 Ned assists two white men in

breaking out of jail and in stealing a canoe in which

all escape;89 two other blacks are committed for criminal

offenses;90 two men from Cumberland, who were taking

some slaves into Tennessee, are murdered by their blacks

who evidently are at large in Ohio;91 and a slave of

Hubbard Taylor of Clarke County, Kentucky, stabs his

overseer to death.⁹² With instances such as these trans-

piring regularly there was little reason why the inhab-

itants of the river counties should not be rather cynical

in their attitude toward the negro.

But the anti-slavery societies carefully nourished

whatever Abolition sentiment existed in the state. Some

of this feeling flourished in Cincinnati, but it was

stronger in the southeastern counties and in the north.

In 1802, a group of interested citizens, probably some of

them from Cincinnati, met at Washburne's Tavern, in

northern Kentucky, and drew up a comprehensive

87 Centinel of the Northwestern Territory, March 22, 1794.

88 Ibid, August 16, 1794.

89 Ibid, October 4, 1794.

⁹⁰ Ibid, February 27, 1796.

91 The Western Spy, August 26, 1801.

92 The Western Spy, August 26, 1801.

• 40
 

The Negro in Early Ohio           757

scheme for gradual emancipation.93 An article entitled

"Short Observations on Slavery" occupied the entire

front page and a large part of the second in the Western

Spy for July 3, 1802. This article had been sent into

the west from Philadelphia.93 Again on September 4,

1802, the Western Spy carried an excerpt from a letter

to his friend written by a member of the Humane So-

ciety of Virginia.94   The churches apparently were

doing their part also. The Methodists seemed to be in

advance of the rest, for as early as 1808 their Western

Annual Conference appointed a committee to draft a

ruling on the subject of slavery. The main question at

issue was: "What shall be done with a member of our

society who shall enter into the slave-trade and who shall

either buy or sell slaves?" The ruling was that the cir-

cuit rider should cite such a person to the quarterly

meeting of the Conference, and that this body should

determine if the defendant sold for mercy and humanity

or for speculative motives. If a majority decided it was

the latter, the person should be expelled.⁹⁵ This certainly

is concrete evidence of the attitude of the early ministry

on the problem. Again, in 1812, the Methodist General

Convention voted that no slaveholder should continue

as a local elder.⁹⁶ However, these are merely first steps

and indicate tendencies alone. The organized church

movement in opposition to slavery did not come until

later.

The effect of these educating influences, so far as

93 Ibid, July 3, 1802.

94 Ibid, September 4, 1802.

95 W. W. Sweet, The Rise of Methodism in the West (Cincinnati, 1920),

p. 147.

96 A. B. Hart, Slavery and Abolition (New York, 1906), p. 160.

• 41
 

758      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

theory is concerned, was reflected in the legislative ses-

sion of 1805, when a resolution was received from North

Carolina proposing an amendment to the National Con-

stitution to enable Congress to forbid the importation of

slaves before 1808. The Ohio Legislature rejected the

proposal, but plainly stated that the reason for so doing

was based merely upon the inexpediency of such ac-

tion.⁹⁷ In the resolution which embodied the rejection,

the Legislature stated that although "this inhuman prac-

tice" was "repugnant" to the principles upon which the

Government was founded, yet a mutual agreement had

been reached by the states forming the Constitution that

Congress should not have the power to disturb the slave-

trade for a given period.⁹⁸

It is surprising then to discover an about-face atti-

tude on the part of the Legislature of the succeeding

year. In accordance with proposals from Maryland and

Tennessee, a resolution was adopted by both the House

and the Senate urging the Ohio Congressmen to favor

an amendment to the Federal Constitution that would

empower Congress to abolish the importation of slaves.

This attitude was consistent with the sentiment in Ohio

and with the moral view expressed the year previously,

but why the Legislature should contradict itself by ap-

proving a proposition almost identical with one it re-

jected only a year earlier is puzzling. No record of the

vote is given, and it is possible merely to conjecture that

the change of personnel in the Assembly brought a suffi-

cient influx of men who were more concerned with the

moral phase than the practical aspect of the problem to

97 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. III, p. 155.

98 Ibid.

• 42
 

The Negro in Early Ohio          759

push the resolution through.⁹⁹ Yet, however lofty their

ideals in regard to the principle of slavery may have

been, the Ohio people had not changed greatly in their

attitude toward the negroes within their own state. The

"black code" of 1807 affords sufficient evidence in sup-

port of this fact.

In order to account for the "black code" of 1807, it

must be assumed that the legislation of 1804 was not

sufficiently severe to remove the negroes already in the

state or to prevent a few from coming in. Accordingly,

the irate representatives of an aroused constituency in

the southern part of the state felt the urge to tighten up

the restrictive legislation. Originating in the Senate

during the session of 1806-07 under the title "An Act

to Amend the Act Entitled 'An Act to Regulate Black

and Mulatto Persons',"¹⁰⁰ the bill in its final form pro-

vided that no negro was to be allowed to settle in Ohio

unless within twenty days he could provide a $500 bond

signed by two white men guaranteeing his good be-

havior and support. This particular section did not

affect, of course, the negroes already in the state. That

would have been ex post facto legislation. On the other

hand, it meant virtual exclusion for all other negroes,

for the possibility that a negro could produce two bonds-

men willing to risk $500 between them was so slight as

to be almost ridiculous. This undoubtedly was in-

tended, and, in fact total exclusion probably would have

been adopted had it not been felt that exceptional cases

might arise in which it was desirable to permit a negro

to enter Ohio. The act continued with raising the fine

for aiding a fugitive slave from $50 to $100, half still

99 Journal Ohio State House of Representatives, 1806, p. 62.

100 Journal Ohio State Senate, 1806, p. 49.

• 43
 

760      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

to be paid the informer. Friendship might as well be

cultivated with the South, for Ohioans had everything

to gain and nothing to lose. In conclusion, the act pro-

vided that no negro was to be permitted to give evi-

dence in any case in which a white person was in-

volved.¹⁰¹ It will be remembered that this was a time-

honored provision, which had made its first appearance

in the Constitutional Convention of 1802.102 However,

it was a pernicious measure, for it placed the negro at

the mercy of unscrupulous whites. The white man

could rob, beat, or even kill a negro, and unless there

was a white man present, the offender escaped punish-

ment. A case which later arose exemplifying the in-

justice of such a law involved a white man who had

murdered a negro when there were eight colored wit-

nesses, but whose case was dismissed for lack of evi-

dence because the blacks could not testify against him.¹⁰³

But regardless of the ethics involved, the bill passed

the House of Representatives 20-9 and the Senate with-

out a record of the vote, becoming a law in January,

1807. Of the three Hamilton County representatives,

two supported the measure, a stand to be expected in-

asmuch as the negro problem was menacing Cincin-

nati perhaps more than any other town. Three of the

four representatives from Ross County voted in favor

of the bill, and the two delegates from the Western

Reserve threw away their votes by disagreeing. The

importance of the roll call, however, is that it shows

that the entire Washington County delegation voted to

 

101 Acts of Ohio State Legislature, 1806, p. 53-54.

102 Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, p. 22.

103 Hickok, The Negro in Ohio, p. 42.

• 44
 

The Negro in Early Ohio         761

adopt the "black code."¹⁰⁴ The New England moral at-

titude had finally given way to the pressure exerted by

contact with the negro, and the change of viewpoint

foreshadowed by McIntire in 1802 had finally come

about. The irony of the situation is that these Wash-

ington County Puritans were more overwhelmingly in

favor of harsh treatment of the negroes than were the

Virginians of Ross County. In other words, there was

almost unanimous agreement on the part of all the del-

egates from the southern part of the state that some-

thing had to be done to protect themselves against the

black menace, and they voted practically in a block

against the northern representatives. A vote in the

Senate which may afford a clue as to how the final

vote there ran, concerned itself with a motion to elimi-

nate the provision regarding testimony. The ballot

revealed Hamilton County's two Senators as disagree-

ing. The two men from Washington County also split

over the question, but the Ross County delegates were

united in opposition, and the Trumbull County man,

oddly enough, supported them. With scattered aid, the

opposition were able to defeat the motion, 9-5, and

the clause was retained.¹⁰⁵

The results of the legislation of 1807 are interest-

ing to consider. Under its provisions the negro could

be brutally maltreated by whites and he would have no

recourse. If his case were brought to trial he probably

would appear before a prejudiced white jury. He could

not even tell his story in court, and the worst part of it

was that he had no ballot with which he might force a

104 Journal Ohio State House of Representatives, 1806, p. 74.

104 Journal Ohio State Senate, 1806, p. 30.

• 45
 

762      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

redress of his grievances. His status was determined

by a Legislature in which he was not represented.¹⁰⁶ On

the other hand, he came into the state of his own voli-

tion, against the wishes of a majority of the white in-

habitants, and as a result, he had to accept conditions

as he found them. He certainly knew what the condi-

tions were, and he could not doubt that the legislation

was aimed at keeping him out of Ohio. It is true, that

for a number of years following their passage the

"black codes" were not adequately enforced, but they

remained upon the law books of the state. Even though

they were invoked only infrequently, a judge of one of

the state courts was moved to say that in all his ex-

perience both at the bar and as a member of the court

the could not recall a single instance in which these laws

had been subservient to the ends of justice.¹⁰⁷

The "black codes" marked the high water mark of

anti-negro legislation in Ohio, at least until the close

of the War of 1812, which marked an epoch in western

history and the close of the period with which this paper

deals. While they were, to all intents and purposes,

dead statutes within these years, they were potentially

harsh, but by the very nature of this harshness they

undoubtedly had a constructive influence that is hard

to measure. It can hardly be doubted that they played

a most important part in solidifying the Abolition sen-

timent which always had existed to a greater or less

extent in various parts of the state--a sentiment which

up until 1807 had been disorganized, leaderless, and

essentially without voice. The result was that following

1815, the Abolition movement began to flare up in

106 Hickok, The Negro in Ohio, pp. 43-44.

107 Ibid, p. 43.

• 46
 

The Negro in Early Ohio        763

Ohio, and was soon burning with all its intensity. The

"black codes," then, constituted the foundation upon

which a new phase of the negro problem was built in

the succeeding period of the history of Ohio.

From the foregoing discussion it is evident that

although Ohio was settled by diverse population ele-

ments from all parts of the country, in general its peo-

ple had a common attitude in their opposition to slavery,

regardless of their previous surroundings. Even so,

there was a difference in the underlying reasons for

this attitude. The Scotch-Irish Southerners and most

of the Middle States men opposed the institution for

practical reasons, while the New Englanders and the

Quakers were inclined to be idealistic. As time passed

and the New Englanders who settled along the river

came to know the negro better, and after they had suf-

fered some of the disadvantages of too intimate con-

tact with him, they became somewhat disillusioned with

the man whom they had romantically hailed as "God's

image in ebony." They then tended to vote with the

Southerners and Middle States men to deprive the negro

of his rights and to discourage his immigration. The

New Englanders of the Western Reserve, although

there is hardly sufficient evidence to justify a dogmatic

statement in this regard, tended to retain their idealism,

an attitude which was easy to maintain considering

their infrequent relations with the blacks. These Puri-

tans also were somewhat consistent in their attempts to

alleviate the negro's sufferings.

It has been indicated further that the population of

Hamilton County was particularly cosmopolitan, and

that the diverse views of these heterogeneous elements

were reflected in the inability of the Cincinnati dele-

• 47
 

764      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

gates to act as a unit on specific points. The one gen-

eral principle upon which all Ohio agreed was that the

negro probably should be emancipated throughout the

South, but most of the inhabitants felt that when he

was freed he should stay in the South. He was the

South's problem, one which the Southerners had brought

upon themselves, and at least the residents of southern

Ohio, for the most part, were determined that the re-

sponsibility for raising the black to a reasonable cultural

level was not to be shuffled off onto them if they could

prevent it. They displayed the utmost cynicism for the

negro's potentialities, although it must be noted that the

Cincinnatians had, at first, favored making him a mem-

ber of the body politic. However, the motive behind

this stand was not particularly elevating. The Quakers

and the Conservatives gradually constituted the nucleus

of the later Abolition group and, with the assistance of

the propaganda sent into Ohio from outside the state,

and aided by the teaching of the ministry, they dis-

covered that it was but a short step to establish them-

selves firmly on the concept of the equal rights of man-

kind. Thus this group tended to expand rather than to

diminish, for the slavery question was developing into

a moral crusade with them. To their standard were at-

tracted all who had no practical considerations to upset

their complacency.

While the anti-slavery sentiment in Ohio between

1787 and 1815 was at all times overwhelming, the stim-

ulus to the feeling that involuntary servitude should be

outlawed within the state did not always imply idealism

nor did it necessarily mean that the principle of slavery

was condemned. Caleb Atwater, in his History of Ohio

published in 1838, illustrates the viewpoint of the prac-

• 48
 

The Negro in Early Ohio         765

tical man when he says it is "in the interests of Ohio to

have slavery continue in the South for one hundred

years. Otherwise our growth will be checked."¹⁰⁸ This

was simply an innocuous way of saying that after Ohio

had sucked all the best blood from the South, she would

be willing to let her conscience have its way in regard

to slavery. But, on the other hand, there were many

men in southern Ohio who were not mere theorists, for

they had subjected their sincerity to the acid test by

freeing their slaves before coming into the Territory.

As a result of the unity of belief throughout the

state on the abstract theory that there should be no

slavery in Ohio--for whatever reason--it was natural

that there should be no struggle in the State Constitu-

tional Convention over slavery, and it is quite logical

that the provision to enfranchise the negro should be

the test of the relative strength of the theorists and the

practical men.  The ultimate defeat of the measure

bears out the assertion that the Southern men controlled

the Convention, but the bitterness of the struggle indi-

cated that their ascendency was based on a very slim

majority due to heresies within their own ranks. The

closeness of the vote further indicated that there were

many people, even in the southern part of the state who

were willing to permit their hearts to rule their heads

in regard to the negro.

Yet the effort to deprive the negro of his civil rights,

lost by the wayside in the Constitutional Convention,

was revived by the Assembly of 1803-04, and the first of

the "black codes" was its product. The theory embodied

in this was that harsh measures would keep the negro

 

108 Caleb Atwater, History of Ohio (Cincinnati, 1838), p. 331.

• 49
 

766       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

out of the state. As the law was a failure in this re-

gard, the harsher and more radical legislation of 1807

was a logical consequence.   In the vote on this provi-

sion, the lines seemed somewhat more tightly drawn

than was usually the case. The representatives from

southern Ohio, smarting under the indignities of previ-

ous years, swept all before them, and those from the

northern part of the state offered only a feeble resist-

ance.   But even so, it was evident that the Quaker

element and a part of the Middle States group in Ohio

had not been won over by the anti-negro contingent,

even though the former moralists at Marietta had re-

versed opinions they held earlier. Although the "black

codes" were not immediately enforced, they presented

a basis for potential rank injustice, and inasmuch as

they were not repealed until 1849, a free negro in Ohio

was not really "free" until approximately a decade be-

fore the Civil War.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. SOURCES

A. Printed

1. The Acts of the Ohio State Legislature, 1803,

1806. Chillicothe, 1804, 1807.

2. The Journal of the House of Representatives and

of the Legislative Council of the Territorial Leg-

islature, 1799. Cincinnati, 1800.

3. The Journal of the House of Representatives of

the Territorial Legislature, 1801.  Chillicothe,

1802.

4. "The Journal of the Ohio State Constitutional

Convention, 1802," in the Historical Magazine,

Ser. 2, Vol. 6, No. I. July, 1869.

5. The Journal of the Ohio State House of Repre-

sentatives, 1806. Chillicothe, 1807.

6. The Journal of the Ohio State Senate, 1803, 1806.

Chillicothe, 1804, 1807.

• 50
 

The Negro in Early Ohio               767

7. The Laws of the Northwest Territory (Max-

well's Code). Cincinnati, 1796.

8. The Constitutions of Ohio; ed. by I. F. Patter-

son. Cleveland, 1912.

9. The Records of the Ohio Company; ed. by A. B.

Hulbert. 3 vols. Marietta, 1917.

10. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson; ed. by P. L.

Ford. 10 vols. New York, 1892-1899.

11. The St. Clair Papers; ed. by W. H. Smith. 2

vols. Cincinnati, 1882.

II.  NEWSPAPERS AND PAMPHLETS (In the Library

of the Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio).

A. Newspapers

1. The Centinel of the 'Northwestern Territory,

1793-1796.

2. The Western Spy and Hamilton Gazette, 1799-

1806.

B. Pamphlets

1. Jay A. Barrett. The Evolution of the Ordinance

of 1787. New York, 1891.

2. James E. Campbell. How and When Ohio Be-

came a State. Columbus, 1925.

3. Charles Cist.  Cincinnati in 1841.  Cincinnati,

1841.

4. Manasseh Cutler.   Description of Ohio.  (Old

South Leaflet, Series No. 40). Salem, 1887.

5. Jervace Cutler.  Ohio, Indiana Territory and

Louisiana. Boston, 1812.

6. Benjamin Drake and E. D. Mansfield. Cincin-

nati in 1826. Cincinnati, 1827.

7. Charles B. Galbreath.    "Thomas Jefferson's

Views on Slavery," in Ohio Archaeological and

Historical Society Publications, Vol. XXXIV.

Columbus, 1925.

8. John F. Schemmerhorn and Samuel J. Mills.

West of the Alleghanies.. Hartford, 1814.

III. SECONDARY AUTHORITIES

A. Caleb Atwater. History of Ohio. Cincinnati, 1838.

B. Jacob Burnet. Notes on the Northwestern Territory.

Cincinnati, 1847.

C. Robert E. Chaddock. Ohio, Before 1850. New

York, 1908.

• 51
 

768       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

D. Julia P. Cutler. The Life and Times of Ephraim

Cutler. Cincinnati, 1890.

E. William P. and Julia P. Cutler. The Life, Journal

and Correspondence of the Rev. Manasseh Cutler.

2 vols. Cincinnati, 1888.

F. Elliot H. Gilkey. The Ohio Hundred Year Book.

Columbus, 19O1.

G. William E. Gilmore. The Life of Edward Tiffin.

Chillicothe, 1897.

H. Albert B. Hart. Slavery and Abolition. (Amer. Na-

tion Series, Vol. XVI). New York, 1906.

I. Charles T. Hickok. The Negro in Ohio. Cleveland,

1896.

J. Burke A. Hinsdale.   The Old Northwest.     New

York, 1888.

K. Charles R. King. The Life and Correspondence of

Rufus King. 6 vols. New York, 1894.

L. Rufus King. Ohio: First Fruits of the Ordinance

of 1787. Boston, 1888.

M. Andrew   C. McLaughlin.    The Confederation and

the Constitution. (American Nation Series, Vol. X).

New York, 1905.

N. John Bach McMaster. History of the People of the

United States. 8 vols. New York, 1893-1913.

O. David M. Massie. Nathaniel Massie. A Pioneer of

Ohio. Cincinnati, 1896.

P. Frederick A. Ogg. The Old Northwest. (Chron-

icles of America Series, Vol. XIX). New Haven,

1920.

Q. Frederick L. Paxson.    History of the American

Frontier. Boston, 1925.

R. Emilius 0. Randall and Daniel J. Ryan. History of

Ohio. 6 vols. New York, 1912.

S. William W. Sweet. Rise of Methodism in the West.

Cincinnati, 1920.

T. Frederick J. Turner. Rise of the New West. (Amer-

ican Nation Series, Vol. XIV). New York, 1906.

U. George W. Williams. History of the Negro Race in

America. 2 vols. New York, 1882.

• 52