Slave Nation (38 page)

67
. Isaacson
Benjamin Franklin
, 331–32; Wood,
Americanization of Benjamin Franklin
, 156–57, 189–190, 211, 231, traces the history and longevity of their animosity.

68
. Lynd puts him in New York on July 7. Lynd, “Compromise,” in Williams,
Northwest Ordinance
, 208

69
. McGaughy,
Richard Henry Lee of Virginia
, 190

70
. See Nagel,
Lees of Virginia
, 131–32

71
. See Grigsby,
Virginia Convention
, 143. Others were not so finicky; some fifteen of the fifty-five delegates to the Convention were also members of the Congress. Lee’s opposition to the Constitution may have in part been generated by his personal commitment to the Continental Congress, and to his perception that the work of the Constitutional Convention would be referred to the Congress for a serious review before being sent to the states. The Convention had been called to recommend amendments to the Articles, not to create a new system of government. The approach taken by Lee’s fellow Virginians in proposing a new structure as well as the ratification process provided in the Constitution itself drastically reduced the role of the Continental Congress and may have induced Lee’s opposition to the Constitution. Despite his opposition, he was elected as Virginia’s first senator under the Constitution.

72
. Jack P. Greene,
Understanding the American Revolution
, 212–24. Other motives might have driven him as well; he was constantly in need of money to support his large family and his participation in public affairs. He had been among the disappointed Virginia land speculators cut off from profit opportunities by the 1763 British prohibition on settlements beyond the Alleghenies.

73
. Jack P. Greene
Understanding the American Revolution
, 219

74
. Sutton,
Revolution to Secession
, 12–13

75
. King’s effort had been aroused by Timothy Pickering’s desire for a slavefree area north of the Ohio to settle former soldiers from New England. See
Chapter 10
. Pickering was so strongly anti-slavery that, as a senator from Massachusetts in 1804, he led an abortive secessionist movement of old Federalists in the five New England states and New York and New Jersey. The Federalists were particularly concerned that Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana territory would “inevitably lessen the weight and influence of the North in the affairs of the nation, augment slave representation, and endanger the Union by stretching boundaries so far as to weaken the country’s defenses.” Ernst,
Rufus King
, 281–2. Pickering had written to King in March, 1804, expressing his frustration with the situation: “Without a separation, can those [seven northern] states ever rid themselves of Negro presidents and Negro congress, and regain their just weight in the political balance?” Ernst,
Rufus King
, 281

76
. Lee’s first reported speech in the House of Burgesses in 1759 concluded that slavery was, “dangerous, both to our political and moral interests.…Some of our neighboring colonies, though much later than ourselves in point of settlement, are now far before us in improvement; to what, sir, can we attribute this strange, this unhappy truth? The reasons seems to be this: that with their whites, they import arts and agriculture, whilst we, with our blacks, exclude both.” Chitwood,
Richard Henry Lee
, 18

77
. Chitwood,
Richard Henry Lee
, 19. Richard Henry may well have shared his brother Arthur’s views on slavery. In 1767, Arthur published a moral and practical critique of slavery in Rind’s
Virginia Gazette
, March 19, reproduced in Nash,
Race and Revolution
, 91–6

78
. Chitwood,
Richard Henry Lee
, 211–13

79
. Nagel,
Lees of Virginia
, 111. Breen,
Tobacco Culture
, vividly details some of the excesses of the time.

80
. Pauline Maier,
Old Revolutionaries
, 164–200

81
. John Rhodehamer, Ed.,
George Washington: Writings
(New York: Library Classics, 1977) 652

82
. Richard Brookhiser,
Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996) 71–3, 131–6

83
. Comments of delegates from here to end of
Chapter 10
: Farrand,
Records,
Vol. I, 578-88; 591-7; 600-606. Farrand,
Records
, Vol. II, 2-11

C
HAPTER
11
A S
LAVE
-F
REE
N
ORTHWEST
T
ERRITORY

1
.
JCC
Vol. 32, 310. July 11, 1787. The committee consisting of Mr. Edward Carrington, Mr. Nathan Dane, Mr. Richard Henry Lee, Mr. John Kean, and Mr. Melancton Smith to whom the report was referred of a committee touching the temporary government of the western territory reported an ordinance for the government of the United States northwest of the river of Ohio, which was read a first time.

2
. Smith,
Letters of Delegates
, Vol. 8, 621–2

3
. Melancton Smith was the third member of the committee which recommended the Northwest Ordinance who was credited by Dane with bringing new ideas to bear on the issue. See text of Dane letter, Smith,
Letters of Delegates
, Vol. 8, 621–2. Smith’s experience in the next year in securing the ratification of the constitution in New York by adding a condition subsequent seeking a bill of rights illustrates a competence at working through conflicting polycentric problems to achieve a goal of stable government. See Robin Brooks, “Alexander Hamilton, Melancton Smith, and the Ratification of the Constitution in New York,” in Kermit Hall, Ed.,
The Formation and Ratification of the Constitution
(New York: Garland, 1987) 93–112. On the general approach of the Federalists to ratification, see Rakove,
Original Meanings
, 94–130

4
. They, along with Bension, were on a committee to deal with the land purchase.

5
. See “Dane’s letter to King,” Smith,
Letters of Delegates
, Vol. 8, 621–2

6
. The additional lands went into the hands of a group headed by speculator William Duer. That group went bankrupt. See Robin Brooks, “Melancton Smith: New York Anti-Federalist, 1774-1798,”
1964 PhD Thesis, University Of Rochester
, 64–12,433 (Univ. Of Michigan Dissertation series) 117-43

7
. July 13, 1787,
JCC
Vol. 32, 334–43

8
. See May 1787,
JCC
Vol. 32, 281. The bracketed and lined words explain the title of the ordinance on May 9, as “An ordinance for the government of the western territory until the same shall be divided into different states.” On July 9, the title was “An ordinance for the temporary government of the territory of the U.S. NW of the River Ohio.”

9
. See
Chapter 9

10
. These provisions included: 1. A more elaborate provision for intestate succession than had existed in the September 1786 draft. (314) This was a preoccupation of the Virginians. 2. Permission for the French and Canadian inhabitants of Kaskaskias and Post Vincent and former Virginians in nearby villages, to use their own laws of descent and conveyance, rather than those laid out in the ordinance, as required in the Virginia deed of cession. 3. A restatement of the “compact” concept found in Jefferson’s 1784 ordinance and King’s 1785 bill, which would assure that the elements in the ordinance were carried forward into state constitutions. “It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid that the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original states and the people and states in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable unless by common consent.”
JCC
Vol. 32, 339

11
. “And for extending [to all parts of the confederacy] the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty which form the basis whereupon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory; to provide also for the establishment of states and permanent government therein; and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original states at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest.” These rights were: 1. Protection of religious liberty; 2. Proportionate representation of the people in the legislature. The question of proportional representation had been raised in several states where seaboard interests—including the slave owner interests—had retained political control despite the population shifts to the west. (Nevins,
American States
.) 3. Judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law; 4. Bail for non-capital offenses; no excessive bail or fines, no cruel or unusual punishment; 5. Compensation for property and services taken for the public good 6. No law interfering with bona fide private contracts. Rufus King may have had a hand in this; he apparently squeezed such a clause into the Constitution even though it had not been voted upon before the committee of detail redrafted the document. (See Ernst,
Rufus King
) 7. Promotion of schools and the means of education. This clause may reflect a long standing interest of Richard Henry Lee. In his letter to Col. Martin Pickett, March 5, 1786, Lee wrote: “A popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people, and…that knowledge is a principal source of virtue; these facts render the establishment of schools, for the instruction of youth, a fundamental concern in all free communities.…Such establishments will be the surest means of perpetuating our free forms of government, for, when men are taught to know, and well to understand, the great inherent rights of human nature, they will take care not to suffer the hands of office, of violence, or of ignorance, to rob them of such inestimable blessings.” Lee offered to give two aces of land “for the sole use of a public school, or seminary of learning.” James Curtis Ballagh, Ed.,
The Letters of Richard Henry Lee
, Vol. 2 (MacMillan Co.,1914) 411–12. In its July 9 form, the provision read: “Institutions for the promotion of religion and morality, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged, and all persons while young shall be taught some useful occupation.” The final version read: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” This version eliminated institutional support for religion. Governmental support for religion was, at the time, limited to Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. Ruth H. Bloch, “Battling Infidelity, Heathenism, and Licentiousness; New England Missions on the Post Revolutionary Frontier, 1792–1805,” in Frederick D. Williams, Ed.,
The Northwest Ordinance: Essays on its Formation, Provisions and Legacy
(Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1989) 41, 42

The initial draft reflected the New England approach of public support for religion, the final version the Virginia approach of separating church and state. 8. Respect and justice toward and for the Indians; 9. Navigable waters to the Mississippi and St. Lawrence to be “forever free without tax impost or duty.” See “Benjamin Hawkins to Governor Richard Caneel of North Carolina,” Smith,
Letters of Delegates
, 618, July 10. He reported that the Secretary of the Congress had written to him and to William Blount to return to NY to make a quorum. They did so on the July 4. “Blount to Caneel,” Smith,
Letters of Delegates
, 618, July 10. One object of returning was of “securing and preserving our right to the free and common use of the navigation of the Mississippi.” This, “which is very interesting to the western citizens of the southern states and regards their peace and welfare, has, at length, from a variety of circumstances unnecessary, as well perhaps as inappropriate to relate, been put in a better situation than heretofore.” Smith,
Letters of Delegates
, 618-19. There may be an implication that this language was involved in the willingness of the southern states to adopt the antislavery provision of the Northwest Ordinance. The South had long been interested in access to the Mississippi for the settlers west of the Appalachian. Southerners were adamant about opening the Mississippi, and considered the proposal by Jay to agree with Spain to close it for twenty-five years to be dangerous to the union as it served the Atlantic states at the expense of southern growth. Banning,
Sacred Fire
, 58–70, especially 68.

William Grayson, [VA] on May 25, 1785, moved before the Continental Congress that, “The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, is, and are hereby declared to be, common highways, and be forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said territory, as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other states that may be admitted into the confederation, without any tax, impost, or duty thereof.”
JCC
, Vol. IV, 638. The motion was seconded by Rufus King [MA], although the northeastern states were assumed to be willing to accept closing of the Mississippi for commercial advantages which Spain might supply. 10. Three to five states to be carved out of the territory, thus keeping the “balance” of slave and free states in the Senate; 11. Admission as state on equal footing when reach sixty thousand free inhabitants, or sooner if Congress agreed.

12
. Smith, Ed.,
Letters of Delegates
, Vol. 7, 621–2. From July 6 through July 11, the date the committee bill was reported, the states of MA, NY, NJ, VA, NC, SC, and GA were present. July, 1987,
JCC
Vol. 32, 303-13. Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island presumably would have supported the antislavery clause, but they were absent.