The Educational Significance of the Early Federal Land Ordinances

Front matter

Google to make the world's books discoverable online.

Il has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one thai was never subject

to copy right or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

Contents

I. The Economic and Political Importance of the

Northwest i

II. Early Attempts to Frame an Ordinance for 7 the Northwest

Chapter I The Economic And Political Importance Of

THE NORTHWEST

The purpose of this study is to discover the educational significance of the early federal land ordinances and to show how these ordinances affected subsequent legislation with reference to education and the development of the public school system in this country. The problem suggests two less comprehensive but more definite questions: (i) To what extent were these early ordinances the work of land speculators? (2) Did the advocates of these measures have any broad or clearly defined educational policy in view?

In order to understand the early land ordinances it is necessary to review briefly some of the historical background with reference to the West and Northwest of the colonial period. Possession of these lands, in so far as France and England were concerned, was determined by the Seven Years' War. From that time on, the settlement and government of this territory was one of the important public questions. Some of the leading men of the time were personally interested in these western lands and projects of settlement in the frontier country. The correspondence of Washington and Crawford throws some light on the question. 1

William Crawford lived in Pennsylvania, near the Virginia line beyond the mountains. For fourteen years, 1 767-1 781, he and Washington exchanged letters, largely concerning the land held by Washington in the West. The correspondence shows that Washington had employed Crawford to seek out quietly large bodies of good land along the Kanawha and Ohio rivers. In all, Washington accumulated more than thirty-two thousand acres. In September, 1767, he wrote Crawford that he would join him, as promised, in trying to secure land beyond the Proclamation Line of 1763, because he felt sure that that measure was only a blind to quiet the Indians and would soon be repealed. 2 This prolonged correspondence between Washington and Crawford

1 Washington-Crawford Letters. * Ibid.

relates almost exclusively to the details of locating and surveying the best lands available and to means of holding these lands against squatters. Washington's holdings in the western country were valued by him at approximately one hundred thousand dollars. He knew the West well and had great faith in its future. It is not surprising that he was greatly interested in the various plans of settlement and government of this region.

In 1774 Washington tried to form a company to develop the connection between the Potomac and Ohio rivers.' At that time, the city of Baltimore opposed the plan because it was feared that it would divert the western trade from Baltimore. Before this plan took any definite shape the war began and the scheme was abandoned for about ten years. With the surrender of claims to the western lands by the various states, especially the Virginia land cession of March 1, 1784, interest in opening an easy path for travel from tide-water to the Ohio country was revived. Two of the terms of this cession are of special importance. 4 One is the provision that these lands should be laid out into states, which should be admitted to the Union on equal terms with the original states. The other is the provision which reserved land for the soldiers who had conquered the Northwest. Undoubtedly, both of these provisions had their influence in the subsequent legislation with reference to the political development of the West and in the solution of the problem of paying the soldiers of the Revolution.

The fundamental problem at this time, however, was an economic one, in so far as the relation of the western country to the Union was concerned. It was generally felt that before any plan of political organization of the West could be put into operation it was necessary to bind the back-country to the sea-board by economic ties. Certainly the national leaders were aware of this necessity. In the same month that Virginia ceded her western lands to the Union Jefferson and Washington were in correspondence concerning the development of a water connection by way of the Potomac and Ohio rivers. Thus was Washington's plan of 1774 revived.

In a letter, dated March 15, 1784, Jefferson urged Washington to undertake this work of development. He said: ". . . I

* Sparks: Writings of Washington, IX, p. 31. 4 Journals of Congress, IX, pp. 67 ff .

Economic and Political Importance of the Northwest 3

am confident that would you either alone or jointly with any persons you think proper be willing to direct this business, it would remove the only objection the weight of which I apprehend." 5 And farther on in the same letter, he said: ". . . When you view me as not owning, nor ever having a prospect of owning one inch of land on any water either of the Potowmac [sic] or Ohio, it will tend to apologize for the trouble I have given you of this long letter, by showing that my zeal in this business is public and pure." 6 It was Jefferson's opinion that Virginia should not undertake to hold more territory than she could govern well, and, for this reason, he believed that the western boundary of the state should not extend beyond the mouth of the Kanawha. 6

It appears that Washington was in full accord with Jefferson with reference to what should be the policy of Virginia as regards the development of the western territory. In reply to Jefferson's letter, just quoted above, Washington wrote on March 29, 1784, in part as follows: "My opinion coincides perfectly with yours respecting the practicability of an easy and short communication between the waters of the Ohio and the Potomac, of the advantages of that communication and the preferences it has over all others, and of the policy there would be in this state and Maryland to adopt and render it facile." 7 While Washington also believed that it would be wise for Virginia to relinquish her claims to all lands beyond the meridian of the mouth of the Kanawha he expressed some doubt as to the popularity of such a policy and was of the opinion that it would meet with some opposition. In this connection he said: ". " . . I am mistaken if our chief magistrate will coincide with us in this opinion." 7

As the months went by interest in the western question developed. Governor Harrison and the General Assembly were realizing that some definite action should be taken at once. Harrison and Washington had some discussion of the problem. On the tenth of October, 1784, Washington wrote Governor Harrison of Virginia as follows: "I need not remark to you, Sir, that the flanks and rear of the United States are possessed by other powers, and formidable ones, too; nor how necessary it is to apply the cement of interest to bind all parts of the Union in indissoluble

* Old South Leaflets, VI, No. 127, p. 14.

7 Sparks: Writings of Washington, IX, pp. 31 ff.

bonds, especially that part which lies immediately west of us, with the middle states." 8 In this same letter Washington expressed the opinion that "the touch of a feather" would turn the people in the West in any direction. He favored immediate internal improvements to bind the Ohio Valley to the United States and recommended to Governor Harrison the appointment of a commission to survey the James and Potomac rivers from tide-water to their sources. He showed in detail the great advantages in distance, topography, and political conditions Virginia had at that time, pointing out especially the fact that the British still held the important posts at Detroit, Niagara, and Oswego, which cut off New York from connection with the West. Washington further suggested in his letter to Governor Harrison that the State of Virginia encourage private corporations to develop the navigation of the James and Potomac rivers.

When the efforts of France to have the western boundary of the United States fixed at the Alleghany Mountains in 1783 and the subsequent plots and conspiracies to alienate the West from the Union, fostered by France and Spain, are taken into account, Washington's fear that the West might be lost unless strenuous and immediate steps were taken to hold it was, beyond question, well founded. The strong positions on the north held by Great Britain made it easily possible for British influence to control and dominate the economic development of the Northwest unless a direct and accessible connection between the Ohio country and the Atlantic sea-board was established.

The suggestion of Washington's as regards the encouragement of private corporations to develop the James and Potomac rivers was followed. The James River Company was incorporated by an act of the Virginia General Assembly, January 5, 1785, with a capital stock of five hundred shares at $200 a share. 9 On the day before, January 4, 1785, the Potomack Company was incorporated with a capital stock of five hundred shares at $444 4/9 a share. 10 By an act of the General Assembly, Washington was given fifty shares of stock in the Potomack Company and one hundred shares of stock in the James River Company. 11 In a letter to Washington, informing him of this action, Governor

8 Sparks: Writings of Washington, IX, pp. 58-68. • Hening: Statutes at Large, XI, p. 450. 10 Ibid., p. 510. u Ibid., p. 525.

Economic and Political Importance of the Northwest 5

Harrison said: u As this compliment is intended by your country in commemoration of your assiduous cares to promote her interest, I hope you will have no scruples in accepting the present, and there-by gratifying their most earnest wishes." 12

Washington was much perplexed by this gift. In his letter of reply to Governor Harrison, January 23, 1785, he said: "No circumstance has happened to me since I left the walks of public life, which has so much embarrassed me." 18 He asked the Governor to advise him as to whether he should accept the gift. In the letter he said: "I will receive the full and frank opinions of my friends with thankfulness." 14

Washington became actively associated with these projects of internal improvement and gave much of his thought and time to them and though a large share-holder in these development companies, due to the action of the General Assembly, Washington's interest was not selfish. He believed this work of opening up the West to be of utmost importance. His attitude in the matter is clearly revealed in his correspondence. He wrote to Edmund Randolph, July 30, 1785, as follows: "Although it is not my intention to derive any pecuniary advantage from the generous gift of the Assembly of this State, in consequence of its gratuitous gift of shares in the navigation of each of the rivers Potomac and James; yet as I consider these undertakings of vast political and commercial importance to the States of the Atlantic, especially to those nearest the center of the Union, and adjoining the western territory, I can let no act of mine impede the progress of the work. I have therefore come to the determination to hold the shayes, which the treasurer was directed to subscribe for on my account, in trust for the use and benefit of the public; unless I should be able to discover, before the meeting of the Assembly, that it would be agreeable to it to have the product of the tolls arising from these shares applied as a fund, on which to establish two charity schools, one on each river, for the education and support of the children of the poor in this country, particularly the children of those men of this description who have fallen in the defence of the rights and liberties of it." w The dosing paragraph of this letter throws some light on the public interest in this mat-

u Sparks: IX, p. 83.

"Ibid.

u Ibid., p. 86.

ter of opening up a waterway into the Ohio country. To quote: "Perceiving by the advertisements of Messrs. Cabell, Buchanan, and Southall, that half the sum required by the Act, for opening and extending the navigation of the James River, is subscribed, and the twentieth of next month appointed for the subscribers to meet at Richmond, I take the liberty of giving you a power to act for me on this occasion. I would (having the accomplishment of this navigation much at heart) have attended in person, but the president and directors of the Potomac Company, by their own appointment, are to commence the survey of this river in the early part of next month; for which purpose I leave home tomorrow." 16

While the companies were being organized for the development of the navigation of the Potomac and James rivers the state legislatures of Virginia and Maryland voted appropriations to build jointly a road from the highest point of navigation on the Potomac to the river Cheat or Monongahela and these two states jointly applied to the legislature of Pennsylvania for permission to build a road from Fort Cumberland to Youghiogany. 17 The Virginia General Assembly also voted to open up the overland connection between the highest point of navigation ont he James River and the headwaters of the Kanawha River. 17 Thus it appears that the feeling of the economic importance of the West was becoming general and public sentiment was finding expression in legislative enactments in the states most vitally interested in the West.

16 Sparks: IX, p. 117.

Chapter II Early Attempts To Frame An Ordinance

FOR THE NORTHWEST

Not only were the states of Virginia and Maryland actively interested in the economic development of the West, but Congress more or less keenly felt the economic and political importance of the Ohio Valley. With all of its inefficiency and impotence and lack of strong, constructive leadership, Congress did some very necessary and effective work in laying the foundation for the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the greatest monument to the Congress for its service to the nation.

A commission was appointed by Congress to extinguish Indian claims to the national lands by treaties with the Indians. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix practically eliminated the Six Nations as contenders for possession of the Northwest. This treaty was of especial importance because of the great strength of the Six Nations and also because of their strategic position at the very gateway to the great Northwest. Washington wrote to Richard Henry Lee, then president of Congress, and expressed great satisfaction at the liberal cession of lands that had been gained by the treaty. He gave voice to the hope that the Western Indians would follow the example of the Six Nations and make as favorable terms with the commission then on their way to Fort Pitt to treat with them. In this same letter, 1 December 14, 1784, Washington called Lee's attention to the movement under way in Virginia and Maryland for the development of the James and Potomac rivers as highways to the West, and in this connection he said : " Would it not, at the same time, be worthy of the wisdom and attention of Congress to have the western waters well explored, the navigation of them fully ascertained and accurately laid down and a complete and perfect map made of the country; at least as far westerly as the Miamies? . . . Would there be any impropriety, do you think, Sir, in reserving for special sale all mines, minerals, and salt springs, in the general grants of land from the United States? The public, instead of the few knowing ones,

1 Sparks: IX, pp. 79-81.

might in that case receive the benefits which would proceed from the sale of them." Few men saw as clearly as Washington the great importance of working out a definite policy of organization and disposal of the western lands by Congress. Concerning this he wrote to Lee as follows: "To hit upon a happy medium price for western lands, for the prevention of monopoly on one hand and not discouraging useful settlers on the other, will no doubt require consideration; but ought not, in my opinion, to employ too much time before the terms are announced. The spirit of emigration is great."

After the Treaty of 1783, the pressure of the westward movement had greatly increased. Not only Washington, but members of Congress and especially the people in the West felt the need of some political organization of the territory beyond the mountains. Sentiment in favor of nationalizing all western land was becoming general. In 1781, Virginia, following the suggestion of the New York Legislature, 2 opened the way for the solution of the vexing problem of conflicting state claims to western lands by the cession of her lands in the Northwest to the national government. Later the terms of this act of cession were so modified as to retain the Virginia Military Reserve, over which the State of Virginia was to exercise no political control. (The deed as finally executed is in the Journals of Congress for March 1, 1784. 8 )

The terms on which this cession was made are of great importance because they very definitely influenced the policy of the national government in dealing with the lands acquired in the Northwest, and by thus setting a precedent, materially affected the general policy of the government in the organization of the public domain into territories and states. In brief outline the important terms of the cession are as follows: (1) The land was to be laid out in states, with the size roughly designated. This provision was subsequently modified at the request of Congress. (2) The states formed were to have a republican form of government and were to be admitted to the Union. (3) The United States was to reimburse Virginia for the conquest of the Northwest. (4) The French-Canadian citizens within the bounds of the cession were to be secure in their rights. (5) Not more than one hundred fifty thousand acres were reserved for George R.

* New York offered to cede her western lands in 1780. 1 Journals of the Continental Congress, IV, pp. 67 ft.

Early Attempts to Frame an Ordinance for the Northwest 9

Clark and his officers and soldiers. The shape of this reserve was definitely stated. (6) The United States was to grant other military lands if those south of the Ohio River proved insufficient to meet the legal claims of the soldiers of the Revolution against the State of Virginia. The location of such lands was roughly specified. (7) All other land was to be for a common fund for all the states.

Massachusetts and other states followed the example of Virginia and surrendered their claims to the Northwest. With the extinguishment of the state claims to the Northwest, the necessity of Congressional action in dealing with this territory became all the more urgent. In the same month that the Virginia cession finally became effective a committee in Congress, composed of Jefferson, Chase of Maryland, and Howell of Rhode Island, reported the Ordinance of 1784 for the organization and government of the newly acquired territory. It was so drawn as to make effective the conditions stipulated in the Virginia cession. This ordinance did not mention education. The original draft contained a clause prohibiting slavery after 1800, but this was stricken out by amendment to the ordinance, as revised by the committee, and reported in April, 1784. 4 The chief importance of this Ordinance of 1784 is in the fact that it nationalized the Northwest. While it was legally in effect until 1787, it was practically a dead letter because no adequate provision was made for the sale of land to actual settlers.

It evidently was thought by the committee which framed the Ordinance of 1784, that Congress would make the necessary provisions for the disposal of the lands. Jefferson wrote Madison, April 25, 1784: "The minuter circumstances of selling the ungranted lands will be provided in an ordinance already prepared but not reported." 6 Such an ordinance was eventually reported by a committee of which Jefferson was chairman, but failed of passage, six states voting against it. 6 The following year, May 20, 1785, there was enacted the well-known land ordinance which provided for the survey and sale of the western lands. It contained this provision: "There shall be reserved the Lot No. 16, of every township, for the maintenance of public schools, within

4 Old South Leaflets, VI, No. 127.

* Univ. of Nebraska Sent. Papers: Jay A. Barrett: Evolution of the Ordinance of 2787, p. 27; Bancroft: Hist, of Formation of Constitution, I, p. 356.

• Randall: Life of Jefferson, I, p. 400.

io Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances

the said township." 7 The original draft of the ordinance as presented on April 26, 1785, provided for townships seven miles square. It was so amended, May 20, 1 785, as to provide for townships six miles square, thus instituting the plan of congressional survey that has been followed to the present time. 8 Congress made provision that these lands thus surveyed should be sold in square mile tracts and by townships. 9

Washington had no high opinion of this plan of sale. He wrote to William Grayson, in Congress, August 22, 1785, criticising the disposition of Congress not to exercise the little authority they possessed. He said in part: "Instance your late ordinance respecting the disposal of the western lands, in which no state with the smallest propriety could have obtruded an interference. No doubt but the information of Congress from the back country is better than mine, respecting the operations of this ordinance; but I have understood from some sensible people, that, besides running they know not where to purchase, the lands are of so versatile a nature that, to the end of time, they will not, by those who are acquainted therewith, be purchased either in townships or by square miles." 10 Washington referred here to the curious compromise in the ordinance, due to the conflict between the New England township idea and the southern preference for a smaller unit. The ordinance provided that alternate townships should be sub-divided into "lots" or sections of six hundred forty acres — a square mile — and sold by sections. Thus one half of the townships were to be sold entire and the other half were to be sold in tracts of square miles.

Washington had stated to Hugh Williamson, in Congress, a few months earlier, his ideas concerning a plan for the disposal of western lands. The occasion for this expression on the part of Washington was the Treaty of Fort Stanwix which quieted the claims of the Six Nations to the Northwest. He wrote Williamson, March 15, 1785, as follows: "I thank you, Sir, for your account of the last Indian treaty. I had received a similar one before, but do not comprehend by which line our northern limits are to be fixed. Two things seem naturally to result from this

7 Journals of American Congress, IV, pp. 520-22. See Appendix A.

8 History of North America, IX: Geer: Louisiana Purchase and Westward Movement, pp. 58-75.

• Journals of American Congress, IV, pp. 520-22. See Appendix A. 10 Sparks: IX, p. 126.

Early Attempts to Frame an Ordinance for the Northwest II

agreement with the Indians; the terms on which the ceded lands are to be disposed of, and the mode of settling them. The first, in my opinion, ought not to be delayed: and the second ought not to be too diffusive. Compact and progressive seating will give strength to the Union, admit law, and good government, and federal aids at an early period. Sparse settlements in several new states, or a large territory of one, will have the directly contrary effects; and while it opens a large field to land-jobbers and speculators, who are prowling about like wolves in many shapes, will injure the real occupiers and useful citizens and consequently the public interest.

" If a tract of country, of convenient size for a new state, contiguous to the present settlements on the Ohio, is laid off, and a certain proportion of the land seated, or at least granted before any other state is marked out, and no land is to be obtained beyond the limits of it, we shall I conceive, reap great political advantages from such a line of conduct, and without it we may be involved in much trouble and perplexity before any new state will be well organized or contribute anything to the support of the Union." 11 While there is nothing original in these ideas of Washington's, they embody one of the sanest points of view developed as regards the sale of western lands. The Ordinance of 1785 was a compromise measure, and like nearly all compromises, was by no means perfect.

New England influence had great weight with the committee that framed the ordinance and with Congress in its passage. Tradition and precedent added weight to the influence of New England. The colonial township surveys and the custom of " township planting" of New England had proved more successful than the southern plan of " indiscriminate locations," with the inevitable over-lapping of surveys. When Grayson's committee first reported the ordinance, Ruf us King, a leading member of the committee, sent a draft of it to Colonel Timothy Pickering and wrote him: "You will find thereby, that your ideas have had great weight with the Committee who reported the ordinance." 12 On May 8, King again wrote to Pickering that they had been forced to "give up the plan of townships so as to admit the sale of one half of the townships in lots of a square mile." 1S After the

M Octavius Pickering: The Life of Timothy Pickering, I, p. 511.

final passage of the ordinance, King wrote to Pickering: "All parties who have advocated particular modes of disposing of this western territory have relinquished some things they wished, and the ordinance is a compromise of opinions." 14

The conflicting ideas in the committee concerning the ordinance were clearly set forth by Grayson, the chairman of the committee. He wrote Washington as follows: "Some gentlemen looked upon it as a matter of revenue only, and that it was true policy to get the money without parting with inhabitants to populate the country, and thereby preventing the land in original states from depreciating. Others (I think) were afraid of interference with the lands now at market in the individual states. Part of the Eastern gentlemen wish to have the land sold in such a manner as to suit their own people, of whom I believe there will be great numbers, particularly from Connecticut. But others are apprehensive of the consequences which may result from the new states taking their position in the confederacy. They, perhaps, wish that this event may be delayed as long as possible." 16

The advocates of the Ordinance of 1785 presented strong ■

arguments in its support. It was pointed out that congressional |

surveys would disclose a great deal of valuable information con- j

cerning the western lands; and would preclude "controversy on account of bounds to the latest ages. " It was also urged that surveys into squares were the least expensive because, in many cases, only two sides of the square would be run. Sale by auction was defended on the ground that it gave equal opportunity to those not on the land. The sale by townships was advocated because it would make an appeal to the prospective settlers from the New England States. Especial emphasis was laid upon the provision which dedicated section sixteen in each township to public education. The chief advantage of this provision, according to its advocates, was that it would promote compact settlement. 16 As regards this point, Grayson said: ". . * The idea of a township, with the temptation of a support for religion and education, holds forth an inducement for the purpose of purchasing and settling together; that the southern mode would defeat this end by intruding the idea of indiscriminate locations and settlements,

14 Octavius Pickering: The Life of Timothy Pickering, I, p. 516. w Bancroft: I, p. 425; Treat: The National Land System, pp. 32-33. 16 Treat: p. 31.

Early Attempts to Frame an Ordinance for the Northwest 13

which would have a tendency to destroy all these inducements to emigration which are derived from friendships, religion and relative connections." 17 There seems to have been no clear consciousness on the part of the committee or of Congress of the full significance of this educational provision. Apparently, it was viewed only as a selling point for the disposal of the western lands in compact settlements. The thought of laying a permanent foundation for a public school system seems not to have entered into the discussion of the matter.

One point urged in favor of the Ordinance of 1785 was the ease and simplicity with which title to land could be obtained. As one of the advocates of the measure at the time expressed it: "The present plan excludes all the formalities of warrants, entries, locations, returns, and caveats, as the first and last process is a deed." 18 The importance of this feature of the ordinance can scarcely be over-emphasized. It was a marked improvement on the clumsy and inaccurate methods then prevalent in Virginia and throughout the South. It set a precedent that has been generally followed and which has done much to encourage the sale of public lands.