curious information. In April, 1784, a plan for the temporary government of the newly acquired territory was reported by Mr. Jefferson; it contained a provision prohibiting slavery northwest of the Ohio, after the year 1800; and this was the origin of the anti-slavery article embodied in the ordinance of 1787, and so often referred to in political writings and in congressional debate. Mr. Jefferson was in France as Minister in 1785-6-7, when the subject of the future government was often under discussion in Congress. It has been generally conceded, that to Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, belongs the honour of having drawn up the ordinance of 1787, and of having been one of the most strenuous supporters of the anti-slavery proviso; but the original paternity of this important clause must in all juctice be ascribed to the apostle of liberty, Thomas Jefferson; later times, later events, and a later application of the principles of the renowned sixth article of the ordinance of 1787, have conspired to wrest the deserved honours from Jefferson and Dane, and to obscure its origin by giving it the name of the "Wilmot proviso."

On the 19th of April, 1784, Mr. Spaight, of North Carolina, moved to strike from Mr. Jefferson's plan, the clause prohibiting slavery after 1800, which motion prevailed. From that day until the 23d, the plan was debated and altered, and then passed unanimously, with the exception of South Carolina. By this proposition, the territory was to have been divided into States, by parallels of latitude, and meridian lines; this it was thought would have made ten States, which were to have been named as follows, beginning at the northwest corner and going southwardly: Sylvania, Michigania, Chersonesus, Assenisipia, Metropotamia, Illinoia, Saratoga, Washington, Polypotamia, and Pelesipia. Surely, (says Sparks,) the hero of Mount Vernon must have shuddered to find himself in such company.

NOTE K. Page 173.

THE substance of the following note is taken from the remarks of Mr. Benton, of Missouri, made in the House of Congress on the 25th of April, 1854, on the subject of the provisions of the "Nebraska Bill;" the remarks exhibit in a lucid view the character and effect of the several compromises on the subject of slavery, which have their particular bearing on the north-western portion of the Union. Its importance may justify this note.

"There are three slavery compromises in our history, which connect themselves with the foundation and preservation of this Union. First, the territorial partition ordinance of 1787, with its clause for the recovery VOL. I.-25

of fugitive slaves; secondly, the contemporaneous constitutional recog nition of slavery, in the States which chose to have it, with the fugitive slave recovery clause in the same instrument; thirdly, the Missouri partition line of 1820, with the same clause annexed for the recovery of fugitive slaves.

"All three of these compromises are part and parcel of the same policy; and neither of them could have been formed without the other, nor either of them without the fugitive slave recovery clause incorporated in it. The anti slavery clause in the ordinance of 1787 could not have been adopted, (as was proved by its three years' rejection,) without the fugitive slave recovery clause added to it; the constitution could not have been formed without its recognition of slavery in the States which chose it, and the guarantee of the right to recover slaves fleeing into the free States; the Missouri controversy could not have been settled without a partition of Louisiana between free and slave soil; and that partition could not have been made without the addition of the same clause for the recovery of fugitive slaves. Thus all three compromises are settlements of existing questions, and intended to be perpetual. They are all three of equal moral validity; the constitutional compromise is guarded by a higher obligation, in consequence of its incorporation in that instrument; but it in no way differs from the other two, in the cir cumstances which induced it, the policy which guards it, or the consequences which would flow from its abrogation. A proposition to destroy the slavery compromises in the constitution, would be an open proposition to break up the Union; the attempt to abrogate the compromises of 1787 and 1820, would be virtual attempts to destroy the harmony of the Union, and prepare it for dissolution by destroying the confidence and affection in which it is founded.

"The Missouri compromise of 1820 is a continuation of the ordinance of 1787-its extension to the since-acquired territory west of the Mississippi; and no way differing from it, either in principle or in detail. The ordinance of 1787 divided the then territory of the United States about equally between the free and slave States; the Missouri compromise line did the same by the additional territory of the United States as it stood in 1820: and in both cases it was done by act of Congress, and was the settlement of a difficulty which was to last for ever. They are both, with their fugitive slave recovery clauses, and the similar clause in the constitution, part and parcel of the same transaction-different articles in the same general settlement. Thus the three measures are one, and the ordinance of 1787 father of the other two. It led to the adoption of the fugitive slave clause in the constitution, and we may say, to the formation of the constitution itself, which could not have been adopted without that

elause, and the recognition of slave property in which it was founded. This vital fact results of itself from the history of the case. In March, of the year 1784, the Virginia delegation in the then Congress of the confederation, headed by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Monroe, conveyed the north-western territory to the thirteen United States. In the month of April ensuing, the organizing mind of Mr. Jefferson, always bent upon systems and administration, brought in an ordinance for the government of the territory so conveyed, with the anti-slavery clause as a part of it, to take effect in the year 1800; but without a clause for the recovery of fugitive slaves. For the want of this provision, the anti-slavery clause was opposed by the slave-holding States, and rejected; and the ordinance passed without it. In July, of the year 1787, the ordinance was remodelled; the anti-slave clause, with the fugitive slave recovery clause, as they now stand, were inserted in it; and, in that shape, the ordinance had the unanimous vote of every State present-eight in the whole-and an equal number of slave and free States present. Thus it is clear that the anti-slavery clause in the ordinance of 1787, could not have passed without the fugitive slave recovery clause annexed. They were inseparable in their birth, and must be so in their life; and those who love one, must accept the other.

"This was done in the month of July, in the city of New York, where the Congress of the confederation then sat. The National Convention was sitting at the same time, in the city of Philadelphia, at work upon the Federal Constitution. The two bodies were in constant communication with each other, and some leading members (as Mr. Madison and General Hamilton) were members of each, and attending by turns in each. The constitution was finished in September, and received the fugitive slave recovery clause immediately after its insertion in the ordinance. It was the work of the same hands, and at the same time, in both instruments; and it is well known that the constitution could not have been formed without that clause. Thus the compromise clause in the ordinance is father to the compromise clause in the constitution, and the Missouri compromise results from both. All three are founded in the same circumstances, induced by the same considerations, and directed by the same policy—that of the peace, harmony, and perpetuity of this Union."

In the memorable debate in the Senate of the United States, in January, 1830, Mr. Webster, in reply to Mr. Hayne, took occasion to advert to the ordinance of 1787, giving full credit to both Mr. Jefferson and to Nathan Dane, for their framing, modifying, and supporting that instrument, and the very important principles contained in it. In the course

of his remarks, speaking of the provision introduced by Mr. Jefferson in 1784, viz., “that, after the year 1800, there shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, of which the party shall have been duly convicted," he observes that Mr. Spaight moved to strike out this paragraph; on the question, "Shall these words stand as part of the plan?" &c., seven States, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, voted in the affirmative; three States, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina, voted in the negative; and North Carolina was divided. As the consent of nine States was necessary, the words could not stand, and were struck out accordingly. Mr. Jefferson voted for the clause, but was overruled by his colleagues.

In March, 1785, Mr. King, of Massachusetts, seconded by Mr. Ellery, of Rhode Island, proposed the formerly rejected article, with this addition, “and that this regulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the constitution between the thirteen original States, and each of the States, as described in the Resolve," &c. On this clause, which provided the adequate and thorough security, the eight northern States at that time voted affirmatively, and the four southern States negatively. The votes of nine States were not yet obtained, and thus the provision was again rejected by the southern States. The perseverance of the north held out, and two years afterward the object was attained.

The ordinance of 1787 expresses just sentiments on the great subject of civil and religious liberty; such sentiments were common, and abound in the state papers of that day. But this ordinance did that which was not so common, and which is not, even now, universal. It set forth and declared as a high and binding duty of government itself, to encourage schools and advance the means of education; on the plain reason, that religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government, and to the happiness of mankind. One observation further: the important provision incorporated into the constitution of the United States, and several of those of the States, restraining legislative power, in questions of private right, and from impairing the obligation of contracts, is first introduced and established, (as far as I am informed,) as matter of expressed, written, constitutional law, in this ordinance of 1787.

These two posts were not the only ones which the British occupied in derogation of the treaty; others also were withheld, and new places of defence erected.

The following correspondence between the British commander of a fort on the Maumee, and General Anthony Wayne, the day after the victory of the latter over the confederated Indians, on the Maumee, will be interesting, as showing the feelings of the American commander at the unwarrantable retention and occupation of the frontier posts by the British; and the slight thread upon which hung, at that time, the event of a renewal of hostilities between the United States and Great Britain. Very little was wanting of provocation on the part of Major Campbell, to have induced Wayne to attack the fort, and add its destruction to that of the property of the Indians in the vicinity, and even within pistolshot of the fort. General Wayne, in his report says, "the garrison were compelled to remain tacit spectators to this general devastation and conflagration, among which were the houses, stores, and property of Colonel McKee, the British Indian Agent, and principal stimulator of the war now existing between the United States and the savages." Marshall, in his Life of Washington, remarks that "hostilities were only avoided by the prudent acquiescence of the British commander, in this devastation of property, within the range of his guns.”

Correspondence reported by General Wayne.

No. I.

MIAMI, Maumee River, August 21st, 1794. Sir-An army of the United States of America, said to be under your command, having taken post on the banks of the Miami, (Maumee,) for upwards of the last twenty-four hours, almost within the reach of the guns of this fort, being a post belonging to his majesty the King of Great Britain, occupied by his majesty's troops, and which I have the ' honour to command, it becomes my duty to inform myself, as speedily as possible, in what light I am to view your making such near approaches