212

The Northwest Ordinance and Slavery

An investigation into why the Continental Congress agreed to prohibit slavery in the Northwest Territory turns up remarkably meager surviving evidence.

An early draft of the ordinance prepared by a committee came before Congress in April 1787 but was soon sidelined for lack of a quorum. A second committee appointed on July 9 revised the plan extensively. Its members included two men from Virginia and one each from South Carolina, New York, and Massachusetts. Congress considered this draft on July 11 and again on July 12, with slight revisions. No draft up to this point made any mention of slavery.

On July 13, at the third and final reading, article 6 made its first appearance. The records are silent about the debate, if any, that occurred in response to the article’s inclusion. The final document was passed unanimously by the eight states present: Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

DOCUMENT 1

Northwest Ordinance of 1787

The idea to prohibit slavery was borrowed from Thomas Jefferson’s failed proposal in the 1784 ordinance. The fugitive slave provision, entirely new to the confederation government, was implanted in the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1788.

Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.

Source: Journals of the Continental Congress, ed. Roscoe R. Hill (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1936), 32:339, 343, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.

DOCUMENT 2

Two Letters by Delegates in Congress

Nathan Dane of Massachusetts served on both drafting committees. Rufus King was a Massachusetts politician. Virginian William Grayson chaired the congress in July 1787. James Monroe of Virginia had headed a 1786 committee to draft the ordinance. Newspapers printed the full ordinance but attracted no discussion of article 6. No further commentary has come to light in private correspondence.

Nathan Dane to Rufus King, New York, July 16, 1787

Dear Sir

. . . We have been much engaged in business for ten or twelve days past for a part of which we have had 8 States. . . . We have been employed about several objects—; the principal ones of which have been the Government inclosed [the Northwest Ordinance] and the Ohio purchase. . . . We tried one day to patch up M[onroe]’s Systems of W.[estern] Govern[men]t. Started new Ideas and committed the whole to Carrington, Dane, R. H. Lee, Smith, & Kean—we met several times and at last agreed on some principles at least Lee, Smith & myself. . . . When I drew the ordinance which passed (in a few words excepted) as I originally formed it, I had no idea the States would agree to the sixth Art. prohibiting Slavery—; as only Massa[chusetts] of the Eastern States was present—; and therefore omitted it in the draft—; but finding the House favourably disposed on this subject, after we had completed the other parts I moved the art[icle]—; which was agreed to without opposition. . . .

William Grayson to James Monroe, New York, August 8, 1787

Dear Sir,

. . . Congress has passed the Ordnance for the government of the Western country, in a manner some thing different from the one which you drew, though I expect the departure is not so essential but that it will meet your approbation. . . . The clause respecting slavery was agreed to by the Southern members for the purpose of preventing Tobacco & Indigo from being made on the N.W. side of the Ohio, as well as for sevl. other political reasons.

Source: Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789, ed. Paul H. Smith (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1976), 24:358–59, 394, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwdglink.html.

213

DOCUMENT 3

Early Residents Petition the U.S. Congress

Territorial population in the early 1790s consisted largely of longtime French settlers in the Illinois country, some of whom owned slaves, and new migrants from Virginia and Kentucky. Several groups sent petitions to the federal government to narrow article 6, arguing that slaves resident before 1787 (and their offspring) should continue as slaves, to preserve slave owners’ property rights. This petition of 1796 took aim at the whole article, but the federal government offered no reply.

Your petitioners humbly hope that they will not be thought presumptuous in venturing to disapprove of the article concerning slavery in toto, as contrary not only to the interest, but almost to the existence of the country they inhabit, where laborers can not be procured to assist in cultivating the grounds under one dollar per day. . . . Your petitioners do not wish to increase the number of slaves already in the dominions of the United States; all they hope for or desire is, that they may be permitted to introduce from any of the United States such persons, and such only, as by the laws of such States are slaves therein.

Source: Jacob Piatt Dunn, Slavery Petitions and Papers (Indianapolis: Bowen-Merrill, 1894), 6, http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record /000317559.

DOCUMENT 4

Indenture Record of Jacob, 1805

Indiana’s indenture law of 1805 allowed two parties to voluntarily enter a service contract. One of forty-seven such contracts in Knox County, Indiana, involved Eli Hawkins from South Carolina and his onetime slave Jacob, age sixteen. Before a court clerk they . . .

. . . determined and agreed among themselves . . . that said Jacob shall and will serve the said Eli Hawkins and his assigns for term of Ninety years . . . the said Eli Hawkins and his assigns providing the said Jacob with necessary and sufficient provisions and clothing, washing and lodging, according to his degree and state . . . after the expiration of said term the said Jacob shall be free to all intents and purposes.

Source: Daniel Owen, “Circumvention of Article VI of the Ordinance of 1787,” Indiana Magazine of History 36 (1940): 115, http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/imh/article/view/7219/8151.

DOCUMENT 5

Territorial and Federal Censuses

Indiana and Illinois together formed the Indiana Territory in 1800. They became separate states in 1816 and 1818. Study the census data below. Does the enumeration of slaves seem surprising? Where would the indentured Jacob be counted?

Questions for Analysis

Ask Historical Questions: Did article 6 actually outlaw slavery in the Northwest Territory? Did it mean to? Was there a plan to enforce it? Did it succeed? How does the census data for Indiana and Illinois shape your answers?

Recognize Viewpoints: Who do you think likely wrote article 6? How do you explain its easy passage by a committee largely representing slave states and by a congress dominated by major slave states? Who do you think might have favored or opposed the article? Do you think young Jacob in Document 4 would have considered it a success?

Consider the Context: How do you explain the near-total absence of commentary on article 6 in the 1780s? And the lack of response by the federal government to the petitions? What does the federal government’s lack of response to the petitions that opposed the article suggest about the larger political context of the era? Was the federal government at all ready to tackle the problem of slavery?