James Rohrer on the Northwest Ordinance
June 16th, 2008 • Related • Filed Under
In my many years of teaching college history I have learned that beginning students often resist reading primary sources, and especially pieces of legislation. Diaries, newspaper articles, memoirs, and contemporary novels all seem to be more accessible. Many students complain that reading the more technical language of old laws is BORING!
But beneath the technical language of many laws are passionate convictions and deep social conflicts. Students of history need to gain experience decoding these tensions. Few pieces of legislation have had more far reaching consequences than the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, a law that helped shape the process of creating new territories and states–building a new nation–but at the same time helped to divide the new republic socially and politically by prohibiting slavery northwest of the Ohio River.
Students would do well to ponder the timing of this legislation. The Congress that passed the Northwest Ordinance met just as another group of American leaders was drafting a new U.S. Constitution that would write slavery into the very fabric of the new nation. How might we account for the seeming contradiction? Why did one body move to limit the sphere of slavery while another body recognized and protected the right to hold slaves?
James R. Rohrer (Ph.D. The Ohio State University) is Associate Professor of History at the University of Nebraska-Kearney, where he teaches courses in early America and American Religious History. He is the author of Keepers of the Covenant: Frontier Missions and the Decline of Congregationalism, 1774-1818 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).
Pingback by SchlagerBlog » Blog Archive » Milestone Documents Blog now live on 26 June 2008:
[...] first posts at the site include a discussion of the Northwest Ordinance and a commentary on censorship and the publishing industry, which of course involves the First [...]
Comment by John Ragosta on 26 June 2008:
James Rohrer’s comments on the issue of slavery in the Northwest Ordinance and the value of primary documents is well-taken; yet, to appreciate the NW Ordinance’s slavery provisions one must at least note that this was a retreat from an earlier proposal (led by Jefferson) to ban slavery in all territories (both Northwest and Southwest — including the current states of Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky). This proposal failed of passage by one vote. So, the “liberal” stand made by the Continental Congress in 1787 was a retreat from the proposals of only a few years earlier (1784 as I recall). This is but one of many examples of early political leaders recognizing that slavery was simply unjustifiable on principle but allowing practical considerations to get the better of them — a far longer story than we have space for here.
On another front, in terms of the great interest of these primary documents, Rohrer might also mention the decision of the Congress to remove a clause from the proposed Ordinance which would have set aside land throughout the Northwest (current states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin) to benefit religion. What was left was a thin admonition on the importance of religion and education to public virtue. Madison was very pleased with the omission as he recognized the necessity of extending the notion of the separation of church and state from his native Virginia (recognized in 1786 with the adoption of Jefferson’s Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom)to the national government. Primary documents are so important, in part, because of their context.
John Ragosta: PhD
Comment by James Rohrer on 27 June 2008:
John Ragosta is of course absolutely right in his comment that context is crucial. On its face the Northwest Ordinance seems “liberal” vis a vis the Constitution (at least on the matter of slavery), but compared with Jefferson’s earlier proposal that failed by a single vote, it was surely a half-measure. Imagine how different the future course of the United States might have been had Jefferson’s proposal passed!
As I write this, I imagine a classroom full of survey history students who are reading the Northwest Ordinance as part of an assignment. A hand goes up. “But Professor Rohrer, how can we know from reading the document about all the stuff that didn’t get in? How can we know the context?” And I say, “You can’t. But if you follow the leads given to you, like a detective, the bigger story will start to emerge.”
Each document in the Milestones Collection is one piece of a bigger puzzle (or if you prefer a different analogy, the tip of an iceberg). Reading these documents becomes more fun if you approach them as clues to a mystery. Analyze them with care, interrogate them. Why would the Congress ban slavery only in the area north of the Ohio River? And does it contradict the actions taken by the Constitutional framers in the same year? Then start to dig for answers to these questions. As Dr. Rogasta observes, you will soon find a much more complex story than the document alone could possibly reveal. My advice is not to wait for your professor to tell you in lecture what the document “means” or give you all the background context. It is far more fun to start questioning and uncovering the larger story yourself. Happy digging!