* A folding map showing this division appeared in Francis Bailey's Pocket Almanac for 1785, published at Philadelphia, with a copy of the ordinance in the body of the little book. The same plate, with Bailey's name erased, was used in John McCulloch's Introd. to the Hist. of America, designed to instruct American youth in the elements of the history of their own country (Philad., 1787). It was reëngraved in the Reise durch einige der mittlern und südlichen vereinigten nord Amerikanischen Staaten, in den Jahren 1783 und 1784, von Johann David Schöpf (Erlangen, 1788), and from this last the above cut is reproduced. The only other map showing these divisions, which I have seen, is one on a much larger scale, crudely "engraved and printed by the author," John Fitch, and called A map of the north west parts of the United States of America. It bears this note: "The several divisions on the north west of the Ohio is the form VOL. VII. - 34

the name of Franklin,1 with John Sevier, the hero of King's Mountain, as governor, where he and his legisla

war.

ture maintained a precarious existence for four years.2 The people of the district were by no means unanimous in the scheme, and a considerable portion looked with distrust upon a tendency to ally the new government with Spain. The parent State supported this distrustful class by annulling the act of cession (Nov., 1784) before Congress could accept it, and reëstablishing its own sway. The country was for a while distracted with a conflicting allegiance. By 1786 the conservative party had gathered strength enough to give warning of the collapse to the premature State, which came in 1787. Sevier was tried for high-treason and convicted, but was subsequently pardoned. For two years more (1788-1790) the territory remained a part of North Carolina, till finally (April 2, 1790) ceded,8 when it became a territory of the Union, and in 1796 it was admitted to the Union as the State of Tennessee.4

It was in 1784 that Washington, reviving in his retirement at Mount Vernon his interests in the trans-Alleghany lands,5 set out on a tour of inspection, and developed his plan of a water communication between the sources of the Potomac and those of the tributaries of the Ohio. The tide of emigration was already beginning, largely made up of soldiers in the late It was on this trip that Washington first met Albert Gallatin, who, at the suggestion of Patrick Henry,

SKETCH MAP OF CESSIONS.*

1 It is sometimes given Frankland; but Franklin was assured by the movers in the matter that the State was named for him. Franklin's Works, x. 260, 266, 290; Hildreth, iii. 469, 539; Albach's Annals, 507.

2 On Sevier, see "Knoxville in the Olden Time" in Harper's Mag., lxxi. 69; Parton's Jackson, i. 230.

8 But subject to such conditions and claims as left no land for the public domain (Hildreth, iv. 205).

* Gannett's Boundaries of the U. S., 108; I. W. Andrews in Mag. Amer. Hist., Oct., 1887, p. 306; Parton's Jackson, i. ch. 15; McMaster, ii. 285; Jameson, Const. Convention, 159; J. G. M. Ramsey's Annals of Tennessee (Charleston, 1853; Philad., 1853, 1860, Sabin, xvi. no. 67,729).

Field (Indian Bibliog., nos. 670, 1,261) finds that Ramsey adds greatly to original material, beyond what he took from John Haywood's Civil and Political Hist. of Ten

nessee to 1796 (Knoxville, 1823, - now rare, and worth say
$30-$50); W. H. Carpenter's Hist. of Tennessee (Philad.,
1857); W. W. Clayton's Davidson County, Tenn. The
history of the early Cumberland settlements is told in A. W.
Putnam's Hist. of Middle Tennessee, or the life and times
of Gen. James Robertson (Nashville, 1859). W. R. Gar-
rett's paper on The northern boundary of Tennessee (Nash-
ville, 1884) covers the question of the bounds on Ken-
tucky.

J. R. Gilmore's John Sevier as a Commonwealth builder
(New York, 1887) is founded in part on material gathered
by Ramsey since he wrote his Annals. Isaac Smucker on
the "Southwestern Territory" in the Mag. Western Hist.,
Aug., 1887; Poole's Index, p. 1294. James D. Davis's
Hist. of Memphis (Memphis, 1873) begins with the grants
to John Rice and John Ramsey in 1789.

5 Cf. Mag. Amer. Hist., Nov., 1887, p. 437.

which that country is to be laid off into according to an ordinance of Congress of May 20, 1785." Fitch dedicates the map to Thomas Hutchins, Geographer of the United States, and acknowledges his indebtedness to the surveys of Hutchins and William M. Murray. Whittlesey (Fitch, xvi.) says that Fitch took his impressions on a cedar press in Bucks County, Penn., where he sold his map at six shillings to raise money to follow his steamboat experiments. (Cf. Preble's Steam Navigation, p. 13.) There is a recognition of these proposed States in a legend across the country on the map in Winterbotham's America; but no lines are defined.

The most convenient record of the subsequent actual division of this territory into States, with the consecutive changes,
is in Gannett's Boundaries of the U. S. (Washington, 1885), and in Donaldson's Public Domain (p. 160). A series of
sketch maps in Farmer's Detroit and Michigan (p. 86) show at a glance territorial changes, particularly as they affected
the limits of the territory now known as Michigan at different times (1787, 1800, 1802, 1805, 1816, 1818, 1834, 1836).

Surveys of the Ohio and Mississippi (below the Ohio) were made by Andrew Ellicott in 1796, and are given in his
Journal (Philad., 1803).

* The region 1, 1, was acquired under the specific bounds of the treaty of 1782-83, which gave to the United States all territory east of the Mississippi, supposing, however, that the Mississippi reached the 49° parallel, — the geographical error compelling the line to follow a meridian north till it struck that parallel. The tract 2, 2, was a continuation of the Massachusetts charter extreme bounds westerly, and was the region ceded by that State. Her claims to the lands in Western New York were based on the same rights, which the charter to the Duke of York for Eastern New York had not annulled. Region 3 was Connecticut's claim for similar charter rights, which also involved claims to the Susquehanna country in Pennsylvania, over which there was a long controversy (see Vol. VI. p. 680). The small triangular region at the northwest corner of Pennsylvania was also in the Connecticut cession, and was later sold to Pennsylvania by the general government. The country northwest of the Ohio, marked 4, was the cession of Virginia; but this, as well as a portion of 5, was also ceded by New York, on the ground that treaties with the Iroquois had given that State rights over the lands of the tribes tributary to the Iroquois. Kentucky (5) is sometimes considered a cession of Virginia, but she parted with her jurisdiction over it only to let the territory become a State, and it never fell into the public domain. The North Carolina cession was Tennessee (6). The narrow strip (7) south of Tennessee was ceded by South

had crossed the mountains in search of a place to settle. Washington saw the danger of the trade of the new country tending by the easier water channels to Canada or Louisiana, if a passage for merchandise and peltries through the mountains could not be made. Jefferson was looking forward to the time when the valley of the Hudson might be the rival of that of the Potomac, as the readiest method of opening communication with these Western lands.1 Washington urged his project of a canal upon Virginia and Maryland; and as a result the Potomac Company was formed, with Washington as its president, a position he held until he took the Execu tive Chair of the States in 1789.2

Carolina, and was afterwards divided between Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Georgia's cession was 8, but there was some question if the southern part of it, below the parallel of the Yazoo River (d), as having been joined to West Florida by England in 1768, was not added to the public domain by the treaty of 1782-83. The peninsula of Florida (9) as far west as the Appalachicola (c) was acquired by the treaty of 1819; but whether the westerly part to the Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain was so acquired admits of argument. That treaty confirmed the United States in possession; but they had claimed that the Louisiana purchase extended to the Appalachicola. The present disposition of bounds carries the State of Louisiana easterly to Pearl River (a), and Florida westerly to Perdido River (6), — the intervening territory being divided between the States of Alabama and Mississippi.

* After a print by Edwin in the Analectic Mag., Aug., 1814, with a memoir. It is the upper portion of a portrait by Robert Fulton, representing the poet sitting and holding a manuscript. This was engraved by A. B. Durand for the National Portrait Gallery, 1834; and it is also given by C. B. Todd in his History of Reading, Conn., 1880, and in his Life and Letters of Joel Barlow (1886). Cf. Lossing's War of 1812, p. 94. A portrait by Barbier, engraved by Ruotte, appeared in the fifth corrected edition of his Vision of Columbus, at Paris, in

1793.

In 1785 (April 19) Massachusetts ceded the territory 1 which she claimed under her charter as extending westward beyond the country where her title had been extinguished by later grants, being a region wide enough to be bounded easterly by the southerly end of Lake Huron and its water passage to its outlet in Lake Erie, and so stretching westerly across and beyond Lake Michigan till it reached the Mississippi River. The ter ritory above the northern line of this strip (43° 43′ 12′′ N. latitude) had come into the Union by the treaty with Great Britain, without being claimed by any of the States.

* Fac-simile of the sketch given in Howe's Hist. Coll. Ohio, 179, showing the essential parts of a map issued by Barlow in Paris, with his proposals to induce immigration, but the legends are turned into English from the original French. There is a copy of the original (Portfolio 3,830) in Harvard College library, Plan des Achats des Compagnies de l'Ohio et du Scioto. "The map," says Howe, "is inaccurate in its geography and fraudulent in its statements." The country was a wilderness where the map calls it inhabited and cleared, "habité et défriché." This region corresponds to what was known as the Seven Ranges of Townships, which Congress, May 20, 1785, directed to be sold, under surveys by Thomas Hutchins; and this is the only foundation for the alleged settlement of them. There are various published maps of them (one by Mr. Carey, without date, is on paper with the water-mark of 1794). They are shown, as surveyed, on Melish's map of Ohio, given in fac-simile on another page. The "first town," or the "première ville" of the original map, is the Fair Haven laid out by the Ohio Company. Gallipolis was built on higher ground, four miles below (McMaster, ii. 146). Howe (p. 180) gives a view of the village as prepared for the reception of the French, drawing it from the description of a man who helped to build it. Cf. map of Ohio Company purchase in Walker's Athens County, Ohio.

Massachusetts also held claims under her charter to lands in Western New York, as being beyond the grants to the Duke of York in Eastern New York. An agreement was reached at Hartford, Dec. 16, 1786, by which the proprietary rights to this territory were divided, but the jurisdiction was yielded to New York.1

In 1788 Massachusetts sold her pre-emptive rights in these lands to a company, whose territory thus acquired became known as the "Phelps and Gorham Purchase." 2 In 1791 this company surrendered to Massachusetts its title to lands west of the Genesee River, and that State resold it to Robert Morris in the same year, and he in turn sold the greater part of the tract in 1792-93 to an association of Dutch capitalists called the "Holland Land Company," while what he retained became known as the "Morris Reserve.” 8

Robert Morris, also in 1790, bought of the Phelps and Gorham Company a large tract, which he sold in 1791 to an English company, headed by Sir Wm. Pulteney, and this became known as the "Pulteney Estate." 4

On May 20, 1785, Congress passed the first ordinance respecting the method of disposing of the Western lands.5

South of the Massachusetts claim lay a region of less extent north and south, which was bounded easterly by about one half of the western bounds of Pennsylvania, and which retained that width through to the Mississippi. This was the claim of Connecticut, as included in her chartered rights under similar circumstances, as determined the rights of Massachusetts, and on Sept. 14, 1786, that State ceded all this territory, except