{"id":252,"date":"2011-03-11T17:46:35","date_gmt":"2011-03-11T17:46:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/?p=252"},"modified":"2011-03-31T00:28:01","modified_gmt":"2011-03-31T00:28:01","slug":"land-patent-ohio-history-pdf","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/?p=252","title":{"rendered":"Land Patent, Ohio History, PDF"},"content":{"rendered":"

THE OFFICIAL\u00c2\u00a0 (read page 5)<\/p>\n

OHIO LANDS BOOK<\/p>\n

Written by
\nDr. George W. Knepper<\/p>\n

THE OFFICIAL<\/p>\n

OHIO LANDS BOOK<\/p>\n

Written by
\nDr. George W. Knepper<\/p>\n

Cover art by Annette Salrin<\/p>\n

This book is a publication of
\nThe Auditor of State
\nJim Petro
\n88 East Broad Street
\nColumbus, Ohio 43216-1140<\/p>\n

www.auditor.state.oh.us
\ne-mail: petro@auditor.state.oh.us<\/p>\n

First paperback edition 2002<\/p>\n

Printed in the United States of America<\/p>\n

i<\/p>\n

Table of Contents<\/p>\n

Auditor\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
\nThe First Arrivals on Ohio Land
\nPrehistoric Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
\nHistoric Indians of Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
\nCongress Creates the Public Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
\nLand Ordinance of 1785 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
\nSeven Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
\nNorthwest Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
\nStatehood for Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
\nGetting Started as a State
\nBoundaries of the New State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
\nPrivately Conducted Original Surveys
\nVirginia Military District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
\nConnecticut Western Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
\nFirelands (Sufferers\u00e2\u20ac\u2122Land) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
\nLand Sales to Private Groups
\nOhio Company of Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
\nDonation Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
\nSymmes Purchase (Miami Purchase) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
\nFederal Land Offices and Sales in Ohio
\nHarrison Land Act, May 10, 1800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
\nUnited States Military District (USMD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
\nCongress Lands
\nLands East of the Scioto River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
\nLands West of the Miami River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
\nNorth of the Seven Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
\nCongress Lands in Northwest Ohio
\nSouth and East of the First Principal Meridian
\nand Base Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
\nNorth and East of the First Principal Meridian
\nand Base Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45<\/p>\n

iii<\/p>\n

Table of Contents
\nMichigan Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
\nFederal Land Grants for Specific Purposes.
\nMoravian Indian Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
\nFrench Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
\nRefugee Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
\nZane\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
\nDohrman Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
\nOther Grants to Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
\nFederal Military Reservations
\nFort Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
\nTwelve Mile Square Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
\nTwo Mile Square Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
\nFederal Land Grants to the State of Ohio
\nSchool Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
\nMinisterial Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
\nCanal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
\nWagon Road or Turnpike Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
\nSalt Reservations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
\nSwamp Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
\nFederal Lands for Higher Education
\nOhio University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
\nMiami University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
\nOhio State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
\nOriginal Surveys Influence Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Development . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
\nAppendix
\nThe Origin of Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s County Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
\nAdditional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79<\/p>\n

iv<\/p>\n

Dear Readers:<\/p>\n

As Auditor of State of Ohio, and custodian of state-owned land
\nrecords, I am proud to introduce the newly designed Ohio Lands book.<\/p>\n

The book is a short history of original land treaties, grants, surveys
\nand subdivisions used by teachers, historians, genealogists and others.<\/p>\n

As part of my official duties, I am responsible for maintaining the
\ninventory and deed records of state-owned<\/strong> real estate.<\/p>\n

The office has held this responsibility since 1877, when all of the
\nfederal land surveys, field notes, and tract and entry books concerning
\nOhio were placed in the Auditor\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s care. All the instruments which show <\/strong>
\nany right, title or interest in state-owned land<\/strong>, except highways, were
\nrequired to be filed with the Auditor.<\/p>\n

All of these records are available either at the Auditor of State\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s <\/strong>
\nLand Office or at the State Archives<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The Ohio Lands book is also available in a colorful juvenile
\nversion entitled Along the Ohio Trail. Copies can be obtained by e-mailing
\nohiotrail@auditor.state.oh.us or calling 800-282-0370.<\/p>\n

This book provides a fascinating glimpse into the development of
\nOhio. As we prepare to celebrate its bicentennial in 2003, I invite readers
\nto delve into the heritage of this great state I am proud to call home.<\/p>\n

Best Regards,<\/p>\n

Jim Petro
\nAuditor of State<\/p>\n

v<\/p>\n

OHIO LANDS<\/p>\n

Ohio occupies a unique place in the development of the public lands of the
\nUnited States. No other state experienced so many different systems of original land
\nsurvey. As the first state formed<\/strong> out of the public domain, Ohio was the social laboratory in which Congress worked out not only the basic Federal Rectangular Survey <\/strong>System<\/strong>, but also first applied the basic elements for moving a portion of the public domain from wilderness to statehood. Central to the statehood-making process was
\nthe rational system of land division worked out in Ohio, and it is the story of that
\ndevelopment that we turn to in these pages. In any story about the land, it is
\nimportant to know the people who inhabited it, and so we turn first to Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s earliest
\ninhabitants.<\/p>\n

THE FIRST ARRIVALS ON OHIO LAND<\/p>\n

Prehistoric Indians<\/p>\n

Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s first known inhabitants\u00e2\u20ac\u201dPaleo-Indian and Archaic People\u00e2\u20ac\u201darrived
\nmore than 12,000 years ago as the great Wisconsinan ice sheet was retreating
\nnorthward. The Archaic People lived in rock shelters, although recent findings suggest
\nthey may have erected primitive structures. They were nomadic hunter-gatherers. They
\nand their successors, for thousands of years, left few cultural remnants beyond stone
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u0153points.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d The arrival of the Adena people, about 1,000 B.C., marked a higher level of
\ncultural sophistication. The Adena had a modestly diverse agriculture, built substantial
\ndwellings, traded widely, and made decorative and ceremonial objects. They erected
\nthousands of small burial mounds and numerous effigy mounds across much of Ohio.<\/p>\n

The Hopewell People lived primarily in the southern part of Ohio starting
\nabout 100 B.C. and continuing through several centuries. Their presence overlapped\u00e2\u20ac\u201d
\nto some extent\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthat of the Adena. The Hopewell had more sophisticated
\nagriculture, trade, and artisanship than the Adena. They built impressive, geometrically
\nshaped mounds, some apparently aligned to heavenly phenomena. About 300
\nA.D., the Hopewell disappeared: no one knows why. They were succeeded by other
\nprehistoric Indians. The last of the prehistoric groups\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthe Fort Ancients in the
\nsouth, and the Whittlesey Focus people in the north\u00e2\u20ac\u201dfade from view about the end
\nof the seventeenth century.<\/p>\n

page 1<\/p>\n

Historic Indians of Ohio<\/p>\n

The historic Indians of Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthose we know about from written records\u00e2\u20ac\u201d
\nmoved into Ohio in the early and mid-eighteenth century. This is in contrast with
\nneighboring states where historic tribes were established earlier. The late arrival in
\nOhio lands is usually attributed to the fierce Iroquois, who swept westward from
\ntheir New York villages to devastate lands from Ohio westward. The Iroquois
\nclaimed sovereignty over the conquered lands and other tribes were not strong
\nenough to challenge them. Therefore, for nearly three-quarters of a century, the Ohio
\nlands were largely uninhabited, creating a social vacuum that ultimately would be
\nfilled after 1730 by tribes seeking new hunting grounds. Of the many historic Indian
\ntribes that had some presence in Ohio, only six\u00e2\u20ac\u201dMiami, Wyandot, Mingo,
\nDelaware, Shawnee, and Ottawa\u00e2\u20ac\u201dmaintained more or less permanent villages.
\nFrom their post in Detroit, French traders and soldiers claimed hegemony over these
\ntribes during their earliest years in Ohio.<\/p>\n

The Miami, whose home villages centered around modern Ft. Wayne,
\nIndiana, established Pickawillany on the headwaters of the Great Miami to
\nencourage British traders. This challenge to French hegemony resulted in the French
\ndestroying Pickawillany in 1752, but the Miami remained important in Ohio Indian
\naffairs for another half century. The Wyandots, a branch of the Huron people,
\nmoved first into Ohio in 1739 and, after many wanderings, settled primarily in the
\nSandusky River Valley and in central Ohio. Ottawas migrated from the overpopulated
\nDetroit region to settle along the fringes of northwestern Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Great Black
\nSwamp.<\/p>\n

The Mingo (a name applied to Iroquois, mainly Senecas, who had drifted
\nwestward from their home fires in New York), built villages in eastern and central
\nOhio. Delaware (Lenni Lenape), driven from Pennsylvania by both white and
\nIndian pressure, located on or near the Tuscarawas-Muskingum waterway. A special
\ngroup of Delaware\u00e2\u20ac\u201dChristian converts of Moravian missionaries\u00e2\u20ac\u201dhad short-lived
\nvillages at Schoenbrunn, Gnadenhutten, Salem, Goshen, and Lichtenau in the
\nTuscarawas-Muskingum valley. Shawnees also left Pennsylvania in the mid-eighteenth
\ncentury, and reinforced by fellow tribesmen from other regions, built villages
\nin the Scioto Valley and later in the upper reaches of the Great Miami.<\/p>\n

page 2<\/p>\n

Before arriving in Ohio, each tribe had been acculturated in some degree
\nthrough contacts with the French, British, or colonial Americans. Though France
\nhad long claimed the Ohio country, they erected no posts in what is now the state of
\nOhio. Ohio lacks the French element in its early history that is common to states to
\nits north and west. Great Britain defeated France in the French and Indian War
\n(1754-63 in North America), took over some French posts in the interior, built some
\nof its own, and dominated the Ohio country until the close of the American<\/p>\n

Moravian missionaries
\nfounded Schoenbrunn
\n(\u00e2\u20ac\u0153beautiful spring\u00e2\u20ac\u009d) in
\n1772 as a mission to the
\nDelaware Indians. The
\nsettlement grew to
\ninclude sixty dwellings
\nand more than 300
\ninhabitants who drew up
\nOhio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s first civil code
\nand built its first
\nChristian church and
\nschoolhouse.<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Power of the Gospel\u00e2\u20ac\u009d by Christian Schuessle depicts David
\nZeisberger, Moravian missionary preaching to the Delaware Indians.<\/p>\n

page 3<\/p>\n

Revolution, largely by supplying the Ohio Indians who were a vital link in the
\nlucrative fur trade.<\/p>\n

After assuming control over trans-Appalachian lands, Great Britain tried to
\nmaintain an Indian reserve, especially in the region north and west of the Ohio
\nRiver. Back country settlers from Pennsylvania to the Carolinas could not be
\nrestrained, however. Led by venturesome men like Daniel Boone, they invaded the
\nKentucky hunting grounds of the Shawnee, while other colonials occupied home
\nsites near the Ohio River in western Virginia. Inevitably aggressive frontiersmen
\ntrespassed on Ohio lands, and eastern land companies sent scouts into Indian lands
\nseeking favorable locations in which to plant commercial ventures. In 1774, the
\nShawnee and their Indian allies, led by the Shawnee chief Cornstalk (Holokeska),
\nfought an American colonial army to a draw in the Battle of Point Pleasant, where
\nthe Kanawha joins the Ohio in modern West Virginia. This was the only major
\nengagement of Dunmore\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s War, a western prelude to the forthcoming American
\nRevolution.<\/p>\n

From 1777 to 1782, while colonials battled in the east and south for their
\nindependence from Britain, a bitter struggle was waged in Ohio between western
\nsettlers and British-led Ohio Indians supplied from Detroit. This vicious contest is
\nbut poorly known, yet the conflict helped persuade Britain to cede the trans-
\nAppalachian west to the new United States of America in the Peace of Paris (1783).
\nNow Ohio Indians would have to deal with aggressive American settlers and adventurers
\nunrestrained by British governmental policies. The British lost the war, but
\nthey had not lost their desire to retain the profitable fur trade. To that end, they
\nmaintained their post at Detroit (illegally since it was in U.S. territory) from which
\nthey supplied Ohio Indians and encouraged them to resist American penetration into
\ntheir hunting grounds.<\/p>\n

Administering its new western lands was a priority of the American government.
\nFirst, Indian claims to that land had to be cleared, so U.S. commissioners
\nmet representatives of several Indian tribes at Ft. McIntosh in 1784-85 and concluded
\na treaty that called for restricting most Ohio Indians in a reserve between the
\nCuyahoga and Maumee rivers. Most Ohio lands would now be open for settlement.
\nThe United States considered this a valid treaty and proceeded on that assumption.<\/p>\n

page 4<\/p>\n

The Ohio Indians, especially the Shawnee, refused to abide by a treaty negotiated
\nunder duress by minor tribal chiefs who lacked authority to speak for their people
\nand for other tribes. The Shawnee were even coerced into yet another irregular
\ntreaty at Ft. Finney (1786). Further U.S. efforts did nothing to alleviate the Indians\u00e2\u20ac\u2122
\nsense of betrayal, nor their determination to resist with force any attempt by settlers
\nto penetrate their Ohio lands.<\/p>\n

While unsettled conditions prevailed, settlers began moving into Ohio
\nlands. These folk, and others exposed along the frontier, were harassed by Indian
\nraiding parties. When it appeared the Ohio Indians and their allies were coming
\ntogether in a loose confederation to oppose settlement, the federal government
\nreacted. In 1790, Maj. Gen. Josiah Harmar was sent to punish the Indian confederacy.
\nHis ill-trained army suffered humiliating defeats by Indian warriors, led by
\nthe Miami war chief Little Turtle (Meshekinoquah) in the vicinity of modern Ft.<\/p>\n

Wayne, Indiana. The next year, the governor of the
\nNorthwest Territory, Maj. Gen. Arthur St. Clair, trying to
\nsucceed where Harmar had failed, led his army into the
\nworst defeat ever inflicted upon the U.S. Army by Indian
\nwarriors, at a place later called Ft. Recovery. Then, in
\nWayne\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s men at Fallen Timbers –
\nThe original painting, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Charge of
\nthe Dragoons at Fallen Timbers?\u00e2\u20ac\u009d
\nby R.F. Zogbaum, ca. 1895. It is part of
\nthe Ohio Historical Society\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s art collection.
\nMonument commemorating
\nthe Battle of Fallen Timbers
\nin 1794. The monument is
\nlocated southwest of Maumee,
\nLucas County, Ohio.
\nThe photograph was taken
\nca. 1940-1949.
\nJosiah Harmar
\n(1753-1813)
\npage 5<\/p>\n

1794, Maj. Gen. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Mad\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Anthony Wayne led well-trained troops to a convincing
\nvictory at Fallen Timbers. The Ohio Indians, recognizing their inability to stop
\nWayne, met with him to sign the Treaty of Greenville (1795), a treaty they
\nhonored. It called for a line to separate Indian country from lands now open to set<\/p>\n

tlement. The Greenville Treaty Line confined the Indians to Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s<\/p>\n

northwest quadrant and beyond to the north and west. The
\nLine was laid on the ground by surveyors in 1797, and it
\nbecame a determining feature in the survey and description of
\nOhio lands.<\/p>\n

General \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Mad\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Anthony Wayne<\/p>\n

Fort Recovery, built in 1792, on the site of Major General Arthur St. Clair\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s defeat
\nby an Indian confederacy. Fort Recovery is in Mercer County, Ohio. The
\nphotograph of the reconstructed fort was taken ca. 1940-1949.<\/p>\n

Photographic reproduction of a drawing of Fort Greenville, which was
\nthe headquarters of General Anthony Wayne in his 1793-1796 campaign
\nagainst the Confederated Indian Tribes<\/p>\n

page 6<\/p>\n

CONGRESS CREATES THE PUBLIC DOMAIN<\/p>\n

The War for Independence was still in progress on October 10, 1780,
\nwhen the Continental Congress resolved that western lands it might acquire by
\ntreaty with Great Britain or by cession from the states \u00e2\u20ac\u0153shall be disposed of for
\nthe common benefit of the United States.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Republican states were to be formed
\nin the ceded land, and they would enjoy \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the same rights of sovereignty,
\nfreedom, and independence, as the other states.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Great Britain surrendered her
\nclaim to western lands in the Peace of Paris (1783), but several states had claims
\nbased on their colonial charters. Both Virginia and Connecticut had western land
\nclaims that would affect the future state of Ohio. In 1781, Virginia offered her
\nwestern lands to Congress, which accepted the offer three years later.
\nConnecticut\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s cession was accepted in 1786. These state land cessions, plus
\nthose of Massachusetts, paved the way for Congress to establish, in the region
\nnorth and west of the Ohio River, the first public domain.<\/p>\n

The legal matters of ownership having been settled, Congress was still
\nfaced with the reality of Indian occupancy. The Treaty of Ft. McIntosh (1785)
\nwas the first of many treaties between the United States and various Ohio Indian
\ntribes, each treaty releasing additional Indian land to the control of the new
\nnation. Even as Congress sought access to Indian-occupied land, American settlers
\nwere crossing the Ohio, encroaching on Indian land, carving out small
\nclearings in the wilderness, providing liquor to Indian peoples, and often
\ncheating them in trade. These squatters had no legal right to the land they
\noccupied, but most were tough, independent, self-righteous, and resisted
\nauthority, so it proved impossible to remove them. Easterners sometimes
\nreferred to them as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153banditti,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d a favorite put-down of the time.<\/p>\n

In 1783, Congress ordered Josiah Harmar, commander of the tiny
\nUnited States army stationed at Pittsburgh, to roust these people from their new
\nhomes and send them back across the Ohio. The army had little success, even
\nthough resorting to the burning of cabins and fields. Once the army had left and
\nthe ashes cooled, these determined folk rebuilt on Ohio soil. Ft. Harmar, erected
\nin 1785 at the confluence of the Muskingum and the Ohio, was designed to stem
\nthe flow of squatters, but it, too, proved ineffective.<\/p>\n

page 7<\/p>\n

It was with a sense of urgency, therefore, that Congress considered how
\nbest to develop western lands. It was imperative that the West be governable,
\npreferably by responsible people amenable to legal norms. Congress\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 first
\nattempt was to enact the Ordinance of 1784. Thomas Jefferson was the moving
\nspirit behind this plan to create ten new states north of the Ohio. He proposed the
\nstates be laid out in rectangular form with no consideration of natural boundaries.
\nBefore the ordinance was implemented, however, Congress came forward with a
\nsuperior plan which initiated many features of a federal land policy.<\/p>\n

Main Treaties Ceding
\nIndian Lands in Ohio<\/p>\n

No. Concluded Place o
\noof T
\nTTreaty Acres C
\nCCeded Tribes C
\nCConcerned
\n1 Aug. 3, 1795 Greenville, Ohio 16,930,417 Eleven northwestern
\ntribes.<\/p>\n

2 July 4, 1805 Fort Industry, Ohio 2,726,812
\nOttawas, Wyandots,
\nChippewas,
\nPottawatamies,
\nShawnees,
\nDelawares.<\/p>\n

3 Nov. 17, 1807 Detroit, Michigan 345,600
\nChippewas, Ottawas,
\nWyandots,
\nPottawatamies.<\/p>\n

4 Nov. 25, 1808 Brownstown, Michigan Two Roads
\nSame tribes as at
\nDetroit,<\/p>\n

5 Sept. 29, 1817 Fort Meigs, Ohio 4,554,459 Same as at Fort
\n(Maumee Rapids) Industry, and
\nSenecas in addition.<\/p>\n

6 Sept. 17, 1818 St. Marys, Ohio
\nOttawas, Shawnees,
\nWyandots, and
\nSenecas.<\/p>\n

7 Oct. 2, 1818 St. Marys, Ohio
\nWeas.<\/p>\n

8 Oct. 6, 1818 St. Marys, Ohio 297,600
\nMiamis.<\/p>\n

page 8<\/p>\n

THE LAND ORDINANCE OF 1785<\/p>\n

On May 20, 1785, Congress enacted a land ordinance which became one of
\nthe most significant pieces of legislation ever passed by the federal legislature. The
\nLand Ordinance of 1785 created rules for the orderly survey, sale, and settlement of the
\npublic domain, with settlement to occur only on surveyed land. Land ceded by the
\nstates and purchased from the Indians was to be divided into six mile square townships
\ncreated by lines running north and south intersecting at right angles with east-west lines.
\nTownships were to be arranged in north-south rows called ranges. Most townships were
\nto be subdivided into 36 one mile square sections. Each range, township, and section
\nwas to be numbered in a regular, consistent sequence.<\/p>\n

The first north-south line was to be the western boundary of Pennsylvania, and
\nthe first east-west line (called the Geographer\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Line or Base Line) was to begin where
\nthe Pennsylvania boundary touched the north bank of the Ohio River. The
\nGeographer\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Line was to extend westward through \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the whole territory\u00e2\u20ac\u009d which at that
\ntime was meant to include lands lying between the Ohio River and Lake Erie. The first
\nactual survey extended 42 miles westward, but it did not proceed north of the
\nGeographer\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Line.<\/p>\n

The Geographer of the United States was to make a return of the survey after
\neach seven ranges had been completed, at which time the Secretary of War was to
\nchoose by lot one seventh of the land to compensate veterans of the Continental army.
\nThe rest of the lots were to be sold at auction in New York, then the nation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s capital. A
\nsection (one square mile or 640 acres) was the smallest unit for sale, and some townships
\nwere to be sold in their entirety. The minimum price was one dollar per acre to be
\npaid in cash or in land warrants of equivalent value. No land would be sold on credit.<\/p>\n

The Ordinance\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s other provisions had long term consequences. In each
\ntownship, section number 16 was to be reserved for the support of public schools. (This
\nwas the first federal aid to education, predating the Constitution itself.) Sections number
\n8, 11, 26, and 29 in every township were reserved for future sale by the federal government
\nwhen, it was hoped, they would bring higher prices because of developed land
\naround them. Congress also reserved one third part of all gold, silver, lead, and copper
\nmines to its own use, a bit of wishful thinking as regards Ohio lands.<\/p>\n

page 9<\/p>\n

THE SEVEN RANGES<\/p>\n

On the last day of September, 1785, Thomas Hutchins, Geographer of
\nthe United States, and his crew began the first survey of federal land\u00e2\u20ac\u201cthe Seven
\nRanges in eastern Ohio. As directed in the Ordinance, they pushed the
\nGeographer\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Line 42 miles westward from Pennsylvania. Every six miles they
\nran lines south to the Ohio River, and within these ranges ran township lines.
\nUsing the 1785 numbering system, ranges were numbered westward from the
\nPennsylvania border, townships were numbered south to north within each
\nrange, and sections were numbered in sequence starting with section 1 located
\nin the township\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s southeast corner, then running south to north in each tier until
\nsection 36 was reached in the northwest corner. As directed in the Ordinance,
\nsection 16 was reserved for the support of public schools, and sections 8, 11, 26,
\nand 29 set aside for future sale.<\/p>\n

In the Land Act of 1796, Congress changed the section numbering
\nsystem. Sections were now to be numbered so that section 1 was located in the
\ntownship\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s northeast corner. Numbers would then progress west and east alternately
\nthrough the township \u00e2\u20ac\u0153with progressive numbers\u00e2\u20ac\u009d until number 36 was
\nreached in the township\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s southeast corner. This system of section numbering<\/p>\n

Sections numbered Sections numbered
\nAfter Law of 1796 Before Law of 1796
\npage 10<\/p>\n

The problem of keeping townships six miles square when the earth is
\ncurved was solved in 1804 by Jared Mansfield, Surveyor General of the
\nNorthwest Territory. Mansfield established an arbitrary meridian and
\nan intersecting east-west base line to survey the 2nd Principal
\nMeridian in southern Indiana. Ranges of townships were progressively
\nnumbered eastward and westward from the meridian, while townships
\nwithin each range were numbered northward and southward from the
\nbase line. This use of the principal meridian and base line can be
\nfound in Northwest Ohio where the Ohio-Indiana line constitutes the
\nfirst Principal Meridian and the 41st degree of latitude is the base line.
\nThere are 34 meridians in the United States\u00e2\u20ac\u201csome designated by
\nnumber, but most by names.
\nThe Seven Ranges
\nOHIOThe problem of keeping townships six miles square when the earth is
\ncurved was solved in 1804 by Jared Mansfield, Surveyor General of the
\nNorthwest Territory. Mansfield established an arbitrary meridian and
\nan intersecting east-west base line to survey the 2nd Principal
\nMeridian in southern Indiana. Ranges of townships were progressively
\nnumbered eastward and westward from the meridian, while townships
\nwithin each range were numbered northward and southward from the
\nbase line. This use of the principal meridian and base line can be
\nfound in Northwest Ohio where the Ohio-Indiana line constitutes the
\nfirst Principal Meridian and the 41st degree of latitude is the base line.
\nThere are 34 meridians in the United States\u00e2\u20ac\u201csome designated by
\nnumber, but most by names.
\nThe Seven Ranges
\nOHIO
\npage 11<\/p>\n

became standard thereafter in all original federal surveys.1 Range, Township,
\nSection, Part of Section, and the original land survey name have become the
\nbasic legal property description for most of the land originally surveyed by the
\nUnited States government in the 29 public land states. The original field notes
\nand plats of the United States government land surveys in Ohio have been
\ndeposited by the Auditor of State into the State of Ohio Archives at the Ohio
\nHistorical Center in Columbus.<\/p>\n

The Ordinance of July 13, 1787 provided<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153…there shall be formed in said territory, not less than three nor more than five states…\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

The original boundaries were defined as:
\nEastern State (numbers 1,2,3,4); Middle State (numbers 5,6,7,8,9) and
\nWestern State (numbers 10,11,12,13,14,15). These divisions are marked by broken lines on the map.<\/p>\n

Congress later decided to divide the Northwest Territory into the states of:
\nOhio (1803), Indiana (1816), Illinois (1818), Michigan (1837), Wisconsin (1848), and
\nMinnesota (1858). These states are shown by the heavy solid lines on the map.<\/p>\n

Map Source: Biographical Directory – General Assembly of Ohio 1929-1930: Columbus, 1931.<\/p>\n

1)
\nNumbering townships from the Ohio River, and sections according to the 1796
\nstandard, was used in these surveys: East of the Scioto River and West of the
\nOhio Company Purchase; North of the Seven Ranges between the United States
\nMilitary District and Connecticut Western Reserve; East of the 1st
\nMeridian\u00e2\u20ac\u201cWest of the Great Miami River and East of the 1st Principal Meridian.<\/p>\n

page 12<\/p>\n

THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE<\/p>\n

As land sales progressed in the Seven Ranges, and as Congress permitted
\nVirginia and Connecticut to develop their reserves in Ohio, Congress realized it was
\ntime to establish an orderly system of government north and west of the Ohio River
\nin what was now designated the Northwest Territory.2 To this end, Congress enacted
\nthe Northwest Ordinance, a remarkable document outlining how a wilderness area
\nwould progress through a three-step process to ultimate statehood. Both northern and
\nsouthern influences were present in the document. Some of Thomas Jefferson\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s ideas
\nfrom the Ordinance of 1784 were melded with sections composed in large part by
\nNathan Dane of Massachusetts.<\/p>\n

In the first stage of development, the Northwest Territory was to be governed
\nby a governor, a secretary and three judges, each appointed by Congress. The
\ngovernor and any two of the judges, acting together, could select laws from the codes
\nof the original states. The second stage began when 5,000 free adult males resided in
\nthe Territory. Then eligible voters would elect a legislature, but the governor retained
\nan absolute veto over its acts. The third stage began when 60,000 inhabitants were
\nresident in any of the three proposed divisions of the Territory\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthe eastern, central,
\nor western \u00e2\u20ac\u0153states.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d At that point the territorial legislature could petition Congress for
\nstatehood. At least three states, but no more than five, were to be erected in the
\nTerritory. Each new state was to be equal to the existing states \u00e2\u20ac\u0153in all respects whatsoever.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d
\nA \u00e2\u20ac\u0153bill of rights\u00e2\u20ac\u009d guaranteed that basic civil rights would be protected. Trial
\nby jury was guaranteed, as was freedom of religion. Public schooling was to be
\nencouraged. Involuntary servitude\u00e2\u20ac\u201dslavery\u00e2\u20ac\u201dwas prohibited except in punishment
\nfor crimes for which a person had been duly convicted.<\/p>\n

The Northwest Ordinance contained practical steps for achieving statehood,
\nassuring that there would be no second-class states created in the Territory. It enumerated
\ncivil rights essential to a free people. There had never been anything like it in
\nthe history of the world. It is little wonder that scholars rank the Northwest Ordinance
\nwith the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as a document fundamental
\nto the emergence of the American republic.<\/p>\n

2)
\nThe Northwest Territory ultimately embraced Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
\nMichigan, Wisconsin and the northeast corner of Minnesota.<\/p>\n

page 13<\/p>\n

STATEHOOD FOR OHIO<\/p>\n

Ohio comprised most of the eastern division, or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153state,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in the<\/p>\n

Northwest Territory, and was the first part of the public domain to emerge into<\/p>\n

statehood. In October, 1787, the Confederation Congress selected its own pres<\/p>\n

ident, Arthur St. Clair, to be governor of the Northwest Territory. Winthrop<\/p>\n

Sargent was appointed secretary, and three judges were appointed. In the<\/p>\n

summer of 1788, Governor St. Clair arrived at Marietta, the first authorized set<\/p>\n

tlement in the Northwest Territory, but he soon moved on westward to<\/p>\n

Losantiville, a struggling settlement that St. Clair renamed Cincinnati. Here he
\nwas more centrally
\nlocated to administer his
\nsprawling charge. From
\nthe beginning, St. Clair
\nfaced opposition from
\nindividualistic settlers
\nwho chafed under
\nappointed rule, and who
\nset out to expedite the
\nstate-making process.
\nThey rushed the count
\nthat found the 5,000
\nfree adult males necessary
\nto elect a legislature.
\nThe newly
\nelected legislature
\nchafed under the governor\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s
\nveto power, and
\nagain hastened the count
\nto establish the 60,000
\ninhabitants required
\nbefore the territorial legislature
\ncould petition<\/p>\n

Photographic reproduction of an engraving of
\nthe Chillicothe Courthouse, 1801. The engraving
\nwas published in a periodical, “American
\nPioneer,” volume 1, number 6 in June 1842.<\/p>\n

View of Front Street in Marietta, Ohio.
\nShows Thomas Wells and Co. and the
\nNews Depot, ca. 1850-1859.<\/p>\n

page 14<\/p>\n

Congress for statehood. In their effort to hasten the state-making process, these
\nleaders in the Northwest Territory found allies in President Thomas Jefferson
\nand the U.S. Congress.<\/p>\n

On April 30, 1802, Congress enacted the Enabling Act whose preamble
\nread, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153That the inhabitants of the eastern division of the territory northwest of
\nthe river Ohio, be, and they are hereby, authorized to form for themselves a constitution
\nand State government, and to assume such name as they shall deem
\nproper, and the said State, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union upon
\nthe same footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Delegates chosen in the eastern division met in a constitutional convention
\nin November, 1802 held in Chillicothe, where they drafted a constitution
\nfor the State of Ohio. Both houses of Congress quickly accepted this constitution
\nand forwarded their approval to President Jefferson, who signed the bill
\ncreating Ohio on February 19, 1803. The language of the bill seems plain
\nenough; Ohio was a State as of that date. But a host of legalisms muddied the<\/p>\n

water to the extent that
\nOhio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s official birth date
\nwas ultimately set by the
\nOhio General Assembly as
\nMarch 1, 1803, the day the
\nnew legislature met for the
\nfirst time.
\nThe settlement at \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the point,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Marietta, ca. 1790
\nTerritorial government is inaugurated, 1788.
\nArthur St. Clair
\nGovernor of the
\nNorthwest Territory.
\npage 15<\/p>\n

Critics charge that Ohio was not properly admitted to the Union because<\/p>\n

Congress passed no final joint resolution specifically admitting Ohio. However,<\/p>\n

both houses of Congress did promptly seat Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s two senators and lone repre<\/p>\n

sentative without any caveat about their legality. One hundred and fifty years<\/p>\n

later, during celebration of the State\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s sesquicentennial, Congress passed such a<\/p>\n

resolution (one would hope tongue in cheek) and submitted it to President<\/p>\n

Dwight D. Eisenhower who signed it, thus making Ohio legitimate, retroactive<\/p>\n

to 1803.
\nOhio was the first state carved out of the public domain, and therefore<\/p>\n

the first to be fashioned by Congress. As we shall see, it was in Ohio that
\nCongress worked
\nout its ultimate
\nsystem of survey\u00e2\u20ac\u201d
\nthe Federal
\nRectangular Survey
\nSystem. Federal aid
\nto public schooling
\nwas pioneered in
\nOhio, and slavery
\nwas banned in Ohio
\nas it had been in the
\nNorthwest Territory.
\nCertainly no other
\nstate has so good a
\nclaim as Ohio to be
\nthe model for
\nwestern development.
\nIt is a
\nproud heritage.<\/p>\n

Above: An artist\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s drawing of the Capitol Building
\nin Chillicothe when it was Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s first capital city 1803-1810.<\/p>\n

Reproduction of a photograph depicting the
\nbuilding that served as Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s capitol building
\nin Zanesville. Zanesville was the second
\ncapital of Ohio from 1810-1812.<\/p>\n

page 16<\/p>\n

GETTING STARTED AS A STATE<\/p>\n

In 1803, the new State of Ohio was largely a wilderness, and some areas
\nwould remain so until after the Civil War. Only Cincinnati and a half dozen
\nsmall communities had much of a presence among its 60,000 plus residents. On
\nJanuary 11, 1803, Edward Tiffin of Chillicothe was elected governor, but did
\nnot assume office until March. Tiffin had been a leading proponent of statehood
\nas had many of his influential townsmen, so it was reasonable that Chillicothe
\nbecame Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s first capital city. It retained that honor until 1810 when
\nZanesville wooed away state government by offering a splendid new building
\nfor its use. Two years later, Chillicothe provided improved facilities and state
\ngovernment moved back to that town. It was clear, however, that a more central
\nlocation would better serve a growing state. In 1816, therefore, the legislature
\nmoved the seat of government to the raw new town of Columbus, where it has
\nsince remained.3<\/p>\n

Photographic reproduction of an engraving of the first state buildings
\nin Columbus, Ohio, including the United States Courthouse, Public
\nOffices and the Old State House, ca. 1814 – 1816.<\/p>\n

3) The State of Ohio Archives at the Ohio Historical Center has the originaldeed to the ten acre State House grounds.<\/p>\n

page 17<\/p>\n

Boundaries of the New State<\/p>\n

The Constitution of 1802 defined Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s boundaries, each portion of which would
\nbe challenged by a neighboring state throughout the nineteenth, and well into the
\ntwentieth century. The boundary with Pennsylvania, originally completed in 178586
\nby Thomas Hutchins, was twice resurveyed in the nineteenth century before both
\nOhio and Pennsylvania were satisfied. All the water of the Ohio River along Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s
\nborder belonged to the earlier established states of Virginia (after 1863, West
\nVirginia) and Kentucky. Ohio sought to have the state line run through the middle of
\nthe Ohio River, but it lost every legal effort to secure half of that stream.
\nMeanwhile, damming of the river changed its configuration in the twentieth century,
\nand ultimately federal courts ruled that waters lying beyond the original river
\nshoreline on the Ohio side belonged to Ohio. Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s border with Indiana was surveyed
\nerratically and proved to be inaccurate. Though some corrections were made
\nin the line, both states agreed to leave the boundary essentially as it was. Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s
\nnorthern border with Michigan has a dramatic history outlined on page 46. Once the
\nline was finally agreed upon and marked on the land, there remained controversy
\nover the question of why Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s boundary, from its eastern land terminus, should go
\noff northeasterly to the Canadian border instead of proceeding as a simple extension
\nof the line marked out on land. Late in the twentieth century, federal courts agreed
\nthat Ohio should retain the disputed portion of Lake Erie.<\/p>\n

In the Enabling Act of 1802, federal lands lying
\nwithin the boundaries of the new state would remain
\nunder federal control. When such land was sold,
\nthree-fifths of the money received by the federal government
\nwas to go to Ohio to be used in constructing
\nroads within the state. The other two fifths was to be
\nused by the federal government to build roads to the
\nOhio boundary. In return, Ohio pledged not to tax federal
\nlands within the state for a five year period. Once
\nfederal land was purchased, of course, the new
\nowner had to pay state taxes on his land.<\/p>\n

page 18<\/p>\n

Edward Tiffin was chosen
\nspeaker of the territorial house of
\nrepresentatives. He would go on
\nto become a Democratic-
\nRepublican governor of Ohio
\nfrom 1803 until 1807.<\/p>\n

PRIVATELY CONDUCTED ORIGINAL SURVEYS<\/p>\n

Two major sections of Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthe Virginia Military District and the
\nConnecticut Western Reserve\u00e2\u20ac\u201dwere surveyed privately, the Virginia Military
\nDistrict under Virginia custom (i.e., indiscriminate claim and metes and bounds
\nsurvey), and the Western Reserve in a rectangular pattern chosen by the
\nConnecticut Land Company. These private surveys were underway while
\nCongress was experimenting with the federal survey system, seeking to create a
\nuniform system for the public domain. We will first examine the two private
\noriginal surveys, and then follow the evolution of the federal original survey
\nsystem.<\/p>\n

Virginia Military District<\/p>\n

Virginia ceded most of her western lands to Congress in 1781, and
\nCongress accepted her offer in 1784, including the reserving of approximately
\n4,204,800 acres between the Scioto River to the east and the Little Miami River
\nto the west. On the map the area appears as a misshapen triangle with its base
\non the Ohio River from which it extends northward some 141 miles. Virginia
\nintended to use this land to satisfy state military bounty warrants issued as compensation
\nto her veterans of the American Revolution.<\/p>\n

Virginia Military District, comprising
\nall or part of 23 counties, is the only Ohio
\nland not originally surveyed on the rectangular
\npattern. Virginia custom was used.
\nIndiscriminate claims were defined by metes
\nand bounds surveys. More than 16,125 such
\nsurveys were made in the District. The result
\nwas a patchwork of
\nland holdings that
\nrelied upon natural
\nmarkers\u00e2\u20ac\u201dtrees, piles
\nof rocks, etc.\u00e2\u20ac\u201dfor
\ncorner monuments.<\/p>\n

page 19<\/p>\n

As markers changed, disappeared, or were disputed, endless confusion resulted,
\nand the Virginia Military District is said to have experienced more litigation
\nover land claims than all the rest of Ohio put together.<\/p>\n

Virginia military bounties varied in size from the 100 acres due to a
\nprivate, to the 15,000 acres that could be claimed by a Major General. The
\namount increased if the veteran had served more than six years. The heirs of a
\nman killed in service were eligible for his bounty. All told, about 6,146,950
\nacres in Ohio and Kentucky4 were issued under Virginia land warrants to veterans
\nand their heirs. There was a brisk trade in land warrants since veterans or
\ntheir heirs could sell them, usually to speculators at a substantially discounted<\/p>\n

Virginia compensated its veterans of both the
\nFrench and Indian War (1754-63) and the War for
\nIndependence (1775-1783) with western land grants.
\nVirginia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s most famous veteran, George Washington,
\nserved in both wars and was entitled to 23,333 acres. He
\nnever claimed them: instead, he purchased two warrants,
\ntotaling 3,100 acres, all but 49 of which were within
\nsurveys run in 1787 in Clermont County (two surveys) and
\nHamilton County (one survey). An act of Congress (July 17,
\n1788) nullified these surveys, and Washington never filed
\nfor a U.S. patent under the congressional acts of 1790 and
\n1794. He mistakenly believed he owned the surveyed land.
\nThese lands were allegedly resurveyed in 1806 and
\nproperly certified to the U.S. Secretary of War. Claim
\njumpers occupied the land and secured U.S. patents to it,
\nthus depriving Washington\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s estate of valuable resources.
\nHis heirs were never compensated.<\/p>\n

4) Kentucky was part of Virginia until attaining statehood in 1792.<\/p>\n

page 20<\/p>\n

price. Ultimately some 25 individuals controlled about 1,035,408 acres within<\/p>\n

the Virginia Military District.
\nFrom its earliest days, land speculation has been big business in<\/p>\n

America. Huge estates could also be acquired by surveyors, who took a healthy<\/p>\n

share of the land they had laid out as compensation. This form of compensation<\/p>\n

was especially common in the Virginia Military District. Among the most suc<\/p>\n

cessful at this practice were Nathaniel Massie, who surveyed many of the ear<\/p>\n

liest land claims in the region and accumulated some 70,000 acres in the<\/p>\n

process, and Duncan McArthur, later a governor of Ohio, whose holdings<\/p>\n

Claiming land by a Virginia Military Warrant involved sending
\nthe warrant to the principal surveyor of the Virginia Military District
\nin Ohio. He then gave the warrant to a deputy surveyor, who would
\nmake a general description of the claim (entry) and then run a
\nsurvey. Virginia permitted a 5% error factor for these surveys, but
\nthis was often exceeded. Following acceptance of the survey, the
\nwarrant was sent to the federal government and a U.S. Patent issued.
\nFor their services, the deputy surveyors often received 20% to 50%
\nof the acres called for in the warrant, or they could be paid in cash,
\nwhich was scarce on the Ohio frontier. In Ohio, the entry number and
\nsurvey number are the same.<\/p>\n

The first Virginia Military District survey was run by John
\nO\u00e2\u20ac\u2122Bannon, November 13, 1787, in what is now Clermont County. The
\nfirst U.S. Patent for District land was issued on February 20, 1796.
\nThe State of Ohio Archives has original Virginia Military District
\nEntry and Survey records, a card index of entrymen, W.P.A. plats of
\n16 of the 23 counties involved, and a list of the entries which were
\nwithdrawn. Inquiries can be researched by surname, warrant number,
\nor survey number. Additional district records can be found at the
\nUniversity of Illinois Library at Urbana, IL, and the Western Reserve
\nHistorical Society, Cleveland. Soldier\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s applications are filed at the
\nVirginia State Library, Richmond.<\/p>\n

page 21<\/p>\n

exceeded 90,000 acres. Early surveyors often became developers, laying out
\ncommunities and encouraging settlers by offering free lots to first comers. In
\nthis fashion, Massie developed Manchester (1792), the District\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s first real town,
\nand Chillicothe (1796), which soon became the Northwest Territory\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s political
\ncenter.<\/p>\n

By 1830, most of the Virginia Military District\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s best land had been
\nclaimed, but there were still veterans\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 warrants in private hands. On May 30,
\n1830, and again on August 31, 1852, Congress passed laws permitting Virginia
\nMilitary Warrants to be exchanged for land scrip. Land scrip operated as a form
\nof currency and could be used to acquire any U.S. public lands open for entry at
\nprivate sale. The federal government ultimately issued land scrip for 1,041,976
\nacres in exchange for Virginia Military Warrants. On December 9, 1852 Virginia
\nrelinquished, and ceded to the federal government its claim to any unlocated
\nland in the Military District, and in 1871 Congress ceded this land to the State
\nof Ohio. In 1872, Ohio set aside this land as an endowment for the Ohio<\/p>\n

Buckeye Station, second oldest building in Ohio, built by General
\nNathaniel Massie in 1797. It is in Manchester, Adams County, Ohio.<\/p>\n

Nathaniel<\/p>\n

This photograph was taken ca. 1940-1949.<\/p>\n

Massie<\/p>\n

page 22<\/p>\n

Agricultural and Mechanical College (founded 1870). Ohio had previously
\nreceived 630,000 acres from Congress to be used for an A&M college under the
\nterms of the Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862. With this support the
\ncollege grew, and in 1878 was renamed Ohio State University.<\/p>\n

Connecticut Western Reserve<\/p>\n

The Connecticut Western Reserve includes all or parts of 14 counties in
\nnortheastern Ohio. The Reserve extends 120 miles westward from the Ohio-
\nPennsylvania line, and is bordered on the south by the 41st parallel of latitude
\nand on the north by Lake Erie. All of Erie and Huron counties are in the
\nReserve as is the easternmost extension of Ottawa County and the Erie Islands.<\/p>\n

Connecticut\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s western land claims were based on several royal charters,
\nthe most determining of which was the royal charter of 1662 issued by King
\nCharles II of England. On surrendering its western land claims to the United
\nStates on September 13, 1786, Connecticut retained this reserve, which the state
\nanticipated would be a New Connecticut in size and influence. It was not to be,
\nhowever. The Western Reserve contains approximately 3,366,921 acres, or just
\nover 5,260 square miles, including the Firelands, a portion of the Reserve that
\nwas treated differently from the rest. Connecticut retained jurisdictional control
\nof the Reserve until surrendering it to the United States by Deed of Cession,
\nMay 30, 1800.<\/p>\n

Prior to this cession, the State of Connecticut had sold all of the Reserve,
\nexcept the Firelands, to the Connecticut Land Company by a quitclaim deed to 35
\ninvestors (many more investors later joined in the enterprise). This sale was completed
\non September 2, 1795. The Connecticut Land Company paid $1,200,000 to
\nthe State of Connecticut which invested the money in a fund to benefit public
\nschools in that state. The company investors, whether individuals or groups,
\npledged money to acquire land from the state. Each individual or group was the
\ngrantee (buyer) of as many 1,200 thousandths, in common and undivided, of that
\npart of the Western Reserve as each had subscribed dollars to the purchase price.5<\/p>\n

5) The quit claim deed to Moses Cleaveland, who led the first party to survey
\nand settle in the Reserve, was for 32,600 twelve hundred thousandths.<\/p>\n

page 23<\/p>\n

In 1796, the Connecticut Land Company, anxious to start land sales,
\noutfitted a survey party, led by General Moses Cleaveland, to run the original
\nsurvey lines and scout out the region\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s resources. The region east of the
\nCuyahoga River was clear of Indian claim as per the Treaty of Ft. McIntosh
\n(1785) as confirmed by the Treaty of Greenville (1795), but to insure that local
\nIndians would pose no problems, Cleaveland met Seneca subchiefs near Buffalo
\nand placated them with trade goods before continuing with his party to the
\nmouth of the Cuyahoga. The surveyors could operate only east of the Cuyahoga
\n(which was part of the Greenville Treaty Line) since Indian claims to lands west
\nof the river were still valid, and would remain so, until vacated by the Treaty of
\nFt. Industry (1805).<\/p>\n

The Connecticut Land Company determined upon a rectangular survey.
\nTownships were five miles square except, of course, for partial townships bordering
\nLake Erie. Many townships were subdivided into four lots of 4,000 acres
\neach. In most cases, however, purchasers subdivided the surveying townships
\ninto lots of various sizes and patterns. Ranges were numbered westward from
\nthe Pennsylvania line, and townships were numbered south to north from the
\n41st parallel.<\/p>\n

Much of the Reserve contained poorly drained or inferior soils, so
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u0153equalizing\u00e2\u20ac\u009d townships were set aside to compensate share owners unlucky
\nenough to draw shares for inferior land. This practice, as well as the method of
\ndrawing lots, meant that a single purchaser could end up with widely dispersed
\nproperties.<\/p>\n

Lots sold slowly in the Reserve. In its early days it was isolated from
\naccess to markets. The opening of New York\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Erie Canal in 1825, followed by
\ncompletion of the Ohio and Erie Canal (1825-32) and the Penn-Ohio Canal
\n(1840), greatly relieved that isolation, but in the meantime, sales moved slowly
\nand eastern land owners were stuck with extensive, unsaleable holdings. Indeed,
\nthere was more absentee land ownership in the Reserve than elsewhere in Ohio
\nduring the first quarter of the nineteenth century.<\/p>\n

page 24<\/p>\n

page 25<\/p>\n

Firelands (Sufferers\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 Lands)<\/p>\n

On May 10, 1792, the Connecticut state legislature set aside the western-
\nmost 500,000 acres of the Western Reserve to compensate, in proportion to their
\nloss, the 1,866 Connecticut residents whose property had been damaged by British
\ncoastal raiders during the American Revolution. Much property was destroyed by
\nfire (hence the term Firelands), especially in New London where the turncoat,
\nBenedict Arnold, led a devastating raid against his home region.<\/p>\n

The Sufferers, their heirs or legal representatives, formed an Ohio corporation
\non April 15, 1803 to manage their Ohio lands. With Indian claims having
\nbeen reduced in 1805, the corporation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Board of Directors authorized a survey. All
\n500,000 acres were surveyed into five mile square townships which were further
\nsubdivided into four quarter townships each containing 4,000 acres. The sufferers\u00e2\u20ac\u2122
\nproprietary rights were divided into 120 classes, each of which represented 120th of
\nthe total property loss. Then, by a complicated process, lots were drawn assigning
\nthe 120 classes to surveyed property. Sufferers with claims in more than one of the
\n120 classes found their lands dispersed and difficult to manage. By the time details
\nof this complex plan were worked out, many original sufferers had died, or were too<\/p>\n

old to take up lands in Ohio.<\/p>\n

The Firelands are located in Erie and
\nHuron counties, whose western boundaries
\nhave a westering of 4′ 40″ from the true
\nmeridian so that a constant 120 mile distance
\nwest of the Pennsylvania line could be main<\/p>\n

tained. Ruggles
\nTownship in
\nAshland County,
\nand Danbury
\nTownship in
\nOttawa County are
\nalso within the
\nFire
\nLands
\nFirelands.<\/p>\n

page 26<\/p>\n

LAND SALES TO PRIVATE GROUPS<\/p>\n

Even as the Confederation Congress was negotiating with Virginia and
\nConnecticut as to their reserved lands in Ohio, it was involved with speculative
\nventures led by men from Massachusetts and New Jersey. In two instances,
\nCongress sold Ohio land to private groups, whose settlements were to add
\nanother distinct element to the complex pattern of original surveys.<\/p>\n

Ohio Company of Associates<\/p>\n

In 1783, General Rufus Putnam led fellow officers, veterans of the
\nAmerican Revolution, in petitioning Congress to pay for their services to the
\nnation with western land grants. When Congress failed to act, Putnam and
\nfellow Massachusetts officers met at Boston\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Bunch of Grapes tavern on March
\n1, 1786, and formed the Ohio Company of Associates to pursue this program.
\nThe company was capitalized at $1,000,000 in Continental Certificates, the
\nmoney to be raised by selling 1,000 shares at $1,000 per share. Congress was
\nthen approached for a western land grant, but it showed little interest. Skillful
\nlobbying led by Manasseh Cutler helped congressmen to see the advantages of
\nhaving a corps of solid citizens setting up communities in the western
\nwilderness. The military experience of the associates would help to keep the
\nIndians in check, and to protect the new settlements. Congress, therefore, agreed
\nto sell 1,500,000 acres of Ohio lands lying west of the Seven Ranges, north of
\nthe Ohio River, east of the 16th range (not yet surveyed), and extending as far
\nnorth as required to secure that acreage.<\/p>\n

This land was to be privately surveyed on the pattern established by the
\nLand Ordinance of 1785. In each six mile square township, section 16 was to be
\nreserved for support of public schools, section 29 to support religion, sections,
\n8, 11, and 26 for later disposition by Congress, and two entire
\nsurveying townships (72 square miles) in perpetuity for
\nsupport of a university.<\/p>\n

Since the land was paid for in
\nseverely depreciated Continental securities,
\nits price was actually about twelve and a half
\ncents per acre. In allowing payment in depreciated secu<\/p>\n

page 27<\/p>\n

rities, Congress undercut its own recent rule, embraced in the Land Ordinance of
\n1785, that land must be paid for in cash or its equivalent. When the Ohio Company
\ncould not meet its second payment, it settled for the 750,000 acres it had paid for.<\/p>\n

Dividing Ohio Company land into shares was extremely
\ncomplex as indicated in this chart. The allotment deeds show seven
\nseparate tracts, grouped in six divisions, were conveyed for each
\nshare as follows:
\nDDiivviissiioonn TTrraacctt AAccrreess
\nFirst One eight acre lot 8.00
\nSecond One three acre lot 3.00
\nThird One house lot of (about) .37
\nFourth One one hundred and sixty acre lot 160.00
\nFifth One one hundred acre lot 100.00
\nOne six hundred and forty acre lot or section 640.00
\nSixth One two hundred and sixty two acre lot or fraction 262.00
\nTToottaall 11,,117733..3377
\nThis is called the Ohio Company First Purchase, and a U.S. Patent
\nfor this land was issued May 10, 1792 by President George
\nExterior view of the Rufus Putnam Residence in
\nMarietta, Ohio, ca. 1895. It was one of the dwellings
\nin Campus Martius, the fortification erected by the
\nOhio Company, ca. 1790-1799.
\nReproduction of a
\nportrait of General
\nRufus Putnam (profile),
\nca. 1780-1789. He was
\na Revolutionary War
\nveteran and member of
\nthe Ohio Company who
\nhelped to found
\nMarietta, Ohio and
\nopen the Northwest
\nTerritory for settlement.
\npage 28<\/p>\n

Washington.6 The First Purchase ultimately contained 913,883 acres including
\nthe reserved sections and townships.<\/p>\n

A congressional resolution of July 23, 1787, permitted military bounty
\nwarrants to be used in acquiring Ohio Company land. Such warrants, totaling
\n142,900 acres, were used in acquiring the Ohio Company Second Purchase<\/p>\n

totaling 214,285 acres. The U.S.
\nPatent for the second purchase
\nwas also issued on May 10,
\n1792.<\/p>\n

The Ohio Company divided
\n964,285 acres it had acquired
\ninto 822 shares of 1,173.37<\/p>\n

Exterior view of the Ohio Company Land Office
\nin Marietta, Ohio, ca. 1895. It was built after the acres each. On February 1,
\nOhio Company landed at Marietta in 1788. This<\/p>\n

1796, a deed of partition or<\/p>\n

photograph depicts the building in its second
\nlocation. In 1791 the Land Office was moved<\/p>\n

allotment was made to 817<\/p>\n

450 feet east of its original location so that it
\ncould be protected by the guns at Campus shareholders. The remainder
\nMartius from attacks by Native Americans<\/p>\n

was held in trust for the<\/p>\n

hostile to Anglo-American settlement of the
\nOhio Valley. It is the oldest building in company. All lands not previ-
\nOhio and presently part of the
\nCampus Martius State Memorial. ously conveyed or disposed of
\nwere sold in 1849.
\nThe initial survey of Ohio
\nCompany lands began with the
\nadvance party of settlers, who
\narrived at Marietta in April,
\n1788. On the east bank of the
\nMuskingum across from Ft.
\nHarmar, a town featuring in-lots
\nand out-lots was laid out. Rufus
\nPutnam directed the initial<\/p>\n

Photograph of the Marietta LandOffice building.<\/p>\n

6)
\nUnder the new Constitution, which took effect in 1789, the nation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s administrative
\nbusiness, formerly conducted by congressional boards, was conducted
\nby the executive branch through various agencies, boards, and offices.<\/p>\n

page 29<\/p>\n

survey under terms of the Land Ordinance of 1785, using its range, township,
\nand section numbering system. Some sections were divided differently to
\naccommodate the allotment plan.<\/p>\n

Ohio Company records are in the Marietta College Library, Marietta,
\nOhio. Copies of plats showing the allotments and original proprietors are in the
\nState of Ohio Archives in the Ohio Historical Center.<\/p>\n

Donation Tract<\/p>\n

The Donation Tract of 100,000 acres, located along the northern
\nborder of the Ohio Company lands, was
\nauthorized by Congress on April 21, 1792, to
\ncreate a buffer zone sheltering Ohio Company
\nlands from Indian incursions. To this end, a
\n100-acre lot would be given to any male,
\neighteen or older, who would actually settle
\non the land at the time the deed was conveyed.
\nThe 100,000 acres, located in present
\nAdams, Fearing, Salem, Muskingum, Palmer,
\nWaterford, and Watertown townships in<\/p>\n

Memorial to the Big Bottom<\/p>\n

Washington County, and in Windsor<\/p>\n

Massacre, the January 2, 1791
\nTownship, Morgan County, were originally battle between Ohio Company
\nsettlers and the Wyandot<\/p>\n

surveyed into 100-acre lots allotted by agents<\/p>\n

Indians. The memorial is
\nlocated in Morgan County,<\/p>\n

of the Ohio Company. On May 10, 1792 the<\/p>\n

Ohio. The photograph was<\/p>\n

U.S. Patent for the land was issued to the taken ca. 1940-1949.
\nOhio Company which then issued deeds to the
\nactual settlers. In 1818, lands not conveyed reverted to the federal government
\nand were sold at the Marietta Land Office.
\nThis marked the first time that federal land was given without charge to
\nspecified settlers, predating the more famous Homestead Act of 1862 by seventy
\nyears. Whether or not the tract actually served as a buffer can not be determined,
\nbut it is true that the Ohio Company lands never experienced another
\nIndian raid to compare with the Big Bottom Massacre of 1791.<\/p>\n

page 30<\/p>\n

Symmes Purchase (Miami Purchase)<\/p>\n

The Ohio Company of Associates was not the only group petitioning the
\nConfederation Congress for western lands. New Jersey interests, led by Judge John
\nCleves Symmes, a member of Congress, persuaded that body in 1787 to sell
\n1,000,000 acres lying north of the Ohio River between the two Miami rivers.
\nSymmes had been attracted to this land by the recommendation of Benjamin Stites,
\na soldier and trader to whom Symmes granted land near the Little Miami. Stites
\nand company erected some huts and called their settlement Columbia. It later
\nbecame an eastern extension of Cincinnati.<\/p>\n

Symmes never paid for nor developed the full 1,000,000 acres he sought.
\nHe mishandled survey and sales to such an extent that Congress restricted his purchase
\nto 311,682 acres, including lands reserved for special purposes. On occasion,
\nSymmes had sold land lying outside the bounds of his purchase. Sometimes his
\nassociates back in New Jersey sold lots, inadvertently, that Symmes had already
\nsold to others, and the reverse was true as well. Symmes ignored repeated federal
\nrequests to set aside the full surveying township he was obligated to supply for
\nsupport of an academy. This confusion was amplified by Indian wars that
\ndeveloped as the U.S. Army attempted to quell threats
\nfrom an Indian confederacy through a series of campaigns
\nagainst the tribes in the early 1790s.<\/p>\n

On September 30, 1794, President George
\nWashington signed the U.S. Patent deeding to
\nSymmes 248,250 acres, plus a surveying
\ntownship to be held in trust for an academy. As
\nwith the Ohio Company purchase, section 16 in
\neach township was reserved for the support of<\/p>\n

page 31<\/p>\n

public schools, section 29 for ministerial lands in support of churches, and sections
\n8, 11, and 26 for the future use of the federal government. In addition, the
\npatent reserved 15 acres for Ft. Washington, erected in 1789 and used thereafter
\nas a staging post for the U.S. Army in its attacks against the Ohio Indian confederacy
\n(1790-94). One square mile near the mouth of the Great Miami was
\nalso reserved for military purposes.<\/p>\n

Symmes paid $70,455 in public securities to acquire 105,683 acres, and
\nused military land warrants totaling 92,250 acres for an additional 142,857
\nacres. Depreciation of securities, plus a federal allowance of one-third dollar off
\nfor bad land and incidental charges, meant that Symmes actually paid about
\ntwo-thirds of a dollar per acre. As with the Ohio Company, private purchasers
\nbenefited from a better price than Congress offered through regular sales at
\nfederal land offices.<\/p>\n

Symmes conveyed the entire third range in trust to his close associate,
\nJonathan Dayton of New Jersey, because Dayton had purchased military bounty
\nwarrants from veterans who needed<\/p>\n

cash to buy land located outside the
\nSymmes Purchase. This third range is
\noften called the Military Range in the
\nrecords of Warren and Butler counties.<\/p>\n

The Symmes Purchase was privately
\nsurveyed. It is the only original
\nland survey in the United States that
\nhas ranges running south to north, and
\nfractional townships running west to
\neast. Sections are numbered according Captain John Cleves Symmes Memorial,<\/p>\n

Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio. Symmes,<\/p>\n

to the Land Ordinance of 1785. North<\/p>\n

son of the original proprietor, was a
\nof the Symmes Purchase, the federal captain in the War of 1812, an educator,
\nsurveyor, and a philosopher responsible
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u0153Between the Miamis Survey\u00e2\u20ac\u009d con-for the Theory of Concentric Spheres
\nand Polar Voids. This monument<\/p>\n

tinued the unorthodox numbering<\/p>\n

was erected in the 1840s and the
\nsystem in order to maintain consistency photograph was taken ca. 1940-1949.<\/p>\n

with the Symmes numbering.<\/p>\n

page 32<\/p>\n

Persons who unwittingly purchased land which Symmes sold beyond the
\nlimits of his patent, and who settled on that land, were technically squatters on
\nfederal land. Congress corrected this problem through relief acts, passed March 2,
\n1799 and March 3, 1801, giving these settlers pre-emption rights, the first right to
\nbuy their land from the federal government, in most cases at a favorable rate.<\/p>\n

Pre-emption rights were of exceptional interest to western settlers. These
\ncongressional acts set a precedent that was extended in future land legislation, predating
\nby four decades the Pre-emption Act of 1841 which was more general in<\/p>\n

A view designed to give easterners a look at a
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u0153western clearing\u00e2\u20ac\u009d from Ladies Repository,
\nvol. XV (1855); Ohio Historical Society
\ncharacter.
\nUnfortunately,
\npre-emption,
\nlike homesteading,
\nwas
\nsubject to fraud
\nand to illegal
\nsettlement on
\npublic lands
\nnot yet surveyed.<\/p>\n

Cabin raisings were often community efforts.
\nOhio Historical Society
\nSurveyor Christopher Gist is depicted in one
\nof the 18 original art renderings by Annette
\nSalrin for the official Ohio Bicentennial of the
\nAmerican Revolution celebration calendar.
\nOhio Historical Society<\/p>\n

page 33<\/p>\n

FEDERAL LAND OFFICES AND
\nSALES IN OHIO<\/p>\n

Determining the price of federal land and the conditions under which it
\ncould be sold was a feature of the land ordinances of 1785 and 1796. In each
\ncase, the minimum amount one could purchase directly from the federal government
\nwas set at one full section (640 acres), and the minimum price (lands
\nwere sold at auction) was set at one dollar per acre in 1785, and two dollars per
\nacre in 1796. Payment was to be in cash or in debt certificates the equivalent of
\ncash. In 1785, there was no credit provision: in 1796, one half the purchase
\nprice was due at the time of sale, and the other half within a year.7<\/p>\n

Obviously Congress expected initial purchasers to be from the monied
\nclass, for $640 plus fees, in cash, was well beyond what the typical settler could
\npay. The sale of large amounts of land, with payment in cash, promised to bring
\nmoney into the federal treasury more expeditiously than the sale of many small
\namounts to a large number of individual purchasers. Although these laws
\nfavored speculators, once the speculator possessed land, he normally expected
\nto sell it to settlers in smaller, affordable parcels. If he could not, he faced a loss
\non his investment. Purchasers at federal land offices sometimes banded together,
\nspreading their resources beyond the purchase of a single section, and sharing
\nresponsibility for potential losses.<\/p>\n

The history of federal land policy is replete with efforts to balance the
\ninterests of the federal government with the interests of land-seeking settlers on
\nthe one hand and speculators on the other. The federal government wanted to
\nmaximize income from sales, the settler wanted cheap land under favorable
\nterms. To this end, settlers pressured their congressmen to keep federal land<\/p>\n

7) The Confederation Congress (1781-89) and Congress under the new constitution
\n(1789-) relied on income from land sales for a substantial part of the
\nrevenue needed to operate the government and maintain the military. The
\nnew nation had but recently fought against what its people considered
\nexcessive and unfair taxation: it was prudent for legislators to seek non-tax
\nsources of revenue, hence their eagerness to optimize income from the sale of
\npublic lands.<\/p>\n

page 34<\/p>\n

prices low and terms of payment easy. Speculators, having purchased land they
\nexpected to resell, lobbied to keep prices high enough that they could sell under
\nthe federal price and still turn a profit. The sale terms that evolved under these
\ncountervailing forces represented compromise. Each party hoped to find new
\nterms of sale that redounded to its benefit. An example of this can be found in
\nthe Land Act passed by Congress in 1800, and known as the Harrison Land Act
\nfor its sponsor.<\/p>\n

The State of Ohio Archives has a card index of about
\n175,000 cards, some of them duplicates, arranged by surname,
\nand then the given name of the purchaser (entryman) who
\nacquired federal public lands in Ohio. It also has the Federal
\nTract and Entry books which are arranged by surveying
\nrange, township, section, and part of section. These give the
\nname of the purchaser (entryman), quantity of acres entered,
\nand date of entry. Sometimes additional information is given,
\nsuch as the purchase price, state or country of residence at
\nthe time of entry, the final certificate number, and the federal
\nland office where the land was sold. The current county and
\ncivil township are not given in the tract and entry books, but
\ncan be determined by using the range, township, section, part
\nof section, and original survey name, with a map showing
\nOhio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s original land subdivisions.<\/p>\n

In the year 2000, original land deed records were
\nelectronically imaged and are available in the State Auditor’s
\nOffice Legal Division. The State Auditor’s Office has more
\nthan 300 cubic feet of original land records in the State of
\nOhio Archives. Inquiries should be sent to either the State of
\nOhio Archives: Ohio Historical Center, 1982 Velma Avenue,
\nColumbus, OH 43211 or State Auditor’s Office, Legal Division,
\n88 East Broad Street – 5th floor, Columbus, OH 43215.<\/p>\n

page 35<\/p>\n

Harrison Land Act, May 10, 1800<\/p>\n

William Henry Harrison was the sole representative to Congress from
\nthe Northwest Territory. He was associated politically with the group pressing
\nfor early statehood for Ohio. He was born into privilege, but as a frontier resident,
\nhe was familiar with the liberal land policies desired by actual settlers on
\nwestern lands. The land act that he sponsored represented a compromise of
\nsorts. It liberalized sale terms while retaining a substantial price per acre.<\/p>\n

The Land Act of 1800 established federal land offices in Steubenville,
\nMarietta, Chillicothe, and Cincinnati. Land office business was now more
\nreadily accessible to potential purchasers. The new law provided for sale at
\nauction, and the minimum price was set at two dollars per acre. Private entry
\nwas permitted if the auctioned land did not sell. The minimum amount to be
\nsold was cut in half, to 320 acres (half section). For the first time, the law
\nextended credit to purchasers. The entryman (purchaser) had to deposit 5% of
\nthe purchase price, including surveying fees, on the day of sale. Another 20%
\nwas due within 40 days. Additional payments of 25% of the purchase price were<\/p>\n

Bird’s eye view of Steubenville, Jefferson County, Ohio, ca. 1940-1949.
\npage 36<\/p>\n

to be made within two, three, and four years after date of sale. The last three
\npayments carried an interest charge of 6%. Any tract not completely paid for
\nwithin one year after the date of the last payment would be advertised for sale
\nby the registrar of the land office, who would then sell it at public sale for no
\nless than the whole arrears due. If the land was not sold, or the arrears paid, it
\nwould then revert to the United States. A discount of 8% per year was allowed
\nfor prepayment of any of the last three payments. A purchaser who paid in full
\nfor his tract on the day of sale could thus buy $2 an acre land for $1.64 an acre.<\/p>\n

The act also created two positions\u00e2\u20ac\u201dReceiver of Public Monies, and
\nRegistrar of Public Lands. These officials in each land office could permit the
\nSurveyor General of the United States to lease the reserved sections of townships
\nfor up to seven years on condition that the lessee make improvements. The
\nact provided pre-emption rights for anyone erecting a grist mill.<\/p>\n

The first federal land office opened in Steubenville in July, 1800. This
\noffice and its sister offices in Ohio enjoyed brisk sales that disposed of 398,647
\nacres at a price of $834,888 in the 1800-01 season alone. By June 30, 1820, the
\nfour Ohio land offices had sold 8,848,152 acres (13,825 square miles) for
\n$17,226,186 at an average price per acre of $1.95.<\/p>\n

These figures appear to show that federal land was moving at a healthy
\npace, but there were problems. More than 29% of those acres were resold due to
\ndefault on payment. The first large scale default was related to the Panic of
\n1819, which was caused in large part by over-extension of credit in public land
\nsales. Land purchasers were often wildly optimistic about their ability to meet
\npayments. Too many actual settlers, who should have used their funds to
\nimprove land they already owned, took a flyer and purchased additional land
\nbeyond their ability to pay.<\/p>\n

Ohio was still a wilderness in 1820. Only a few towns of respectable
\nsize, nearly all of them along rivers in the state\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s southern reaches, challenged
\nthe great forests and soggy plains. Even the most favorably located farmers
\nrisked a year\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s work as they sent their goods by flatboat down the Ohio-
\nMississippi riverway to market at New Orleans. Those living in Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s interior
\nhad scarcely any way to market their crops and livestock. Cash money (specie)<\/p>\n

page 37<\/p>\n

was extremely scarce: much business was carried on by barter. But one could
\nnot barter with the federal land office. It is little wonder there were frequent
\ndefaults on land payments.<\/p>\n

Every interest suffered during the Panic of 1819, not just farmers. Land
\nspeculators, banks and other lenders, and business interests generally, even those
\nin the eastern states, felt its effects. So there was support for the new Land Act,
\npassed by Congress April 24, 1820, that abolished the credit system. To offset
\nthis loss of maneuvering room, the price of public land was reduced to $1.25
\nper acre and the minimum purchase reduced to 80 acres. Sales continued, as the
\neconomy recovered, and the Chillicothe land office alone, from 1820 until its
\nclosing in 1876, managed 94,182 entries.<\/p>\n

The purchase of federal land was a bureaucratic process in the early
\nnineteenth century. Once a purchaser (entryman) paid for his land, the registrar
\nof the land office issued a final certificate (or certificate of location if land scrip
\nwas used in the purchase). The final certificate was then sent to federal author<\/p>\n

ities in Washington D.C. and a U.S. Patent was
\nissued. Accounts and records had to be verified,
\nthus extending the process. Until March 1833,<\/p>\n

each U.S. Patent was signed by the
\nPresident of the United States. The patent
\nwas then returned to the originating land<\/p>\n

office to be delivered to the owner (patentee).
\nSome patentees failed to record their<\/p>\n

U.S. Patents, and others never even picked
\nthem up from the land office. At the time of
\nits closure in 1876, the Chillicothe land
\noffice held thousands of unclaimed patents.
\nThese were returned to the General Land
\nOffice in Washington D.C.<\/p>\n

In 1800, William Henry Harrison,
\nserved as secretary tothe Northwest Territory. He would
\ngo on to become the 9th President
\nof the United States
\n(March 4, 1841 to April 4, 1841).<\/p>\n

page 38<\/p>\n

AN ORIGINAL FEDERAL SURVEY ON THE
\nFIVE MILE SQUARE PATTERN<\/p>\n

From the story of original surveys in Ohio to this point, it is evident that
\nCongress was willing to allow a variety of practices. Congress was not beyond
\nexperimenting with their own six mile square township pattern, and in 1796 they
\ndid so. Only the Connecticut Western Reserve, privately surveyed, used the five
\nmile square, and that survey was going on even as Congress established its own
\nfive mile square survey to accommodate soldiers\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 bounty land warrants.<\/p>\n

United States Military District (USMD)<\/p>\n

As early as 1776, and again in 1780, the Continental Congress had
\nresolved to grant bounty lands to officers and men of the Continental Line. Each
\nstate was responsible for seeing to the needs of soldiers in its own regiments.
\nThe new Congress under the Articles of Confederation (1781-89) had initially
\nprovided bounty lands for Continental soldiers in the Seven Ranges, but this
\nprovision did not succeed in meeting the need.<\/p>\n

On June 1, 1796, Congress addressed the issue again, passing legislation
\nthat created the United States Military District, sometimes referred to as
\nthe USMD Lands or the USMD Survey.<\/p>\n

Survey of the USMD began in March
\n1797 according to the provisions of the act of
\nJune 1, 1796. The land was to be divided into
\nsurveying townships five miles square
\n(16,000 acres) with the township then divided
\ninto quarter townships of 4,000 acres each.
\nRanges were numbered east to west, starting
\nat the line of range seven in the Seven
\nRanges. Townships were numbered
\nnorthward from the base line, which is the
\nsouth line of the USMD tract. Quarter townships
\nwere numbered in a counterclockwise
\ndirection starting with the number one in the<\/p>\n

Bounty Land Warrants
\nfor Veterans of the
\nAmerican Revolution<\/p>\n

Acreage by Rank*
\nMajor General . . .1100 acres
\nBrigadier . . . . . . . .850 acres
\nColonel . . . . . . . . .500 acres
\nLieutenant Colonel .450 acres
\nMajor . . . . . . . . . . .400 acres
\nCaptain . . . . . . . . .300 acres
\nLieutenant . . . . . . .200 acres
\nEnsign . . . . . . . . . .150 acres
\nNon-Commissioned 100 acres
\nSoldier . . . . . . . . . .100 acres
\nSurgeon . . . . . . . .400 acres
\nSurgeon\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Mate . . .300 acres<\/p>\n

*Source: William Donohue Ellis, The
\nOrdinance of 1787: The Nation Begins,
\nDayton, Ohio: Landfall Press, 1987, p. 28<\/p>\n

page 39<\/p>\n

township\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s northeast corner. The quarter townships were subdivided by their
\noriginal proprietors in whatever manner they wanted.<\/p>\n

One wonders why the original survey conformed so poorly to the actual
\nsize of veterans\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 warrants. One explanation, it would seem, must center around
\nCongress\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 desire for speed in reconciling the veteran pay issue, and the practical
\nproblems of subdividing the land on a finer grid. Veterans had to pool their war-<\/p>\n

Refugee Tract
\npage 40<\/p>\n

rants if they were to buy from the government. Apparently Congress recognized
\nthe awkwardness of these conditions and, in 1800, allowed 50 quarter townships
\nand fractional quarter townships, not already taken, to be divided into 100 acre
\nlots. Two years later, Congress permitted some fractional townships to be
\ndivided into 50 acre lots. On March 3, 1803, all remaining land not covered by
\nwarrants, or previously subdivided, were to be surveyed into one mile square
\nsections and sold on the same terms as other public lands.<\/p>\n

In the USMD, as elsewhere in the surveyed lands, many veterans sold
\ntheir warrants to speculators or jobbers at a fraction of their true value. Of the
\n1,043,460 acres claimed by land warrant, 569,542 acres were patented to just 22
\npersons. The actual location of the 262 quarter townships claimed by military
\nwarrants was determined by a drawing. Few absentee owners ever visited their
\nland, and fewer still spent any time on it. They sold it, sight unseen, as a speculative
\nventure, often paying no regard to any attachment of sale made by Ohio
\nofficials for delinquent taxes.<\/p>\n

By 1823, the United States government had issued 10,958 warrants
\nfor service in the Revolutionary War totaling 1,549,350 acres,
\nand more were issued under various laws thereafter. These warrants
\ncould only be used in the USMD except for those used in the Ohio
\nCompany lands or in the Symmes Purchase. Veterans who held on to
\ntheir warrants finally received relief by the act of May 30, 1830, which
\nallowed them to exchange their warrants for land scrip issued in 80
\nacre amounts, good for $1.25 an acre on land anywhere in the public
\ndomain available for private entry. This act, plus seven other warrant
\nexchange acts, caused more than 12,138,840 acres of land scrip to be
\nissued. Researchers will find that land scrip could be bought cheaply,
\ndepending on market conditions. Its use in land transactions does not
\ninfer the holder was entitled to it by military service. Veterans often
\nsold their land scrip to land jobbers, thus producing a dead-end situation
\nfor family researchers.<\/p>\n

page 41<\/p>\n

TERMS OF SALE UNDER VARIOUS<\/p>\n

U.S. LAND ACTS 1785-1862*
\nYear Minimum P
\nPP
\nrice Terms
\nM
\nMM
\ni
\nii
\nn
\nnn
\ni
\nii
\nm
\nmm
\nu
\nuu
\nm
\nmm
\nPurchase
\n1785 $1.00 per acre Specie, loan-office or debt certificates. 640 Acres
\n1796 $2.00 per acre One-half down, one half due in one year 640 Acres
\n1800 $2.00 per acre One-quarter cash, remainder to be paid in
\nthree annual installments.
\n320 Acres
\n1804 $2.00 per acre One-quarter cash, remainder to be paid in
\nthree annual installments.
\n160 Acres
\n1820 1.25 per acre Cash. 80 Acres
\n1830 Land Scrip acceptable in lieu of cash
\n1832 $1.25 per acre Cash, Land Scrip. 40 Acres
\n1841 $1.25 per acre Squatters who built homes and improved
\nland could purchase one-quarter section
\nbefore it was offered for public sale.
\n160 Acres
\n1855 $1.00 per acre Land not sold for 10 years to be offered at
\n$1.00 per acre; if not sold for 30 years, land
\ncould be disposed of at 121\/2\u00c2\u00a2 per Acre.
\n40-320 Acres
\n1862 $10 (filing fee) Title could be obtained after 5 years
\nresidence under Homestead Act.
\n160 Acres
\n*1800-1862 Initial Sale by Public Auction<\/p>\n

The USMD is bounded on the north by the Greenville Treaty Line, on the
\neast by the Seven Ranges, on the south by the Refugee Tract and
\nCongress Lands, and on the west by the Scioto River. Its 2,560,000 acres
\n(4,000 square miles) are located in Franklin, Delaware, Knox, Licking,
\nMorrow, Noble, Marion, Holmes, Coshocton, Muskingum, Tuscarawas, and
\nGuernsey counties.<\/p>\n

page 42<\/p>\n

CONGRESS LANDS<\/p>\n

Initially all of the public domain could be described as Congress Lands,
\nbut that name was replaced in those regions developed in special surveys such
\nas the Seven Ranges or the United States Military District. What remained in
\nthe public domain outside these particular regions was still referred to as
\nCongress Lands, and they were surveyed under the federal rectangular system,
\nwith six mile square townships, and with the numbering system of 1796.<\/p>\n

Lands East of the Scioto River<\/p>\n

This tract contains more than 3,500,000 acres lying east of the Scioto
\nRiver, south of the Refugee Tract and the United States Military District, west
\nof the Seven Ranges, the Donation Tract and the Ohio Company Purchase, and
\nnorth of the Ohio River.<\/p>\n

The major portion of this tract was coveted by the Scioto Company, a
\nspeculative venture led by the influential William Duer, which attempted to ride
\nthe coat tails of the Ohio Company to success. The Ohio company did succeed,
\nof course, but mismanagement and fraud doomed the Scioto Company. It was
\nunable to pay Congress for its purchase and the land remained in the control of
\nthe federal government.<\/p>\n

This survey was integrated into the Ohio Company and Seven Ranges
\nsurveys with the six mile square townships numbered south to north and ranges
\nnumbered east to west. A different survey was used in a 25,200 acre tract that
\nCongress reserved for the French Grants (see page 50). Many irregularities in
\napplying the national system occur in the East of Scioto Tract due to surveying
\nerrors, multiple surveys, and erratic numbering.<\/p>\n

Lands West of Miami River<\/p>\n

This tract lies west of the Great Miami River, east of the Ohio-Indiana
\nstate line, and south of the Greenville Treaty Line. The original survey in 1798
\ncontained a triangular shaped slice of land, now located in Indiana, that
\nextended to the Greenville line as it ran from Fort Recovery to opposite the
\nmouth of the Kentucky River. The Ohio Enabling Act of 1802 established
\nOhio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s western boundary as a surveyor\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s meridian, north from the mouth of the<\/p>\n

page 43<\/p>\n

Great Miami. Ranges are numbered east and west of that meridian, those in
\nOhio being \u00e2\u20ac\u0153East of the First Meridian.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Townships are numbered south to north
\nwith irregularities caused in part by the surveyors basing the numbering on the
\nGreat Miami.<\/p>\n

North of the Seven Ranges<\/p>\n

Congress originally expected to include in the original survey of 1785
\nlands between the Ohio River and Lake Erie. Connecticut\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s reservation,
\naccepted by Congress in 1786, preempted lands north of the 41st parallel.
\nBetween that parallel and the Base Line of the Seven Ranges Survey, extending
\nwestward from the Pennsylvania line to the Tuscarawas River, lands were surveyed
\ncirca 1801 under the law of 1796. The ranges and townships followed
\nthose of the original Seven Ranges, but the sections were numbered according
\nto the 1796 pattern.<\/p>\n

Land west of the Cuyahoga-Tuscarawas line and north of the U.S. military
\nDistrict remained Indian territory until that land was ceded in the Treaty of
\nFt. Industry (1805). The ceded lands lying within the Western Reserve were surveyed
\nas an extension of the original Western Reserve survey of 1796-97.
\nCongress Lands south of the Reserve were surveyed in 1806-07. This survey
\nhad six mile square townships and continued the range, township, and section
\nnumbering system of the Ohio River Survey, section numbering being based on
\nthe 1796 land act.<\/p>\n

The Signing of
\nthe Treaty of
\nGreeneville,
\n1795, as
\ndepicted by
\nHoward
\nChandler
\nChristy (painted
\nin 1945).
\nAnthony Wayne
\ndictates terms to
\nthe Indians. This
\npainting is
\ncurrently
\nhanging in the
\nrotunda of the
\nOhio Statehouse.<\/p>\n

page 44<\/p>\n

CONGRESS LANDS IN NORTHWEST OHIO<\/p>\n

Lands west of the Ft. Industry line and north of the Greenville line constitute
\nnorthwest Ohio, the last major region of the state to be developed. Here lands \u00e2\u20ac\u0153guaranteed\u00e2\u20ac\u009d
\nto Indian tribes by the Treaty of Greenville (1795) were relinquished by the
\ntribes in one treaty after another. By 1818, most of northwest Ohio was in possession
\nof the United States although many small reservations remained until they, too, were
\nabandoned through forced agreements. After the Wyandots of Upper Sandusky were
\nforced out in 1842-43, no organized Indian tribe remained in Ohio, and, to this day, it
\nis one of a small handful of states containing no Indian reservation.<\/p>\n

South & East of the First Principal Meridian and Base Line<\/p>\n

In 1817 the Ohio-Indiana border was surveyed and became known as the
\nFirst Principal Meridian for all land surveyed in the rest of the United States. The
\n41st parallel of north latitude became the base line. Congress Lands lying east of the
\nmeridian and south of the base line were first surveyed in 1819 under the direction
\nof Edward Tiffin, Surveyor General of the United States. The tract included Indian
\nreservations surveyed after the tribes left. This survey used the standard six mile
\nsquare township, but townships were numbered north to south. Ranges were numbered
\nwest to east.<\/p>\n

North & East of the First Principal Meridian and Base Line<\/p>\n

This tract extended eastward from the First Principal Meridian to the
\nwestern boundary of the Western Reserve, and northward from the Base Line (41st
\nparallel) to the line then separating Ohio from Michigan Territory. The survey in
\n1820-21 created six mile square townships, numbered south to north, and ranges
\nnumbered west to east. A<\/p>\n

Indian tribes,
\nwere surveyed
\nsome years later.<\/p>\n

Twelve Mile Reserve and a
\nTwo Mile Reserve, legacies of
\nthe Treaty of Greenville, plus
\ncertain lands still held by
\npage 45<\/p>\n

The Michigan Survey<\/p>\n

This original land survey is located in Williams, Fulton, and Lucas
\ncounties. It is a continuation of the federal rectangular surveys starting from the
\nMichigan Meridian, located west of Detroit, and the Base Line located northwest
\nof Detroit. Due to misconceptions about the geography of the region at the time
\nOhio was going through the state making process, controversy erupted over
\nproper location of the border between Ohio and Michigan Territory.<\/p>\n

The controversy traces to the assumption that an east-west line drawn
\nthrough the southern extremity of Lake Michigan, as provided in the Northwest
\nOrdinance of 1787, would give the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153eastern division\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (i.e. Ohio) the mouth of the
\nMaumee River, clearly the most desirable feature of the region. This line was confirmed
\nin the Ohio enabling act of 1802, but shortly thereafter it was discovered
\nthat Lake Michigan extended further to the south than had been assumed, and an
\neast-west line from its southern extremity would intersect Lake Erie south of the
\nmouth of the Maumee. Armed with this information, delegates to Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s constitutional
\nconvention wrote into the new state constitution that, with the approval of
\nCongress, Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s northern border would be a line drawn directly from Lake
\nMichigan\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s southern extremity to the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153most northerly cape of the Miami
\n(Maumee) Bay.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Congress approved the constitution without either confirming or
\nrejecting Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s self-negotiated line.<\/p>\n

In 1817, the Surveyor General of Ohio oversaw a survey by William
\nHarris, who ran a boundary line according to the language of the Ohio
\nConstitution. Michigan objected and ordered its own survey, known as the Fulton
\nLine, according to boundary descriptions in the Northwest Ordinance and the
\nOhio enabling act of 1802. Land between the Harris Line and the Fulton Line,
\nsometimes called the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Toledo Strip,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d was hotly contested. Both Ohio and
\nMichigan Territory threatened to occupy this land with militia, and each made
\nother gestures by which they hoped to demonstrate control. The issue came to a
\nhead in the mid-1830s as Michigan was preparing for statehood. Both Congress
\nand Andrew Jackson\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s presidential administration became involved in the dispute.
\nUltimately Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s superior political clout prevailed, and on June 15, 1836,
\nJackson signed a congressional act awarding the disputed region to Ohio.<\/p>\n

page 46<\/p>\n

Michigan achieved its main goal, statehood, in 1837 and, as consolation for loss
\nof the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Toledo strip,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d was awarded 9,000 square miles which became its Upper
\nPeninsula.<\/p>\n

In 1915, Ohio and Michigan joined in a resurvey of the Harris Line that
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u0153satisfied\u00e2\u20ac\u009d both states. However, where the Harris Line touched Lake Erie\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s shore,
\nit was extended northeasterly to the Canadian boundary in Lake Erie, giving Ohio
\nmany square miles of Lake Erie coveted by Michigan, which claimed the Harris
\nLine should have been extended in a straight line to the boundary. This conflict
\nwas resolved in 1973 when federal courts ruled that the disputed area in Lake Erie
\nbelonged to Ohio.<\/p>\n

The Michigan Survey is based on the Michigan Meridian and Base Line.
\nRanges are numbered from the Meridian in both an east and a west direction.
\nTownship numbering is uniquely irregular, but it is based on the line of the 41st
\nparallel.<\/p>\n

The survey of Northwest Ohio used the
\nOhio-Indiana state line as a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153First Principal
\nMeridian.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d The 41st parallel of north latitude
\nbecame an intersecting, east-west base
\nline used in surveying.<\/p>\n

page 47<\/p>\n

FEDERAL LAND GRANTS FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES<\/p>\n

Congress made federal land grants to groups or individuals for specific
\nreasons: some in sympathy for a mistreated group, some for services rendered
\nthe United States, and at least one\u00e2\u20ac\u201dZane\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Tract\u00e2\u20ac\u201din fulfillment of a business
\narrangement.<\/p>\n

Moravian Indian Grants<\/p>\n

Moravian missionaries came to America in the seventeenth and eighteenth
\ncenturies, in part to introduce Christianity to the Indians. In 1772 and
\nshortly thereafter, they brought their Delaware and Mohican converts to the
\nTuscarawas Valley. There they established several villages, but the location was
\nunfortunate. The villages were situated between hostile, British-supported tribes
\nto their west, and aggressive American frontier fighters to their east during a
\nperiod of bloody struggle in the Ohio country. On March 8, 1782, a band of
\nabout 100 Pennsylvania militiamen who had suffered atrocities from hostile<\/p>\n

Aerial view of the Moravian Village, Schoenbrunn, in New Philadelphia,
\nTuscarawas County, Ohio, 1930-1939.
\npage 48<\/p>\n

Indians descended upon Gnadenhutten, rounded up the Christian Indians nearby,
\nand systematically murdered 96 men, women, and children.<\/p>\n

The slaying of these innocents horrified many easterners, safely
\nremoved from the crude realities of the frontier. Congress thus made recompense
\nin the Land Ordinance of 1785 by granting to the Moravian Indian survivors
\nthree tracts of 4,000 acres each, located near Schoenbrunn,
\nGnadenhutten, and Salem\u00e2\u20ac\u201dMoravian towns situated in the Tuscarawas Valley.
\nIn an ordinance of September 3, 1788, these tracts were donated in trust to the
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u0153Society of the United Brethren (Moravian) for propagating the Gospel among
\nthe Heathen.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d This act was intended to help Moravian missionaries in the task
\nof \u00e2\u20ac\u0153civilizing\u00e2\u20ac\u009d the tribes, and was to encourage scattered remnants of the
\nChristian Indian peoples to return to their former homes along the Tuscarawas.<\/p>\n

On February 24, 1798, a U.S. Patent was issued to the United Brethren
\nas trustees for the Indians, but few of the now scattered Christian Indians
\nreturned to their shadowed valley. Thus, by agreements signed by a U.S.
\nCommissioner, the United Brethren and the Christian Indians, the trust was
\nrevoked in 1823 and the three tracts transferred to the federal government. The<\/p>\n

United Brethren
\nDeed of
\nRetrocession was
\nexecuted April 24,
\n1824, and accepted
\nby Congress May
\n26, 1824.<\/p>\n

In 1825,
\nthe three tracts
\nwere divided into
\nfarm lots and later
\nsold by government
\nagents at the courthouse
\nin New
\nPhiladelphia. Lots<\/p>\n

Interior of reconstructed schoolhouse in the
\nMoravian village, Schoenbrunn, in New
\nPhiladelphia, Tuscarawas County, Ohio, 1939.
\npage 49<\/p>\n

remaining unsold were later sold at the Zanesville Land Office. The Christian
\nIndians received a $400 annuity from the sale proceeds, and the United Brethren
\nSociety received enough money to pay the debt remaining from improvements it
\nhad made to the tracts.<\/p>\n

French Grants<\/p>\n

The French Grants, located along the Ohio River in Scioto County, were
\nawarded to 101 Frenchmen who had been swindled by the Scioto Company (see
\npage 43). Unscrupulous agents sold lands the company did not own to credulous
\nFrench emigr\u00c3\u00a9s. In the process, they grossly misrepresented what lay in store for<\/p>\n

Arrival of the French settlers at Gallipolis.
\nthe emigrating
\nFrenchmen. The
\nlands to which the
\nFrench held
\nworthless titles were
\nactually located
\nwithin the Ohio
\nCompany purchase.
\nThe Ohio Company
\nprovided them initial<\/p>\n

shelter and then sold
\nlots to them for $1.25 an acre. Many of the French decided to try their luck elsewhere,
\nbut those who remained founded Gallipolis (city of the Gauls).<\/p>\n

Congress was prevailed upon to aid these unfortunates who had paid
\ntwice for land. It passed a bill on May 31, 1795 giving 24,000 acres to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the
\nFrench inhabitants of Gallipolis.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d John Gervais received 4,000 of these acres for
\nservices in obtaining the grant. The remainder was surveyed into 92 lots of<\/p>\n

217.4 acres each. This is commonly called the First Grant. Eight inhabitants of
\nGallipolis did not receive a portion of the First Grant, so Congress granted an
\nadditional 1,200 acres on June 25, 1798. This land was surveyed into 150-acre
\nlots and is known as the Second Grant.
\npage 50<\/p>\n

Refugee Tract<\/p>\n

The Refugee Tract of 103,527 acres is located in parts of Franklin,
\nFairfield, Licking and Perry counties. It extends eastward from the Scioto River
\nfor 42 miles along the south line of the United States Military District. In the
\nfirst 30 miles, the Refugee Tract is four and one half miles wide, but it narrows
\nto three miles wide in its easternmost twelve miles.<\/p>\n

The refugees were persons from British Canada who had fled south to
\naid the colonial cause during the War for Independence. Terms of the grant were
\nrestrictive. On April 7, 1798, Congress granted land to refugees who had fled
\nsouth before July 4, 1776, continued to aid the United States, and who did not
\nreturn to reside in territory ruled by the British monarch prior to November 25,
\n1783. In other words, the refugee had to have been away from home, aiding the
\nrevolutionary cause during the entire revolutionary struggle. Not many could
\nqualify, even though Congress provided that bounty land could be claimed by
\nwidows and heirs of such persons if they died within the United States or in
\ncolonial service during the Revolutionary War.<\/p>\n

An act of February 18, 1801 established the boundaries of the Refugee
\nTract and named the claimants and the amount of land to which each was
\nentitled. Other claimants were named in an act of April 23, 1812. In all, 67
\nclaimants received 58,080 acres, most of it in 320, 640, 960, 1280, and 2,240
\nacre amounts.<\/p>\n

The Refugee Lands were not set aside until after the regular federal
\nsurveys had progressed to the United States Military District, so range,
\ntownship, section lines and numbers were already established. Townships were
\nfractional (partial) and were subdivided into 320-acre lots by halving each full
\nsection with a north-south line. The claimant\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s grant was located by drawing
\nlots. An act of April 29, 1816 authorized the Chillicothe Land Office to sell
\n45,447 unclaimed acres.<\/p>\n

In Columbus, the Refugee Grant lies approximately between Fifth
\nAvenue on the north and Refugee Road on the south. The Ohio Statehouse and
\nmost downtown office buildings are located within the tract.<\/p>\n

page 51<\/p>\n

Zane\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Tract
\nEbenezer Zane, an early settler of Wheeling in Western Virginia, con<\/p>\n

tracted with the federal government to build a road through the southern Ohio<\/p>\n

wilderness. Zane\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Trace, as the road was called, was hacked out of the dense<\/p>\n

forest in 1796-97. It was little more than an improved bridle path connecting<\/p>\n

Wheeling with Limestone (Maysville), Kentucky, a principal stopover for down<\/p>\n

river travelers.
\nAs payment for his work, Congress authorized Zane to locate three
\ntracts of 640 acres each so
\nlong as he paid for the
\nsurveys and did not interfere
\nwith existing government
\nsurveys. Zane located his
\ntracts where his trace crossed
\nthe Muskingum, Hocking,
\nand Scioto rivers. He received
\nthe right to operate ferries at
\nthese strategic sites. The
\nwisdom of his choices
\nbecame apparent as the
\nMuskingum crossing grew
\ninto Zanesville (named for
\nEbenezer), the Hocking
\ncrossing became Lancaster,
\nand Chillicothe developed
\nacross the Scioto from his
\nother grant.
\nBy an act of April 3,
\n1802, Ebenezer\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s brother,
\nIsaac Zane, was granted three
\nsections of 640 acres each, for
\nservices to the federal gov-<\/p>\n

Reconstruction of the home of Ebenezer Zane, Jr. in
\nLogan County, Ohio. The home was built in 1805
\nand used as an army headquarters in the War of
\n1812. The photograph was taken ca. 1940-1949.<\/p>\n

Memorial to Isaac Zane & Simon Kenton, Zanesfield,
\nLogan County, Ohio. The memorial was unveiledSeptember 8, 1914. The photograph is ca. 1940-1949.<\/p>\n

page 52<\/p>\n

ernment as intermediary with the Ohio Indians. Two of the sections were reserved
\nfor the use and benefit of Isaac\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s children, living at the time of his death, or their
\nheirs. Zane was issued a U.S. Patent for these tracts on August 28, 1806. They are
\nlocated in the civil townships of Salem and Concord in Champaign County.<\/p>\n

Dohrman Grant<\/p>\n

Arnold Henry Dohrman\u00e2\u20ac\u201dagent for the United States to the Portuguese
\ncrown during the Revolutionary War\u00e2\u20ac\u201dfed, clothed, and nursed American sailors
\ncaptured by British cruisers and then released into Dohrman\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s hands. His request
\nfor reimbursement for the funds he personally subscribed in this work were in large
\npart disallowed by the Treasury for lack of proper documentation. Congress sympathized
\nwith his plight, however, and on October 1, 1787, granted him an entire
\ntownship (23,040 acres) as compensation for his expenses and in recognition of his
\nhumanitarian efforts.<\/p>\n

By an act of February 27, 1801, President John Adams issued a U.S.
\nPatent to Dohrman for Township 13, Range 7 in the Seven Ranges Survey. Today,
\nhalf of that land lies in Harrison, and half in Tuscarawas counties. On March 3,
\n1817, Congress granted his widow, Rachel, a lifetime annuity of $300, and to each
\nof Dohrman\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s minor children, $100 annually until they reached age 21.<\/p>\n

Other Grants to Individuals<\/p>\n

The Dohrman grant was unusually generous, overshadowing in scope
\ngrants made to many others in Ohio. The United States made small grants to some
\nIndian leaders as part of treaty negotiations, to white men freed from Indian captivity,
\nand to early settlers who traded with the Indians on behalf of the United
\nStates. The lands granted were located in northwestern Ohio, some of them along
\nthe St. Mary\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s River.<\/p>\n

Other individuals were rewarded with the grant of pre-emption rights,
\nwhich was the right to have first opportunity at purchasing federal land without
\nhaving to bid on it. This advantage was eagerly sought by settlers, and their lobbying
\nwith congress finally paid off in the Land Act of 1841, granting pre-emption
\nto people settled on federal land that they did not own.<\/p>\n

page 53<\/p>\n

FEDERAL MILITARY RESERVATIONS (FORTS)<\/p>\n

Pioneer Ohio had two kinds of fortifications: those that were locally
\ncreated, like Marietta\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Campus Martius, and those that were federally mandated.
\nFederal fort locations (the structure plus surrounding land), often preceded
\noriginal surveys, and their lands were integrated into the original surveys
\nat a later time. A few federal forts, however, were original surveys.<\/p>\n

Fort Washington<\/p>\n

Fort Washington was built in Cincinnati in 1789 to protect settlers. It
\nbecame the staging post for U.S. Army campaigns against the Indian confederacy
\nin the 1790s. The military reservation covered 15 acres, and was set aside
\nfor use by the federal government in John Cleves Symmes\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 U.S. Patent. Its military
\nvalue much diminished, Congress ordered the property subdivided in 1806
\ninto town lots and streets which were to conform to the original town plat of
\nCincinnati. The survey, certified July 8, 1807, shows the fort\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s boundaries to be
\nFourth Street to the north, Ludlow Street to the east, the Ohio River to the
\nsouth, and Broadway to the west. Modern Cincinnati\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s waterfront attractions are
\nbuilt partly on the old Fort Washington grounds.<\/p>\n

Twelve Mile Square Reservation<\/p>\n

The Treaty of Greenville (1795) reserved to the United States a twelve mile
\nsquare military reservation located at the rapids of the Maumee. This strategic
\nlocation had been recognized by the British, who erected Ft. Miami on the north bank
\nin 1794 to assist Ohio Indians to stop further encroachments upon their lands. As a
\ncondition of Jay\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Treaty (1794), the British abandoned the fort in the summer of
\n1796. During the War of 1812, General William Henry Harrison\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s army erected Ft.
\nMeigs on the south side of the Maumee just below the rapids, but long before that,
\nsurveys had been made within the Twelve Mile Square.<\/p>\n

By an act of Congress March 3, 1805, the Reserve was surveyed into four,
\nsix mile square townships, numbered clockwise with number one located in the
\nsouthwest corner. Each township was partially subdivided into sections although
\nmany sections impinged upon private land claims. In 1816, sections fronting the river
\nwere subdivided into long lots of about 160 acres apiece. They are numbered 1 to 93<\/p>\n

page 54<\/p>\n

and called \u00e2\u20ac\u0153River Tracts\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in the State Auditor\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s records. Also in 1816, town lots and
\nout lots were to be laid out in a quantity not to exceed two entire sections. Included
\nwas the town of Perrysburg.<\/p>\n

Two Mile Square Reservation<\/p>\n

The Two Mile Square, now embraced within the city limits of Fremont, was
\nanother strategic location reserved to the United States in the Treaty of Greenville
\n(1795). It was located on both sides of the Sandusky River at the rapids. During the
\nWar of 1812, Americans built Ft.
\nStephenson on an acre of land on
\nthe river\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s west side. In 1813, young
\nMajor George Croghan and his
\nbadly outnumbered troops successfully
\ndefended the fort against a
\nBritish and Indian force of about
\n1,300 men.<\/p>\n

In 1807, the Two Mile
\nSquare was surveyed into four 640acre
\nsections. By an act of April 26,
\n1816, section one, east of the river,
\nwas divided into 310 in-lots and 63
\nout-lots to create the town of
\nCroghanville, named to honor the
\ndefender of Ft. Stephenson. In 1829,
\nthe town, now on both sides of the
\nriver, was incorporated as Lower<\/p>\n

Fort Washington, erected
\n1789-90 in Cincinnati.<\/p>\n

Sandusky. In 1848, however, its
\nname was changed to Fremont to
\nhonor Maj. Gen. John C. Fremont,
\nthe \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Pathfinder of the West.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d The
\nfederal land office in Wooster
\nhandled early land sales.<\/p>\n

Marker commemorating Fort
\nWashington, built in 1789 and 1790 on
\nthe Ohio River, opposite the mouth of
\nthe Licking River. It was demolished in
\n1808. The marker is located in
\nCincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio. The
\nphotograph was taken ca. 1940-1949.<\/p>\n

page 55<\/p>\n

FEDERAL LAND GRANTS TO THE STATE OF OHIO<\/p>\n

In addition to its grants to groups and individuals, the federal government
\nmade substantial land grants to the State of Ohio in support of specific
\npurposes. These grants involve many interests. The principal ones are described
\nbriefly herein.<\/p>\n

School Lands<\/p>\n

Among the Founding Fathers\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 generation were leaders who believed an
\neducated public was necessary to sustain a self-governing republic. Even before
\nadoption of the Constitution of 1787, the Confederation Congress had provided
\nreal support for public schooling by providing, in the Land Act of 1785, that
\nsection 16 (one square mile) in every survey township, be set aside for the
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u0153maintenance of public schools within said township.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d8<\/p>\n

The ordinance regards the township as a surveying unit, a six mile
\nsquare containing 36 one mile square sections numbered in a prescribed
\nsequence. Section 16 is located close to the center of the township. Civil townships,
\non the other hand, are political units of local government within counties.
\nIn states surveyed under the federal rectangular system, survey townships and
\ncivil townships usually have the same boundaries, but there are many exceptions.<\/p>\n

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 identified characteristics to be found
\nin a well-ordered, democratic society, but it made no provision, beyond encouragement,
\nfor support of public schooling. In the enabling act of 1802, however,
\nCongress offered three positions which, if accepted by delegates to the 1802
\nconstitutional convention, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153shall be obligatory upon the United States.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d The first
\nproposition was that section 16 in every township, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153and where such section has
\nbeen sold, granted, or disposed of,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d equivalent land closest to section 16, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153shall
\nbe granted to the inhabitant of such township for the use of schools.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Convention delegates responded with a counterproposal. The United
\nStates should donate one thirty-sixth (2.77%) of the land area of Ohio for the<\/p>\n

8) By 1920, 73,155,075 acres of public land had been given by the federal
\ngovernment to the public land states in support of public schooling.<\/p>\n

page 56<\/p>\n

The United States government ultimately
\ngranted 704,204 acres to Ohio for
\nthe support of public schooling. Each
\ntownship received section 1
\n116 whenever possible,
\nor another section in lieu of it. Early
\nland grants sometimes interfered with the
\navailability of section 16, so it was not
\nuncommon for a substitute section to be
\nassigned. Downtown Columbus, for<\/p>\n

Congress reserved section 16 near
\nexample, is situated in Range 22, Township the middle of each township for
\nthe use of public schools.<\/p>\n

5, Section 16 (according to Matthew\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s
\nSurvey) which should have been reserved
\nfor support of public schools. However, the Refugee Grant overlapped this
\nsection 16, and it was therefore unavailable for schools, but was available to
\nclaimants of the Refugee Grant. Thus township 5\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s schools were assigned
\nSection 15 in Township 11, Range 21 (Matthew\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Survey), which is located next
\nto Township 11\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s school section, now located in Madison Township, Franklin
\nCounty, near Groveport.<\/p>\n

The Virginia Military District, the Connecticut Western Reserve, and
\nthe United States Military District all received school lands, but these lands
\nwere not located within either the Virginia Military District or in the Western
\nReserve because neither tract was developed under federal jurisdiction.
\nVirginia Military District school lands (105,600 acres) are located in
\nMorrow, Wayne, Holmes, Ashland, Richland and Crawford counties.
\nWestern Reserve lands are located in Holmes and Tuscarawas counties
\n(56,000 acres) and in Williams, Defiance, Paulding, Putnam, Henry, and Van
\nWert counties (37,724.16 acres). In all, the Connecticut Western Reserve was
\ngranted 93,724.16 acres.<\/p>\n

United States Military District school lands totaled 72,000 acres and
\nare located in Guernsey, Coshocton, Muskingum, Licking, Morrow, and
\nDelaware counties. The Donation Tract, the Two Mile Square reserve, the
\nMoravian Tracts, and the French Grants were granted school lands either
\nwithin the tracts, or adjoining them.<\/p>\n

page 57<\/p>\n

support of public schools. Also, the United States should give the state not less
\nthan three percent of the net proceeds derived from public land sales in Ohio for
\nconstructing roads within the state, and should donate one survey township
\n(23,040 acres) for an institution of higher learning. Finally, the Ohio legislature
\nshould be given control of the donated lands, in trust, for the purposes Congress
\nintended when making the Grant.9 Congress accepted these bold counterproposals
\non March 3, 1803, thereby appropriating public land to honor its commitment
\nto Ohio.<\/p>\n

On April 15, 1803, Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s first state legislature provided for leasing and
\nadministering school lands. Initially lands were to be leased for seven to fifteen
\nyears. The lessee was obligated to clear and fence the property, plant 100 apple
\ntrees, and perform other duties. In 1817, in what proved to be an unfortunate<\/p>\n

move, the legislature allowed school lands to be leased for 99 years, renewable
\nforever. Some legislators wanted to sell school lands, and on February 1, 1826,
\nCongress permitted sales with the provision that the township\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s inhabitants must
\nvote their consent. The legislature complied with this mandate and, on January
\n20, 1827, enacted the voting, appraisal, and conveyance procedures to be followed.
\nProceeds from the sale of school lands were to be deposited in the
\nCommon School Fund, and interest on the principal paid to the schools within
\nthe original surveyed townships.<\/p>\n

The Ohio Constitution of 1851 (still the basic law of Ohio, although
\nmuch amended) provided in Article VI, Section I for protection of the principal
\nof all funds received from the sale or other disposition of the lands granted or
\nentrusted to the state for educational or religious purposes. This article was
\namended in 1968, and the trust monies were then dispersed for educational purposes.<\/p>\n

Until 1914, school lands were administered by trustees of the original
\nsurveyed townships. Often their stewardship was sloppy, a problem that went
\nback to the earliest days of statehood. In 1838, for example, Samuel Lewis, the
\nstate\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s first Superintendent of Common Schools, issued the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153First Annual Report<\/p>\n

9) Miami University became the beneficiary of the grant of a township to support
\nhigher learning.<\/p>\n

page 58<\/p>\n

from this department for the State of Ohio.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Lewis rode on horseback over
\nmuch of the state gathering information. His report chronicled abuses by
\ntownship trustees including misdirecting tax monies ostensibly collected for
\nschool purposes, and leasing school lands to favorites under excessively generous
\nterms. Later generations would call the latter abuses \u00e2\u20ac\u0153sweetheart deals.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

In 1914, the Auditor of State became responsible for leasing mineral
\nrights on school lands, and in addition to his other duties, the Garver Act of
\n1917 made him Supervisor of School and Ministerial Lands. The Auditor
\nretained supervisory control until August 1, 1985, when the legislature transferred
\nmost of these duties to the Director of Administrative Services.10<\/p>\n

On June 29, 1988, legislation went into effect that transferred the
\ngeneral charge, supervision, management, and all remaining monies of school
\nlands from the Director of Administrative Services to the Board of Education in
\neach school district that had been allotted these lands. Title to them is now held
\nin trust by the State of Ohio, through the General Assembly, as per a March 3,
\n1803 Act of Congress.<\/p>\n

The Auditor of State maintains the record copy of School and
\nMinisterial Land deeds issued by the State of Ohio. Final certificates for such
\nlands, as well as lease records, are located in the State of Ohio Archives, Ohio
\nHistorical Center.<\/p>\n

Ministerial Lands<\/p>\n

In the early years of the American Union, some states still taxed their
\ncitizens for the benefit of religion. This was a holdover from English and other
\nEuropean traditions where one denomination constituted a state church and
\nreceived its support and other perquisites from the state. In America, however,
\nreligious diversity undercut that practice as it became apparent that there would
\nbe no agreement on whose religious practices would prevail, let alone earn<\/p>\n

10) At the time of transfer, four school land farms totaling 1,232 acres were
\nunder two year leases, while several small lots in Columbiana County were
\nunder lease for 99 years, renewable forever. The four school land farms were
\nlocated in Hardin County, Marion Township (R9E, T4S, S16-640 acres);
\nRoss County, Green Townships (R21, T9, S15-312 acres); Marion County,
\nBig Island Township (R14E, T5S, S15-160 acres); and Franklin County,
\nMadison Township (R21, T11, S16-120 acres).<\/p>\n

page 59<\/p>\n

Some 99-year leases renewable forever are still in effect in
\nMarietta and in Hamilton County\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Delhi and Green townships.
\nPersons occupying these lands do not own them, which presents a
\ntitle problem. To clear this problem, persons pay the back rent and
\nreceive a deed from the State of Ohio. The back rent on some parcels
\nhas been as low as five cents a year because the original 1805 rent
\nformula is still in effect.<\/p>\n

In 1833, Congress authorized Ohio to sell ministerial lands.
\nMoney from the sale was invested, and churches within the original
\nsurveying township received the interest and rent money until 1968,
\nwhen the constitutionality of such church-state relationships was
\nchallenged. Congress then authorized the remaining ministerial funds
\nto be dispersed for schools. In May, 1968, Ohio voters approved a
\nconstitutional amendment that directed any future ministerial income
\nbe used solely for educational purposes.<\/p>\n

public tax support. Congress\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 grant of ministerial lands in Ohio (such grants
\nlimited to the Ohio Company Purchase and the Symmes Purchase) was
\ntherefore somewhat of an anomaly.<\/p>\n

Both the Ohio Company\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s First Purchase and the Symmes Purchase
\nprovided that section 29 of each township be set aside for the support of
\nreligion. Monies realized from the leasing or sale of section 29 were to be distributed
\nto the township\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s churches on a pro rata basis according to each denomination\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s
\nmembership. As with school lands, township trustees were in charge of
\nadministering these lands. After Ohio emerged as a state, the Ohio General
\nAssembly became the trustee of ministerial lands. The legislature enacted laws
\npermitting 99-year leases, renewable forever. Income from ministerial lands,
\ntherefore, was severely limited.<\/p>\n

Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s ministerial lands totaled 43,525 acres. In the Ohio Company
\nFirst Purchase, ministerial lands were located in Washington, Meigs, Gallia,
\nLawrence, and Athens counties. When the original survey was made, it was dis-<\/p>\n

page 60<\/p>\n

covered that Marietta was within a ministerial section, and the federal government
\nwould not permit the sale of section 29 in Marietta. Congress did not
\nset aside section 29 in the Ohio Company\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Second Purchase (parts of Vinton,
\nMorgan, Hocking, and Athens counties), but on January 7, 1796, the Ohio
\nCompany set aside section 29 in each of the ten surveying townships located in
\nthis tract. Congress treated section 29 lands in the Symmes Purchase as it did
\nthose in the Ohio Company lands through a contract with the Board of Treasury.
\nMinisterial lands in the Symmes Purchase are located in parts of Hamilton,
\nButler, and Warren counties.<\/p>\n

Ministerial lands are yet another evidence that Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s experience with
\nfederal lands is unique.
\nCongress made no other provision
\nfor the support of
\nreligion elsewhere in the public
\ndomain. Some small, specific
\nmission grants were made in a
\nfew western states based on the
\nhistoric presence there of continuous
\nreligious activity.<\/p>\n

Canal Lands<\/p>\n

Canals opened the
\ninterior of Ohio to national and
\nworld markets. In 1825 the
\nstate commenced construction
\non the Ohio and Erie Canal
\nand the Miami Canal, later
\nextended into the Miami and
\nErie Canal. It was an enormous
\nundertaking for a relatively poor state to handle. Ohio followed the lead of New
\nYork State, which had just completed its Erie Canal, and sold state-backed
\nbonds in eastern money markets to finance construction of these two through<\/p>\n

The old Miami and Erie Canal, built between
\n1825-1845, St. Marys, Auglaize County,
\nOhio, ca. 1940-1949.
\npage 61<\/p>\n

routes connecting Lake Erie with the Ohio River. Several short feeder lines were
\nalso constructed.<\/p>\n

In Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s settled areas, land for canal right-of-way was secured through
\neminent domain. In some cases, land owners donated right-of-way to the state
\nknowing that a canal would enhance the value of their remaining holdings. The
\nnorthward extension of the Miami and Erie, however, ran largely through unsold
\nfederal lands. In 1828, Congress granted Ohio 500,000 acres in the state\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s northwestern
\nregion to help finance the northward extension of the Miami Canal.
\nThis was the first of several grants that ultimately totaled 1,100,361 acres. Ohio
\nrealized $2,257,487 from the sale of these lands.11<\/p>\n

Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s canal era was rather brief. Construction started July 4, 1825. By
\nJuly 4, 1827, the first usable section of the Ohio and Erie (36 miles from Akron
\nto Cleveland) was in operation. Ultimately the Ohio Canal System included
\nmore than 795 miles of through canals and feeders, five reservoirs comprising<\/p>\n

11) Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s major canals and their length were: Ohio and Erie, 308 miles; Miami
\nand Erie, 248 miles; Wabash and Erie, 18 miles in Ohio (most of it was in
\nIndiana); Hocking, 56 miles; Walhonding, 25 miles; Sandy and Beaver, 6
\nmiles (the state was only responsible for a small part of this canal);
\nMuskingum improvement, 91 miles; and eight feeders, 42 miles.<\/p>\n

page 62<\/p>\n

32,903 acres, 29 stream dams, 294 lift locks, and 44 aqueducts. These cost the
\nstate $15,967,652. The cost of operating and maintaining the system, up to
\nNovember 15, 1901 was $12,464,130. Gross receipts for that period were
\n$17,556,722.<\/p>\n

The mature canal system had scarcely begun to function when, in the
\n1850s, large scale railroad development undercut the canals\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 importance. By
\nencouraging railroad development, the state actually contributed to the demise
\nof its considerable canal investment. In the Civil War era, the state surrendered
\ncontrol of the system to private interests that took what profit they could and
\nallowed the system to deteriorate. Late in the nineteenth century, the state
\nreclaimed control, but found itself stuck with unprofitable, deteriorating properties.
\nNeither Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s governors nor other influential people could persuade the
\nlegislature to invest in a major overhaul. In 1913, a great flood washed out or
\ndestroyed nearly all the still viable sections.<\/p>\n

Much canal right-of-way was converted to other uses. Railroad tracks
\nwere laid on some, roads and trunk sewer lines preempted other sections, and
\nprivate citizens whose land abutted canal lands often treated canal property as
\ntheir own. The state recovered some of its canal lands, but much remained
\noutside its grasp. Today, canal towpath and reservoirs are prized for their recreational
\nvalue.<\/p>\n

Wagon Road or Turnpike Lands<\/p>\n

As provided in the congressional enabling act of June 30, 1802, Ohio
\nreceived three percent of the net proceeds from federal land sales in the state to
\nbe used exclusively for building roads within the state. (Another two percent of
\nfederal sales was marked for construction of roads leading to Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s boundaries.)
\nThe state used this seed money effectively to help construct its earliest
\nroads. By June 30, 1880, Ohio had received $596,634 from this source.<\/p>\n

As it had with canals, Congress recognized the importance of roads by
\ngranting federal land to the state to help in the construction of two important
\nroads. On February 23, 1823, Ohio was granted 60,000 acres along the 46-mile
\nroute of the Maumee Road. Income from these lands made it possible for Ohio<\/p>\n

page 63<\/p>\n

to construct a road running from Perrysburg on the Maumee to the western
\nboundary of the Western Reserve (at modern Bellevue). The help was essential
\nbecause much of the roadway ran through the Black Swamp\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s supersaturated
\nterrain which made road building an expensive proposition. In 1827, the state
\nreceived an additional 31,596 acre congressional grant, this one in support of
\nthe Columbus and Sandusky Turnpike.<\/p>\n

Federal land grants to Ohio for canals and roads came at a time in the
\nnation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s history when there was much disagreement about what role the federal
\ngovernment should play, if any, in financing internal improvements. Many
\nargued that financing roads and canals should be borne entirely by the states in
\nwhich the improvements rested: they were the beneficiaries, not taxpayers
\nacross the nation at large. Others countered by claiming that roads and canals,
\nwherever located, were, or soon would become, part of a national transportation
\nsystem that would expedite the mails, allow quick movement of troops and supplies
\nto threatened areas, and generally help bind the nation together. Even<\/p>\n

eastern business officials
\nand consumers would
\nbenefit from having
\ngoods flow freely within
\nwestern states and
\nacross state boundaries.
\nOhio was fortunate. It
\nreceived its federal land
\ngrants for roads and
\ncanals before resistance
\nto federal funding of
\ninternal improvements
\ntightened during the
\nadministrations
\nof Andrew Jackson
\n(1829-37).<\/p>\n

Rutted road with Zanesville, MuskingumCounty, Ohio in the distance,
\nca. 1886-1888. This photograph is part ofa collection compiled by Henry Howewhile researching the 1889 edition of\u00e2\u20ac\u0153Historical Collections of Ohio.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

page 64<\/p>\n

Scioto Salt Springs
\nPhoto courtesy of:
\nOhio Department of Natural Resources
\nSalt Reservations<\/p>\n

Salt was a precious and scarce commodity on the frontier. It was valued
\nfor seasoning, but it was also essential for the preservation of certain foods,
\nmainly pork. Many a frontier family or military garrison subsisted on little more
\nthan salt pork during winter months. Indians had \u00e2\u20ac\u0153boiled salt\u00e2\u20ac\u009d at Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s salt
\nsprings. The springs were located in surveyors\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 notes, and they brought prime
\nprices on the market.<\/p>\n

Congress recognized the
\nspecial value of salt springs. In the
\nLand Act of 1796, it reserved salt
\nsprings on federal land from sale. In
\nOhio, these reservations were found
\nin present day Jackson County
\n(23,040 acres or one township),
\nDelaware County (4,000 acres), and
\nMuskingum County (1,280 acres).
\nThe Scioto springs were Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s
\nlargest and most valuable. A thriving
\nsettlement grew up around them,
\ncausing the state legislature to create
\na new county of Jackson with the
\ncounty seat located at the salt works.
\nIn 1816, Congress authorized the
\nsale of 640 acres of this reservation and the proceeds of $7,196 were used to
\nconstruct county buildings. In 1824, Congress authorized Ohio to sell all of its
\nremaining salt lands and use the proceeds for \u00e2\u20ac\u0153literary purposes.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Swamp Lands<\/p>\n

On September 28, 1850, by act of Congress, Ohio received 25,640 acres
\nof land mostly in the undrained Black Swamp of Northwestern Ohio. The land
\nwas considered worthless at the time, but draining it in later years produced
\nprime farmland.<\/p>\n

page 65<\/p>\n

FEDERAL LANDS DONATED BY
\nCONGRESS FOR UNIVERSITIES<\/p>\n

Ohio University<\/p>\n

In the First Ohio Company Purchase, two surveying townships were
\nreserved by Congress perpetually \u00e2\u20ac\u0153for the purposes of a university.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d These lands
\ncomprising 46,080 acres are located in the civil townships of Athens and Alexander
\nin Athens County. The recipient of this land grant was Ohio University, chartered by
\nthe state on February 18, 1804. The next year the state legislature permitted the
\nUniversity Trustees to lease these lands to settlers for 99 years, renewable forever.
\nThe leases fixed an annual rent of six percent of the appraised value of the lands.
\nThis decision was short-sighted. The trustees were interested in immediate income,
\nand doubtless, had only a limited number of options for obtaining it in what was still
\nuntamed wilderness.<\/p>\n

Photographic reproduction of a drawing by Henry Howe depicting Ohio University
\nat Athens, Ohio in 1846. Ohio University, founded in 1804, was the first institution
\nof higher education established in the old northwest. This photographic
\nreproduction of Howe’s drawing dates ca. 1970-1979.<\/p>\n

page 66<\/p>\n

In 1826, Congress permitted the state to sell land in the two surveying<\/p>\n

townships, but for lands already leased, persons holding the lease paid only the rent<\/p>\n

established by the 1805<\/p>\n

law, and that condition<\/p>\n

prevails today.
\nThe primitive<\/p>\n

institution was a uni<\/p>\n

versity in name only<\/p>\n

when the first students<\/p>\n

appeared in 1809. For<\/p>\n

some years it remained<\/p>\n

more a secondary school<\/p>\n

than a true college, but by<\/p>\n

1820 it was offering some<\/p>\n

collegiate courses.<\/p>\n

Among the university\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s<\/p>\n

early graduates were men<\/p>\n

of distinction in the early history of Ohio. Ohio University was the first collegiate<\/p>\n

institution in the old Northwest Territory, and the first publically assisted insti<\/p>\n

tution of its kind in America.<\/p>\n

Ohio University\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Cutler Hall, built in 1816.
\nAerial view of Ohio University, founded 1804 in Athens, Athens County,
\nOhio, ca. 1940-1949.
\npage 67<\/p>\n

Miami University<\/p>\n

John Cleves Symmes, as we have noted, was involved in several difficulties
\nwhile trying to develop the land he and his associates had purchased
\nbetween the Miami rivers. Among them was his failure to honor the sale provision
\nrequiring him to set-aside a full surveying township in support of higher
\neducation. Congress expected Symmes either to give the federal government
\nland in that amount from his grant or to pay $15,360, plus interest from the date
\nof his 1794 patent. Although Symmes had conflicts with Congress, he still had
\npolitical clout, having been chosen by Congress as one of the three judges for
\nthe Northwest Territory.<\/p>\n

Congress declared in September, 1803 that 23,321 acres (36.4 square
\nmiles) located in the Congress Lands west of the Great Miami were to be set
\naside for \u00e2\u20ac\u0153an academy, other public schools and seminaries of learning.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d The set
\naside land is located in modern Butler County. It benefited Miami University,
\nchartered in 1809 by the state legislature in a town the legislature named
\nOxford. Secondary level classes began in 1818, collegiate courses followed in
\n1824, and the first collegiate class graduated in 1826. Unfortunately, as in other
\ninstances involving the leasing of public lands for school purposes, Miami
\nrealized little income, for the land was leased for 99 years, renewable forever, at
\nwhat is today a negligible rate.<\/p>\n

The earliest known photo of the Miami campus, ca. 1858. The large building
\nwas known as either \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Main Building\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or simply \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Old Main.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d
\nThe two smaller buildings were the North and South Dormitories.
\nPhoto courtesy of the Miami University Archives.<\/p>\n

page 68<\/p>\n

The Ohio State University<\/p>\n

While the Civil War was raging, Congress passed the Morrill Act of
\n1862. It offered land grants to any state or territory that would establish a
\ncollege focused on agriculture and the mechanic arts. The Morrill Act thus
\nbecame the basis for the nation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s impressive \u00e2\u20ac\u0153land grant\u00e2\u20ac\u009d universities, most of
\nwhich are A&M (Agricultural and Mechanical) universities.<\/p>\n

On February 9, 1864, the Ohio legislature accepted this act\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s terms and
\nreceived 30,000 acres of public land for each federal senator and representative.
\nSince Ohio had two senators and 19 representatives, the state was entitled to
\n630,000 acres. Federal lands were no longer available in Ohio, however, so the
\nstate accepted land scrip in its place. Land scrip, issued by the federal government,
\ncould be used to acquire land anywhere in the public domain open for
\nprivate entry. Instead of buying land, Ohio sold its land scrip for $342,450.80,
\nabout 54 cents per acre. This became the university\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s initial stake. The Ohio
\nAgricultural and Mechanical College was chartered in 1870, opened its doors to
\nstudents in 1873, and graduated its first class in 1878. In addition to the Morrill
\nGrant, the state legislature assigned the school at least 76,735 acres of unlocated<\/p>\n

Ohio State University\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s University Hall, 1874 in Columbus, Ohio,
\nPhoto courtesy of: The Ohio State University.<\/p>\n

page 69<\/p>\n

lands remaining in the Virginia Military District. These lands were sold or quit
\nclaimed to individuals until the 1940s.<\/p>\n

Though initially designed to be an A&M college, the school\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s trustees
\nsoon decided its curriculum should reach beyond agriculture and the mechanical
\narts, and, consistent with this belief, they renamed the school Ohio State
\nUniversity. To emphasize its place in the state system, the name later became
\nThe Ohio State University.<\/p>\n

Original Surveys Influence Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Development<\/p>\n

The original surveys of federal lands in Ohio often defined regions set
\naside for the benefit of specific groups. Survey lines defining congressional land
\ngrants became, in effect, boundaries setting off one cultural group from another.
\nOhio, therefore, was a mosaic of diverse peoples from its beginning. These
\ngroups of dissimilar background, with different economic, political, and social
\ntraditions, were present in large enough numbers, and they maintained their
\nregional hold long enough to leave enduring marks upon Ohio. To this day, a
\ndiscerning viewer can find cultural traces that the state\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s earliest settlers left in
\ntheir various regions.<\/p>\n

Ohio State University\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s First Graduating Class 1878 in Columbus, Ohio,
\nPhoto courtesy of: The Ohio State University.
\npage 70<\/p>\n

New Englanders established the state\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s first authorized, enduring settlement
\nat Marietta in April, 1788, in lands purchased by the Ohio Company of
\nAssociates. Shortly thereafter, a larger group of New Englanders moved into the
\nConnecticut Western Reserve, a region Connecticut had sold to private land
\ndevelopers. These two centers of New England influence supported northern
\nvalues – federalism, internal improvements, business enterprise, banks, and
\npublic schools supported by tax money.<\/p>\n

In south central Ohio, western Virginians and Kentuckians dominated
\nthe Virginia Military District, infusing the region with the values of the Upland
\nSouth\u00e2\u20ac\u201clocalism and states\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 rights, decentralization, livestock raising as an agricultural
\nspecialty, schooling to be paid for by those attending, and a more laid-
\nback lifestyle than was found among New Englanders.<\/p>\n

The Seven Ranges was not designed to favor a particular cultural group,
\nbut its proximity to the Ohio River attracted frontier Pennsylvanians, western
\nVirginians and others who simply moved across the river to their new homes.
\nThey were a somewhat diverse group, but the strong Scots-Irish presence among
\nthem was noted for its independence, antipathy toward Indians, and love of
\npolitical and religious disputation.<\/p>\n

John Cleves Symmes and associates sold much of the Miami Purchase
\nto fellow New Jerseyites and other Middle States people, some of whom came
\nto settle between the Miamis and some who sold their holdings to others. The
\nMiami Purchase was culturally mixed from the start because of its easy access
\nto Kentuckians seeking more secure land titles, and because it bordered the
\nOhio River, the main avenue to the West for migrants. Cincinnati, the region\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s
\nfocus, quickly became Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s largest and most cosmopolitan city, attracting a
\ndiversity of people including Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s largest concentration of free blacks and
\nunknown numbers of fugitive slaves.<\/p>\n

Other cultural groups in early Ohio included Pennsylvania Germans.
\nAlthough Congress bestowed no land grant upon them, they tended initially to
\ncluster within the Congress Lands of the Ohio River Survey located immediately
\nsouth of the Western Reserve. They brought their language, agricultural
\npractices, and various Protestant religious preferences to this region. Congress<\/p>\n

page 71<\/p>\n

designed the French Grants and the Moravian Grants to benefit people with distinctive
\nsocial and cultural outlooks, but their numbers were too small for them
\nto have statewide impact.<\/p>\n

A salad bowl of peoples, each distinct but living close by people different
\nfrom themselves, organized the State of Ohio. No one group was dominant
\nenough to impose its will upon the others, although it might assume for a
\ntime the leadership role in a particular political, economic, or social cause. Early
\npolitical leadership, for example, fell to Democratic Republicans from the
\nregions largely inhabited by persons of southern origin. They substantially outnumbered
\nFederalist New Englanders. On the other hand, decades later New
\nEngland influence tended to define Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s move toward tax-supported schools,
\ninternal improvements, and support for the great antebellum social reform
\nmovements, especially anti-slavery.<\/p>\n

Migration into the state from other parts of the Union was accompanied
\nby a strong flow of immigrants directly from Europe. They came principally
\nfrom Great Britain, Ireland, and the various German states. The British (English,
\nScots, Welsh) settled widely across the state, having nothing to do with survey
\nboundaries. Nor did the Irish confine themselves to a particular region. In time,
\nIrish immigrants tended to cluster in villages and cities.<\/p>\n

The German immigrants were also located in many parts of the state,
\nbut those who were primarily farmers tended to cluster in new lands recently
\nopened. About 1830, Germans by the thousands started moving into north
\ncentral, west central, and northwestern Ohio, and this movement lasted for
\ndecades. It was common for Germans to come to Cincinnati, where brokers
\nassisted them in acquiring government land or land sold by speculators. Most of
\nthis land was located in those surveys located south and east, and north and east
\nof the Principal Meridian and Base Line. It was originally surveyed between
\n1819 and 1821. Some later located in the Michigan Survey.<\/p>\n

This immigration was large enough and enduring enough to give a
\nflavor to these large regions of Ohio. There were cultural splits among the
\nGermans, most notably between Roman Catholic and Protestant believers,
\nleading to the establishment of villages which were exclusively one or the other.<\/p>\n

page 72<\/p>\n

In large part, however, values were shared\u00e2\u20ac\u201crespect for the German language
\n(despite various dialects), architecture, agricultural practices, food specialties, a
\nsense of neatness and concern for property, and an enduring social and political
\nconservatism. As Germans and others moved into northwestern Ohio, they were
\naided by the Miami and Erie Canal and by the Maumee Road connecting the
\nMaumee River with the Western Reserve. Both were built with funds derived
\nfrom the sale of federal land granted to Ohio for these purposes.<\/p>\n

Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s growth and development proceeded at an impressive pace, so
\nthat by 1840 it had become the nation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s third most populous state, a distinction
\nit would hold until 1890. In the process, the original survey lines were often lost
\nto the public eye. In a few cases, such as the 41st parallel of latitude defining
\nthe Western Reserve\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s southern boundary, a portion of a survey line serves as
\npart of the boundary of a county, but most counties were erected independent of
\nsurvey lines. Many contain lands from more than one original survey. Franklin
\nCounty, for instance, has some townships laid out on the six mile square grid of
\nthe East of Scioto Survey, some on the five mile square grid of the United States
\nMilitary District, some subject to the special considerations of the Refugee
\nGrant, and some formed in the helter skelter of the Virginia Military District.<\/p>\n

A special case is the Greenville Treaty Line. Between the Tuscarawas
\nRiver and the Ohio-Indiana border, it cuts west by southwest through a number
\nof counties, dividing one original survey pattern from another. It is interesting
\nthat an agreement, forged in 1795 with Indian peoples, continues to impact upon
\ncontemporary Ohioans.<\/p>\n

Ohio may no longer be a salad bowl of diverse people. Groups have lost
\ntheir distinctiveness through mobility, intermarriage, new immigration, and the
\ncultural blending wrought by a media-invoked cultural salad dressing poured
\nover us all.<\/p>\n

The most meaningful original survey lines that endure today are those
\nmarking state boundaries. They do not set us apart. They embrace us all.<\/p>\n

page 73<\/p>\n

Appendix<\/p>\n

The Origin of Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s
\nCounty Names<\/p>\n

(Date in parentheses is year county was established, it may differ from year it was actually organized.)<\/p>\n

Adams (1797), named for our second president, John Adams, during whose administration the county
\nwas organized.<\/p>\n

Allen (1820), probably named for either Ethan Allen, a hero of the Revolutionary War or John L.
\nAllen, a hero of the War of 1812. Both men were colonels.<\/p>\n

Ashland (1846), named after \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Ashland,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d home of the Whig candidate for President, Henry Clay,
\noutside Lexington, Kentucky.<\/p>\n

Ashtabula (1808), named after the Ashtabula River which meant \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Fish River\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in the local Indian<\/p>\n

dialect.<\/p>\n

Athens (1805), the county is named after Athens, Greece.<\/p>\n

Auglaize (1848), named for the Auglaize River. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Auglaize\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is a Shawnee Indian word meaning<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153fallen timbers.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Belmont (1801), comes from the French words \u00e2\u20ac\u0153belle monte,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d meaning \u00e2\u20ac\u0153beautiful mountain,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d
\ndescribing the hills of the county.<\/p>\n

Brown (1818), named for Gen. Jacob Brown, a hero of the War of 1812. Georgetown, the county
\nseat, was the boyhood home of Ulysses Simpson Grant, Civil War General and 18th President of
\nthe United States.<\/p>\n

Butler (1803), named for Major General Richard Butler, killed during the disastrous defeat of General
\nArthur St. Clair by the Indians on Nov. 4, 1791.<\/p>\n

Carroll (1833), took the name Carroll from Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Maryland, the last surviving
\nsigner of the Declaration of Independence, who died in Baltimore on November 14, 1832, at the<\/p>\n

age of 96.<\/p>\n

Champaign (1805), is French and means \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a plain,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d descriptive of the level land in the area.<\/p>\n

Clark (1818), named for Brigadier General George Rogers Clark who defeated the Shawnee Indians<\/p>\n

in a battle near Springfield, on August 8, 1780.<\/p>\n

Clermont (1800), comes from the French word meaning \u00e2\u20ac\u0153clear mountain.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Clinton (1810), named in honor of George Clinton, who was vice-president of the United States when<\/p>\n

the county was formed.<\/p>\n

Columbiana (1803), derived from Christopher Columbus and Anna.<\/p>\n

Coshocton (1810), is an anglicized version of the Indian village \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Goschachgunk\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Goschaching\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

meaning \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Black Bear Town\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153where there is a river crossing.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Crawford (1820), named in honor of Col. William Crawford who was burned at the stake in 1782 by
\nIndians.<\/p>\n

Cuyahoga (1808), named for the Cuyahoga River. Cuyahoga is an Indian word meaning \u00e2\u20ac\u0153crooked,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153winding stream.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Darke (1809), named for Gen. William Darke, Revolutionary War hero.<\/p>\n

Defiance (1845), named for Fort Defiance built in 1794 by General Anthony Wayne.<\/p>\n

page 75<\/p>\n

Delaware (1808), named for the Delaware Indians who came from the Delaware River area near
\nPhiladelphia.<\/p>\n

Erie (1838), named for the Erie Indian tribe. In their Indian dialect the word \u00e2\u20ac\u0153erie\u00e2\u20ac\u009d meant \u00e2\u20ac\u0153cat\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u0153wildcat.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Fairfield (1800), Arthur St. Clair, Governor of the Northwest Territory, named this county for the
\nbeauty of its \u00e2\u20ac\u0153fair fields.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Fayette (1810), named for Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, the Marquis de Lafayette.
\nHe served as an American Major General in the Revolutionary War and was named an honorary<\/p>\n

U.S. citizen in 1803.
\nFranklin (1803), named for Benjamin Franklin, printer and diplomat.
\nFulton (1850), named for Robert Fulton, inventor of the steamboat.
\nGallia (1803), is derived from Gaul, the ancient name of France.
\nGeauga (1806), the name Geauga or Sheauga was one given by the Indians to the Grand River which
\nflows through the county. It means \u00e2\u20ac\u0153raccoon.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d
\nGreene (1803), named for Gen. Nathaniel Greene, Revolutionary War hero.
\nGuernsey (1810), due to the fact that many of the original settlers came from the Isle of Guernsey in<\/p>\n

the English Channel.
\nHamilton (1790), named for Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, 1789-1795.
\nHancock (1820), named for John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress (1775-1777) and<\/p>\n

first signer of the Declaration of Independence.
\nHardin (1820), named for Colonel John Hardin who was executed by the Indians while on a peace
\nmission in 1792.
\nHarrison (1813), named for General William Henry Harrison, a hero of the War of 1812. First U.S.
\nPresident to have lived in Ohio.
\nHenry (1820), named for Patrick Henry, Governor of Virginia 1776-1779 and 1784-1786; a cele<\/p>\n

brated orator of the Revolutionary War period.
\nHighland (1805), describes the county\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s terrain.
\nHocking (1818), derived its name from the Indian word \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Hoch-Hoch-ing\u00e2\u20ac\u009d which meant \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a bottle.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

The Hocking River flows though this county which was once claimed by the Wyandot Indians.
\nHolmes (1824), named for Major Andrew H. Holmes, who was killed during Major George
\nCroghan\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s unsuccessful attack on Fort Mackinac (Michigan) on August 4, 1814.
\nHuron (1809), the name Huron was given by the French to the Wyandot Indian tribe who lived in this
\narea.
\nJackson (1816), named for Major General Andrew Jackson, who defeated the British at the Battle of
\nNew Orleans, January 8, 1815.
\nJefferson (1797), named for Thomas Jefferson, statesman and Vice President of the United States,<\/p>\n

March 4, 1797 to March 3, 1801, and the 3rd President of the U.S. (1801-09).
\nKnox (1808), named for General Henry Knox, the first U.S. Secretary of War.
\nLake (1840), named because it borders on Lake Erie; Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s smallest county in land area.
\nLawrence (1815), named for Captain James Lawrence, commander of the U.S. Frigate Chesapeake<\/p>\n

during the War of 1812.
\nLicking (1808), derived its name from the principal stream flowing through the county. Pioneers
\ncalled it the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Licking River\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, but it was called \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Pataskala\u00e2\u20ac\u009d by the Indians. The river received its
\nname from salt licks in the area.
\nLogan (1818), named for Gen. Benjamin Logan, who destroyed the Shawnee Indians Mac-o-chee
\nVillages in the area in 1786.
\nLorain (1822), named after the Province of Lorraine, France.<\/p>\n

page 76<\/p>\n

Lucas (1835), named for Robert Lucas, Ohio Governor 1832-1836, who personally commanded Ohio
\ntroops in the 1835 boundary dispute with Michigan. First territorial Governor of Iowa 1838-1841.<\/p>\n

Madison (1810), named for James Madison, U.S. President from March 4, 1809 to March 3, 1817.<\/p>\n

Mahoning (1846), derives its name from the Mahoning River. Mahoning is from the Indian word
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u0153Mahoni,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d meaning a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153lick\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Mahonink,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d meaning \u00e2\u20ac\u0153at the lick.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Marion (1820), named in honor of Gen. Francis Marion of South Carolina, the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Swamp Fox\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of
\nRevolutionary War fame.<\/p>\n

Medina (1812), named for Medina in Arabia, the town to which Mohammed fled from Mecca.<\/p>\n

Meigs (1819), named for Return Jonathan Meigs, Jr., Ohio Governor 1810-1814 and Postmaster
\nGeneral 1814-1823 who lived in Marietta.<\/p>\n

Mercer (1820), named in honor of Gen. Hugh Mercer, who was killed at the Battle of Princeton, New
\nJersey, on January 3, 1777.<\/p>\n

Miami (1807), named for the Miami Indians who claimed Western Ohio and whose principal village,
\nPickawillany, was located near Piqua.<\/p>\n

Monroe (1813), named for James Monroe, U.S. Secretary of State, 1811-1817, and later the fifth
\nPresident of the United States, 1817-1825.<\/p>\n

Montgomery (1803), named for General Richard Montgomery who lost his life in
\nthe assault on Quebec during the Revolutionary War.<\/p>\n

Morgan (1817), named in honor of Gen. Daniel Morgan, who won a brilliant victory against the
\nBritish at Cowpens, South Carolina, January 17, 1781.<\/p>\n

Morrow (1848), named for Jeremiah Morrow, Congressman 1803-1813; 1840-1843, U.S. Senator
\n1813-1819, and Ohio Governor 1822-1826.<\/p>\n

Muskingum (1804), is an old Delaware Indian word meaning \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a town by the river.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Noble (1851), named out of respect for James Noble, a pioneer settler who first bought land in the
\ncounty in 1814.<\/p>\n

Ottawa (1840), named for the Ottawa Indian tribe. The name in their language meant \u00e2\u20ac\u0153trader.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Paulding (1820), named for John Paulding, one of three soldiers who captured Major John Andre,
\nBritish spy in the Revolutionary War.<\/p>\n

Perry (1818), named in honor of Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry, who defeated the British in the
\nnaval Battle of Lake Erie, September 13, 1813.<\/p>\n

Pickaway (1810), named from a misspelling of the tribe of Indians, known as Piqua, a branch of the
\nShawnee Tribe.<\/p>\n

Pike (1815), bears the name of Brig. Gen. Zebulon Montgomery Pike, who discovered Pike\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Peak in
\nColorado in 1806.<\/p>\n

Portage (1808), name comes from the old Indian portage path, eight miles in length, between the
\nCuyahoga and Tuscarawas rivers.<\/p>\n

Preble (1808), named for Capt. Edward Preble, naval commander in the Revolutionary War and the
\nWar with Tripoli.<\/p>\n

Putnam (1820), named for Israel Putnam, Revolutionary War Major General, who gained fame at the
\nBattle of Breed\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Hill, often misnamed the Battle of Bunker Hill, on June 17, 1775.<\/p>\n

Richland (1808), named for the richness of its soil.<\/p>\n

Ross (1798), named by Territorial Governor Arthur St. Clair for his friend, James Ross of
\nPennsylvania, U.S. Senator 1794-1803.<\/p>\n

Sandusky (1820), is a derivative of an Indian word meaning \u00e2\u20ac\u0153cold water.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d In Wyandot and Huron
\nlanguages it is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Sa-un-dos-tee\u00e2\u20ac\u009d meaning \u00e2\u20ac\u0153water within water pools.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Scioto (1803), takes its name from the Scioto River which flows through the county. Scioto comes
\nfrom a Indian word \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Scionto,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d meaning \u00e2\u20ac\u0153deer.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

page 77<\/p>\n

Seneca (1820), named for the Seneca Indians, who had a 40,000 acre reservation north of Tiffin from
\n1817-1831.<\/p>\n

Shelby (1819), named for Isaac Shelby, Revolutionary War hero and first Governor of Kentucky.
\nCounties in nine states are named for him.<\/p>\n

Stark (1808), named for Gen. John Stark of Revolutionary War fame.<\/p>\n

Summit (1840), derived its name for having the highest land on the line of the Ohio and Erie Canal,
\nknown as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Portage Summit.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Trumbull (1800), in the Connecticut Western Reserve, was named for Jonathan Trumbull, Jr.,
\nGovernor of Connecticut 1797-1809.<\/p>\n

Tuscarawas (1808), named for the Tuscarawas River, an Indian term perhaps meaning \u00e2\u20ac\u0153open mouth\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n

Union (1820), named because it was formed from parts of Delaware, Franklin, Madison, and Logan
\ncounties.<\/p>\n

Van Wert (1820), named for Isaac Van Wert, one of the three captors of British spy, Major John<\/p>\n

Andre. Actual spelling of Van Wert\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s name was \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Van Wart.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d The spelling was changed due to an<\/p>\n

illegible entry in Congressional records.<\/p>\n

Vinton (1850), named for Samuel Finley Vinton, an Ohio Statesman and U.S. Congressman, known
\nas the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Father of the Department of Interior.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Warren (1803), named for Gen. Joseph Warren, who was killed at the Battle of Breed\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s (Bunker) Hill,
\non June 17, 1775.<\/p>\n

Washington (1788), Ohio\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s first county and named in honor of George Washington, who was president
\nof the Constitutional Convention at the time the county was formed.<\/p>\n

Wayne (1808), named for Major General Anthony Wayne, Revolutionary War hero, later General-in-<\/p>\n

Chief of the U.S. Army 1791-1796. Defeated the Indians at the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Battle of Fallen Timbers,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d August<\/p>\n

20, 1794.<\/p>\n

Williams (1820), honors David Williams, one of three captors of Major John Andre on September 23,
\n1780.<\/p>\n

Wood (1820), named after Major Eleazer D. Wood, U.S. Army-Engineers, who built Fort Meigs in
\n1813 while serving on the staff of General William Henry Harrison.<\/p>\n

Wyandot (1845), named for the Wyandot Indians, the last Indian tribe in Ohio to cede their reservations
\nMarch 17, 1842. They moved to lands west of the Mississippi River in July, 1843.<\/p>\n

page 78<\/p>\n

Additional Reading<\/p>\n

Brumbaugh, Gaius, Marcus. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Revolutionary War Records, Volume 1, Virginia.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d
\nWashington D.C., Gaius Marcus Brumbaugh, 1936.<\/p>\n

Bell, Carol Willsey. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Ohio-Lands: Steubenville Land Office 1800-1820.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Youngstown:
\nCarol Willsey Bell, 1985.<\/p>\n

Bell, Carol Willsey. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Ohio-Guide to Genealogical Sources.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Baltimore: Genealogical
\nPublishing Co., In. 1988.<\/p>\n

Berry, Ellen T. and David A. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Early Ohio Settlers – Purchasers of Land in Southeastern<\/p>\n

Ohio, 1800-1840.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (Marietta Land Office), Baltimore, genealogical Publishing Co.,<\/p>\n

1984.<\/p>\n

Berry, Ellen T. and David A. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Early Ohio Settlers – Purchasers of Land in East and East
\nCentral Ohio, 1800-1840.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1984.<\/p>\n

Carstensen, Vernon, ed. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Public Lands: Studies in the History of the Public
\nDomain.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Madison, 1963.<\/p>\n

Clark, Marie Taylor. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Ohio Lands: Chillicothe Land Office, 1800-1829.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Chillicothe:
\nMarie Taylor Clark, 1984.<\/p>\n

Clark, Marie Taylor. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Ohio Lands: South of the Indian Boundary Line.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Chillicothe:
\nMarie Taylor Clark, 1984.<\/p>\n

Downes, Randolph C. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Evolution of Ohio County Boundaries.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Ohio Archaeological<\/p>\n

and Historical Publications No. XXXVI, Columbus: OA&H Society, 1927,<\/p>\n

Reprinted 1970.<\/p>\n

Dyer, Albion Morris. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153First Ownership of Ohio Lands.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Baltimore Genealogical
\nPublishing Co., Inc., 1911. Reprinted 1982.<\/p>\n

Gates, Paul W. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153History of Public Land Law Development.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Washington D.C. Public
\nLand Law Review Commission, 1968.<\/p>\n

Hatcher, Harlan. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Western Reserve: The story of New Connecticut in Ohio.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Kent:
\nThe Kent State University Press, 1991. Reprinted.<\/p>\n

Hulbert, Archer B., ed. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Ohio in the Time of the Confederation.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d 2 Vols. Marietta:
\nMarietta College, 1917.<\/p>\n

Hulbert, Archer B. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Records of the Original Proceedings of the Ohio Company.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d 2
\nVols. Marietta: Marietta College, 1917.<\/p>\n

Peters, William E. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Ohio Lands and Their History.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d 3rd Ed., Athens: W.E. Peters, 1930.
\nReprinted.<\/p>\n

page 79<\/p>\n

Riegel, Mayburt Stephenson. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Early Ohioans\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 Residences from the Land Grant
\nRecords.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Mansfield: Ohio Genealogical Society, 1976.<\/p>\n

Rohrbough, Malcom J. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Land Office Business.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d New York: Oxford University
\nPress, 1968.<\/p>\n

Treat, Payson, J. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The National Land System 1785-1820.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d New York, 1910.<\/p>\n

Sherman, Christopher E. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Original Land Subdivisions.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Volume III, Final Report – Ohio
\nTopographic Survey. Columbus: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1925.
\nReprinted 1982. Wall Map separate.<\/p>\n

Smith, Clifford Neal. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Federal Land Series, Volumes 1-4.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Chicago: American Library
\nAssociation, 1972-1982.<\/p>\n

Smith, Alma Aicholtz. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Virginia Military Surveys of Clermont and Hamilton
\nCounties, Ohio 1787-1849.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Cincinnati: Alma Aicholtz Smith, 1985.<\/p>\n

White, C. Albert. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153A History of the Rectangular Survey System.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Washington D.C.:
\nGovernment Printing Office, 1982.<\/p>\n

page 80<\/p>\n

We gratefully acknowledge the following people and organizations for
\nproviding The Official Ohio Lands Book with images and information:<\/p>\n

Dr. George W. Knepper, Distinguished Professor of History,
\nEmeritus, The University of Akron<\/p>\n

Annette Salrin for providing the painting used for the cover.<\/p>\n

The Ohio Historical Society for use of most of the images in this book that
\nwere provided by the Archives\/Library Division.<\/p>\n

The Ohio State University, for permission to print the
\n1st Graduating Class and the University Hall, ca. 1874 photographs.<\/p>\n

Miami University, for permission to print the<\/p>\n

earliest known photo of the Miami campus, ca. 1858.<\/p>\n

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources for permission and the use
\nof illustrations from C.E. Sherman\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Original Land Subdivisions, and
\nalso for permission to print the Scioto Salt Springs photograph.<\/p>\n

The Ohio Lands book has been published by the Auditor of State\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s office
\nfor more than a decade. This current version is based on the efforts
\nof multiple employees in this current and prior administration.<\/p>\n

To everyone who has provided advice and suggestions for this
\npublication, sincere thanks and grateful appreciation for all your help.<\/p>\n

page 81<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

THE OFFICIAL\u00c2\u00a0 (read page 5) OHIO LANDS BOOK Written by Dr. George W. Knepper THE OFFICIAL OHIO LANDS BOOK Written by Dr. George W. Knepper Cover art by Annette Salrin This book is a publication of The Auditor of State … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[67],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=252"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":254,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252\/revisions\/254"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}