PART #3 OF THIS SERIES
IT WILL BE 3A THAT I WILL BEGIN TO ANSWER IN MY NEXT POST IN THIS THREAD
bondrock DeleteThis @ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
(3a) The only "Part" Mr jalison (alias buckeye) you need to
address, in addtiton to the nonsense your trying to "spin" against the
original state delegates that ratified the Constitution, is the following:
"...let's see what another "source" has to say on the subject shall we?
"The Northwest Ordinance had no constitutional authority.... Hence, the
Ordinance is itself proof that the founders of our nation passed laws
that were unconstitutional!...
Indeed, it is impossible to look at the six articles which are supposed,
in the argument, to be still in force, without seeing at once that many
of the provisions contained in them are inconsistent with the present
Constitution, and if they could be regarded as yet in operation in the
States formed within the limits of the Northwest Territory, it would
place them in an inferior condition as compared with the other States,
and subject their domestic institutions and municipal regulations to the
constant supervision and control of this court.
The six articles, said to be perpetual as a compact, are not made part
of the new Constitution. They certainly are not superior and paramount
to the Constitution, and cannot confer power and jurisdiction upon this
court. The whole judicial authority of the courts of the United States
is derived from the Constitution itself, and the laws made under it.
As we have already said, it ceased to be in force upon the adoption of
the Constitution, and it cannot now be the source of jurisdiction of any
description in this court (Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S., 10 Howard, 395,
435-42).
The rule here is, Constitutions are Supreme Laws of the land, and once a
State has adopted its Constitution, that Constitution then becomes the Law
of that State, and the ORDINANCE HAS BECOME NULL AND VOID IN THAT STATE. In
addition, the ruling seems to be suggesting at the least that even while
the Northwest Ordinance was passed "again" by the First Congress, under the
national Constitution, it may be in conflict with that Constitution.
(emphasis mine)
Indeed, some scholars have questioned whether the Northwest Ordinance was
ever Constitutional. "In the American system, the national Constitution
clearly was paramount. The test of the Constitution also provided the
authoritative standard. The Northwest Ordinance simply did not measure up;
its authors did not act under any specified constitutional mandate, nor was
their work in turn sanctioned by the sovereign people. Hastily written and
poorly organized the Ordinance did not compare favorably with the
skillfully constructed national Constitution." ("The Northwest Ordinance,"
in Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents, by Peter S. Onuf, p.
250, our emphasis). "
Now where one might find this inofrmation?
"Research by Jim Allison. Writing by Jim Allison and Tom Peters"
at
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg5c.htm"
========================================================
What bondrock DeleteThis @ifx.net (Info Junkie) is talking about above is an article
in series of articles that were put together in late 1995 to be placed on
the following web site
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm
that we, attorney Susan Batte, and myself, were involved with the webmaster
of that site professor Tom Peters of the U of Louisville.
At that particular point in time, some of the most common points that the
radical religious right types on the net made were:
The Northwest Ordinance can be read to interpret the Religious clauses of
the BORs
The Northwest Ordinance proves that the government is suppose to support
religion, support religious schools and that religion (prayer, bible
reading, being taught, taught about, etc) is to be included in public
schools, etc.
and a host of other claims about the Northwest Ordinance.
Thus, we, put together a series of articles which were then placed on the
above named website. A good portion, but not all of the historical
research was done my myself. Tom had complete control of the website.
meaning simply that completed articles or notes , suggestions, ideas and
researched material for articles was sent to him and he would edit, and ok
any finished articles or write the needed articles using data he had
gathered or that was sent to him. He had a computer guru, as he called him
who he emailed the approved article or the finished article. It was this
person who actually went ahead and placed material onto the web site.
The above article the junkie is making such a fuss about was titled
The Northwest Ordinance had no constitutional authority.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg5c.htm
*******************************************************************
You will also find that the same article was placed on our website in 1998
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1d.htm
*****************************************************************
You will find that above article is part of the following
Separation of Church and State Home Page
RESPONDING TO THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT:
THE BASIC ARGUMENTS
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/argidx.htm
In this section we respond to some of the most important/most frequently
repeated arguments used by leaders of the religious right to "prove" that
the Constitution does not require the separation of church and state.
As you will see, most of these arguments collapse under close scrutiny,
either on the basis of logical flaws, or because they are in conflict with
the evidence. While a few of these arguments have merit, they are
invariably misused by accomodationists to prove points that are not at
issue, or else they omit important information that puts the argument in a
different light. A few of these arguments are complicated; we will explain
these in detail before responding to them. Note: this section of our
webpage is continually under construction. We will add arguments to this
list whenever we find them have time to respond.
1. The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the
Constitution.
2. Jefferson's "separation of church and state" letter was hastily
written and does not accurately represent Jefferson's view of church and
state.
3. Thomas Jefferson actually said that the wall of separation between
Church and State is "one-directional."
4. Jefferson's Danbury letter was written mearly to assure Connecticut
Baptists that the Constitution did not permit the establishment of a
national denomination.
5. Jefferson's Danbury letter was written mearly to address the Danbury
Baptists' fears that the First Amendment might be misinterpreted.
6. Jefferson's letter to Benjamin Rush shows that Jefferson was a
non-preferentialist.
7. Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by
his service as the first president of the Washington D. C. public schools,
which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
8. Federal officials take their oaths upon a Bible, and use the words
"so help me God."
9. The Northwest Ordinance proves that the First Amendment did not
separate church and state.
10. The Supreme Court has declared that the United States is a Christian
nation.
11. Depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandments are featured prominently
in the Supreme Court Building; this proves that the founders had no
intention of separating Church and State.
12. The Constitution is based on the Bible. This is proven by the
frequency with which the founding fathers quote the Bible in their
political writings.
13. Montesquieu based his theory of separation of powers on Isaiah 33:22
and Jeremiah 17:9.
14. As a general matter, the Constitution embodies the principles of
Christianity and the 10 Commandments.
#9 leads one to this:
Separation of Church and State Home Page
ARGUMENT FOUR: The Northwest Ordinance proves that the First Amendment did
not separate church and state.
Research for this section by Jim Allison/writing by Tom Peters
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg5.htm
[EXCERPT]
The Northwest Ordinance is perhaps the most frequently cited
accommodationist "proof" that the Constitution did not separate church and
state. Given it's importance to the accommodationist position, our
discussion of the Ordinance will be fairly detailed.
*******************************************************************
In there will be found commnetary and links to additional artices in that
series on the Northwest Ordinance, to wit:
The Northwest Ordinance
The History of First Sentence of Article III of the Northwest Ordinance
The Northwest Ordinance does not violate the First Amendment
Northwest Ordinance did not require schools to teach religion
R. Freeman Butts on Minor v. Ohio
The Northwest Ordinance did not provide non-preferential aid to the public
school
The first sentence of Article III of the Northwest Ordinance was a preamble
with few enforceable legal consequences
A note on "civilizing" the "American Indian"
The Northwest Ordinance cannot be read as a commentary on the First
Amendment
The Northwest Ordinance had no constitutional authority
The framers of the Northwest Ordinance had no desire to aid religion
The Northwest Ordinance: Course of Debate
************************************************************
I do have to admit that after those articles were placed on Tom's website
which was active on line from Jan 1996 to November 1997 the number of times
one found the Northwest Ordinance being tossed about as proof of this and
that with regards to church state, First Amendment, etc did begin to
decline to the point that it has become extremely rare to hear anyone
mention the N.O. anymore as any kind of proof that the founders didn't
intend church state separation.
While I am sure there might be several reasons for this, I have to think
our series of articles helped in that process. Thus, one can say they were
effective.
**************************************************************************************
The above was given as a backdrop so that one can understand the context
and function each of the articles in the N.O. series.
***************************************************************************************
The materials that was used at the time for research for the article were:
Chapter XVII, The Northwest Ordinance, 1787, Commentary by Peter S. Onuf,
pp. 249-266, Roots of the Republic. American Founding Documents
Interpreted. Stephen L. Schechter, Editor. Madison House, (1990)
Federalist # 43
Federalist # 48
Strader et al v. Graham, 51 U.S., (10 Howard), 395, 435-42 December Term
1850
Permoli v. New Orleans, U. S. (3 Howard), 589, 1845
The above cited article weas the source for the majority of the information
I emailed on to Tom for him to use in his composition of the axctual
article.
***************************************************************************************
Let's begin with that actual article now:
The author of the article says this:
**Indeed, some scholars have questioned whether the Northwest Ordinance was
ever Constitutional. "In the American system, the national Constitution
clearly was paramount. The test of the Constitution also provided the
authoritative standard. The Northwest Ordinance simply did not measure up;
its authors did not act under any specified constitutional mandate, nor was
their work in turn sanctioned by the sovereign people. Hastily written and
poorly organized the Ordinance did not compare favorably with the
skillfully constructed national Constitution." ("The Northwest Ordinance,"
in Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents, by Peter S. Onuf, p.
250,). " **
Yep that does appear in the article. However, what doesn't appear is any
footnotes, endnotes cites or names identifying any of those scholars.
Just a small point, nonetheless a valid point.
What Junkie doesn't understand since he didn't read the article before he
decided to get his undies in a bunch and jump in here thinking he had
discovered something of major importance with which to try and distract
people from the original points of this entire "discussion" between him,
myself and sometimes others was this:
One can read the article and come away with opposing viewpoints concerning
what the article established. In other words one could read the article and
come away feeling that the article made the case that the N.O. was never
legal, on the other hand one can read the article and come away with the
exact opposite opinion about what the article is showing. (I will
establish this fact as I proceed in this series.)
The focus that Tom took was in harmony with the over all point of the
article we were composing for his web site regarding the N.O. That over all
point was: it was not a document that defined the First Amendment, nor was
it a document that required the support of religion.
Thus, that series of articles took several approaches to establish this.
Now. let's begin at the very beginning of the article in question that
junkie has elected to use as his straw, his distraction.
Actual quotes from the website article will be identified by ** at the
beginning and end of said quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
**The Northwest Ordinance had no constitutional authority
As we have seen, the Northwest Ordinance is not a good basis upon which to
launch an attack on the broad interpretation of the First Amendment. **
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kindly note the reference to the First Amendment, not anything that this
particular discussion has been about.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Even beyond that, we argue that the accommodationist reverence for the
Northwest Ordinance is misplaced; the Ordinance was not legal when it was
passed by the Continental Congress. Moreover, it's legal status remained
ambiguous throughout it's history. Hence, the Ordinance is itself proof
that the founders of our nation passed laws that were unconstitutional!**
Even beyond that, we argue that the accommodationist reverence for the
Northwest Ordinance is misplaced; the Ordinance was not legal when it was
passed by the Continental Congress. Moreover, it's legal status remained
ambiguous throughout it's history. Hence, the Ordinance is itself proof
that the founders of our nation passed laws that were unconstitutional!
Was the Northwest Ordinance ever a valid law? The answer might surprise a
lot of people. On July 13, 1787, the document that has come to be known as
the Northwest Ordinance was passed by the 18 members of the Continental
Congress, meeting in NYC. (The other members of that Congress were in
Philadelphia meeting at the Constitutional Convention.)
Before that date, resolutions proposed on April 23, 1784, but never passed
into law, had governed how the new territories were laid out. With the
passing and signing of the proposed Ordinance, those 1784 resolutions were
made null and void. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 took their place. **
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a mistake in the above.
It should be the Land Ordinance of 1785 that was never passed into law by
the Cont.. Congress, yet was the very formula that was used with regards to
how the townships were laid out, the section 16 of each township to be used
for the support of common schools/public schools, etc.
This might help:
==============================================================
1784
COMMENTARY
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW FOR NORTHWEST ORDINANCE MATERIAL
Even before the Treaty of Paris had been signed, Massachusetts's
Colonel Timothy Pickering, representing a group of Revolutionary War
officers, proposed a plan for a state in the Northwest. In June 1783 Rufus
Putnam, who had been interested in land speculation since the French and
Indian War, (17) drew up a petition and submitted Pickering's plan to the
Continental Congress.'s (1
The petition called for land of the Ohio to be
divided into "townships six miles square allowing to each township three
thousand and forty acres for the ministry, schools, wastelands, rivers,
ponds, and highways."(19) The petition remained in committee, but the
township, school, and ministry provisions were later seen in the 1785 land
proposal. It was not strange that a plan such as Pickering's should include
a religious provision, for the Massachusetts Constitution of 1779 (20)
contained the following clause: "It is the right and duty of the
legislature to authorize and require the several towns . . . to make
suitable provision at their own expense for the instruction of public
worship of God." (21) Understandably, it would be easier for the settlers
to have the federal government grant land for religion than to provide for
the expenses themselves. The conservative leaders of Massachusetts were not
ready for disestablishment. They were prepared to transfer their faith to
new territory in the West.
The Continental Congress had good reason for not acting on the
Putnam petition, for the western lands had neither been secured from the
Indians nor ceded by the several states. Virginia had the oldest and best
established claim to the land north of the Ohio River. In September 1783
Congress voted to accept Virginia's cession if Virginia would agree to
congressional modifications. On 1 March 1784 Virginia ceded its lands north
of the Ohio River to the federal government. Thomas Jefferson,
congressional delegate, immediately presented a plan for the temporary
government of the western territory. (22) Jefferson)s plan was adopted
less than two months later with minor amendments. This completed, Jefferson
presented a bill on 7 May 1784 "for ascertaining the mode of locating and
disposing of lands in the Western Territory.(23) This plan contained no
religious provision. Later that month, Congress postponed the plan
indefinitely. (24) The bill was again reported unchanged on 4 March 1785.
(25) A committee, consisting of one representative from each state, was
appointed to review the bill. Less than one month later, a new bill bearing
Jefferson's name was presented to Congress. It was in this bill that the
key statement on religion, "the section immediately adjoining the same to
the northward for the support of religion," appeared.(26)
There is evidence that this bill, which became the Land Ordinance
of 1785, was principally the work of two men, William Grayson of Virginia
and Rufus King of Massachusetts. Congressman King was strongly influenced
by his unofficial advisor, Pickering. Grayson evidently was instrumental in
drawing up the document, using the 1784 Jefferson bill only as a guide. In
a letter dated 12 April 1785 from James Monroe, delegate of Virginia, to
Jefferson, then Minister to France, Monroe wrote: "A report [the Ordinance
of 1785] drawn principally by Colo. Grayson will be deliver'd in a few
days. It deviates I believe essentially from the one at Annapolis
[Jefferson's original bill].(27) The evidence, though, is stronger that
Pickering, through King, had the greatest effect upon the bill. Since 1783
Pickering had had a keen interest in western land developments. On 8 March
1785 Pickering discussed the situation in a lengthy letter to King. "In
looking over the Act of Congress of 23 of April last," Pickering wrote, "I
observe there is no provision made for ministers of the gospel, nor even
schools or academies. The latter might have been brought into view.(2
When the bill was reported to Congress on 14 April, Pickering's ideals were
"brought into view." The next day, King complimented Pickering on his
Ingenious communications on the mode of disposing of the Western
territory." King believed that Pickering's 'ideas had weight with the
committee who reported this ordiance.(29) Pickering himself believed that
his influence had been felt.. He wrote to a friend: "Mr. King has sent me
the last report about the western territory. I see a great and general
conformity to my ideas suggested to him."(30) Virginia's Grayson, on the
same day in a draft to George Washington, confirmed the New England
Influence. Grayson held that the Eastern states desired the "idea of
townships with the temptation of a support for religion and education." He
further explained that this support "holds forth an inducement for
neighborhoods of the same religious sentiments to confederate for the
purchasing and settling together.(31) The New England influence, thus, can
clearly be seen.
In the debate over the proposed land ordinance, the key question
concerned the method of sale for western lands. New England favored sale by
township while the South called for indiscriminate location, the usual form
of Southern settlement. Even though days were consumed on the land debate,
the religious issue was discussed vigorously, and one day was spent
debating the issue in Congress.(32) The land sale was resolved through
compromise as half the land was to be sold by townships while the other
half was to be sold in smaller sections, a provision favorable to
Southerners. The religious question failed in compromise and was lost to
the Ordinance.
FOOTNOTES:
(17). Albert C. Bates, ed., The Two Putnams: Israel and Rufus ( Hartford:
Connecticut Historiral Society, 1931), passim.
(1
. Knight,''History and Management of [Federal] Land Grants for
Education,'' l:80.
(19). Charles M. Walker, History of Athens County, Ohio (Cincinnati: Robert
Clark and Co., 1969), p. 34.
(20). Elisha P. Douglass, Rebels and Democrats (Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1955), pp. 192, 195. Douglass points out that
fraudulent tabulation of the ratifying vote distorted the will of the
majority and assured the ratification of the Constitution. He also notes
that state support of the religious "provision particularly aroused
[democratic] antagonism."
(21). Humphrey, Nationalism and Religion in America, p. 365.
(22). A committee chaired by Jefferson included Hugh Williamson of North
Carolina, David Howell of Rhode Island, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts,
and Jacob Read of South Carolina; see Treat, The National Land System:
1785-1820, p. 22.
(23). Knight,''History and Management of [Federal] Land Grants for
Education," 1:83.
(24). Ibid.
(25). Journals. 28:114.
(26). Journals, 28:293-94.
(27). Monroe to Jefferson, 12 April 1 785, quoted in Julian P. Boyd, ed.,
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 19 vols. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1950-1974), 8:75.
(2
. Pickering to King, 8 March 1785, quoted in Octavius Pickering, The
Life of Timothy Pickering, 4 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1867-1873),
1:509.
(29). King to Pickering. 15 April 1785, quoted in Charles R. King, The Life
and Correspondence of Rufus King, 6 vols. (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons,
1894-1900), 1:46.
(30). Pickering to Hodgdon, 19 April 1785, quoted in Pickering, The Life of
Timothy Pickering, 1:511.
(31). Grayson to Washington, 19 April 1785, quoted in Edmund D. Burnett,
ed.. Lettersr of Members of the Continental Congress, 8 Vols. (Washington,
D.C.: Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1921-1936), 8:95.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Freedom of Religion and the Land Ordinance of 1785,
Ronald A. Smith, p 589, JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE, Vol. 24, Autumn 1982,
Number 3 J.M Dawson Studies in Church and State, Baylor University )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as well as this:
APRIL 14, 1785
(Report of the committee consisting of Mr. Pierse Long, Mr. Rufus King,
Mr. David Howell, Mr. William Samuel Johnson, Mr. R.R. Livingston, Mr.
Archibald Stewart, Mr. Joseph Gardner, Mr. John Henry, Mr, William Grayson,
Mr. Hugh Williamson, Mr. John Bull and Mr. William Houstoun.
An Ordinance for ascertaining the mode of disposing of lands in the
Western territory.
Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled the
territory ceded by individual States to the United states which has been
purchased of the Indian inhabitants, shall be disposed of in the following
manner:
Thirteen or more surveyors shall be appointed by Congress who shall
take an Oath for the faithful Discharge of their duty to be administered by
the Geographer who is hereby impowered to administer the same and if any
surveyor being appointed as afs shall decline or become incapable to
discharge his duty the geographer shall appoint another in his place.
The Geographer (under whose direction the said surveyors shall act)
shall form such regulations for that conduct as he shall deem necessary,
and shall have authority to suspend them
for misconduct in office and shall make Report of the same to Congress.
The Surveyors shalt proceed to divide the said territorys into
townships of miles square, by lines running due North and South and others
crossing these at right angles, unless where the boundaries of the late
Indian purchase may render the same impracticable, and then departing from
this rule no farther then such particular circumstances may require.
There shall be allowed for the surveying of every township dollars,
including the wages of chain carriers, markers and every other expense and
so in proportion for a part of a township.
The first line running North and South as aforesaid shall begin on
the Ohio, at a point that shall be found to be due North from the
termination at of a line which has been run as the Southern boundary of the
State of Pennsylvania, and the first line running East and West shall begin
at the same point, and shall shalll extend throughout the whole territory.
The Geographer shall designate the townships by numbers progressively from
South to North, always beginning each Range with No.1 [and the Ranges shall
be distinguished by their progressive numbers to the Westward, the first
Range extending from the Ohio to the Lake Erie, being marked No. 1]
The lines shall be measured with a chain, shall be plainly marked
by chops on the trees and exactly described on a plat shall be noted at
their proper distance all water courses, mountains and other remarkable and
permanent things over or near which such lines shall pass.
The plats of the districts respectively shall be subdivided [as the
case may require] into sections of one mile square, or 640 acres, in the
same direction as the external lines, and numbered from one to 49, always
beginning the succeeding range of sections with the number next to that
which the preceding, one concluded and where from the causes before
mentioned only a of a township shall be surveyed, the sections protracted
thereon shall bear the same numbers as if the township had been intire [and
those sections shall be subdivided into lots of 320 acres.]
A Geographer and surveyors shall pay the upmost attention to the
variation of the magnetic needle, and shall run and note all lines by the
true meridian : certifying with every plat what was the variation at the
times of running the lines thereon noted.
As soon as ranges of townships and parts of townships in the
direction from south to North shall have been surveyed, the Geographer
shall transmit plate thereof to the Commissioners of the Treasury, who
shall record the same with the report in well bound books to be kept for
that purpose. The Secretary at War shall take by lot therefrom a number of
townships and parts of townships equal to one part of, the whole for the
use of the late Continental Army, to be applied in manner herein after
directed. The Commissioners of the Treasury shall then cause the remaining
numbers to be for in the. name of the thirteen states, according to (the
Quotas in the last preceding Requisition on the States,] provided if more
land than its Proportion is allotted for sale in any [State] at any
division a deduction be made therefor at the next.
The Commissioners shall transmit duplicates of the said original
plate so for, to the loan Officer of the individual States respectively,
who after giving proper notice shall proceed to sell the same at public
vendue, excepting only such townships and parts of townships as may be
herein after particularly reserved provided that none of the lands within
the said territory be sold under the price of one dollar the acre to be
paid in specie or loan Office certificates reduced to
specie value by the scale of depreciation or certificates of liquidated
debts of the United States, besides the expence of the survey and other
proceedings thereon, which are hereby rated at forty dollars the township
in specie or certificates as aforesaid and so in the same proportion for a
part thereof.
When any Township or part of a township shall have been as
aforesaid and: the money or Certificates received therefore, the loan
Officer shall deliver a deed in the following terms:
To all whom these presents shall come greeting:
Know ye. that for (the consideration of ) the United States of
America have granted unto C..D. the Township or part of Township
numbered_____to hold to this said C.D. his heirs, and assigns for ever,
subject nevertheless such reservations as are contained in an ordinance
bearing date the day of_____ in the year______.
In witness whereof the said A. B. loan officer the hath hereunto
set his hand and affix'd the seal of his office this___ day of___ in the
year____. and of the independence of the United States
the____ which deeds shall be recorded in proper books, & shall be certified
to have been recorded previous to its being delivered to the purchasers.
The loan Officers respectively shall make returns to the
Commissioner of the Treasury every three months of the sales of the
townships or parts of townships committed to their charge with the persons'
names to whom sold; and shall transmit all sums of money or certificates as
aforesaid received for the same, which shall be duly entered in the books
of the treasury..
If any township or part of township remains unsold for months
after the plat shall have been received by the loan Officer, the same shall
be returned to the Commissioner of the Treas and shall be sold in such
manner, as Congress may hereafter direct.
There shall be reserved for the United States out of every
Township the four corner sections being numbered, and out of every part of
a township so many sections of the same numbers se shall be found thereon.
Also one___ part of all gold, silver, lead, Copper and Coal mines,
and all salt licks and salt springs and a square of one hundred acres of
land, of which the said salt lick or salt spring shall be the centre for
the purpose of special sale at such times and places as Congress may
hereafter direct.
There shall be reserved the Central section of every township for
the maintenance of public schools and the [Section] immediately to the
Northward for the suport of religion, the profits arising therefrom in both
instances to be applied for ever according to the will of the majority of
male residents of full age within the same. And whereas Congress by their
resolutions of September 16 and 18 in the year 1716, and the 12 of August,
1780, stipulates grants of land to the officers and soldiers who had
engaged or should engage in the service of the United States during the war
and continue therein to the close of the same until discharged by Congress
and to the representatives of such Officers and soldiers as should be
slain by the enemy, in the following to wit:
To a Major General 1,100 acres; to a Brig.850, to a Colone1 450,
to
to a Major 400, to a Captain 300, to a Lieut. 200, to an Ensign 150 and
to a non comm. soldier 100. For complying therefore with such [engagements]
be it ordained that the Secretary at War from the returns in his
office or such other sufficent evidence as the nature of the case .may
[admit] determine who are the objects of the' above resolutions and the
quantity of land to which such persons or their representatives are
respectively intituled and shall cause the Townships or parts of
townships; ,hereinbefore reserved for the use of the late Continental Army
to he drawn for in such manner as he shall deem expedient to answer the
purpose of an impartial distribution.
He shall from time to time transmit certificates difficult of
imitation to the loan officers of 'the different States to the lines of
which the Military claimants respectively belong, specifying the name and
rank of the party the terms of his engagement and time of his service and
the division Brigade, regiment or company to which he belonged, the
quantity of land he is intituled to, and the Township out of which his
portion is to be taken.
The loan Officers shall execute deeds for such undivided
[Proportions] in manner and form herein before mentioned, varying only in
such a degree as to make the same conformable to the Certificate from the
Secretary at War.
Where any Military claimants of bounty [in Lands] shall not belong
to the Line of any particular State similar certificates shall be sent to
the Commissioner of the Treasury, who shall execute deeds to the parties
for the same.
The Commissioner of the Treasury and loan Officers in the States
shall within 12 months return receipts to the Secy. at War for all deeds
which have been delivered, as also all the original deeds which remain in
their lands for want of applicants which deeds so returned shall be
perserved in the office until the parties or their representatives require
the same, (saving and confirming always to all Officers and Soldiers
entitled to Lands on the Northern Side of the Ohio, by Donations or Bounty
from the Commonwealth of Virginia and to all Persons claiming under them
all Rights to which they are so entitled by the laws of the said State and
the Acts of Congress accepting the Cesson of Western Territory from the
said State)
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 28, pp
251-256)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO BE CONTINUED:
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
