OHIO STATEWIDE FILES OH-FOOTSTEPS Mailing List Issue 56 ************************************************************************ USGENWEB ARCHIVES(tm) NOTICE Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgenwebarchives.org ************************************************************************** OH-FOOTSTEPS-D Digest Volume 06 : Issue 56 Today's Topics: #1 Fw: Tid-Bits - Part 77 B. ["Maggie Stewart, OH Archives" To: OH-FOOTSTEPS-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <00e901c664f1$8b2dfa60$0301a8c0@margaret> Subject: Fw: Tid-Bits - Part 77 B. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darlene & Kathi kelley" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:05 PM Contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by Darlene E. Kelley March 16, 2006. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Historical Collections of Ohio And Then They Went West Know Your Ohio Tid-Bits - Part 77 B. by Darlene E. Kelley notes by S. Kelly [ ] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tid-Bits - Part 77 B. Why The United States Bank Was Closed by President Andrew Jackson July 10, 1832. A Bank of the United States is in many respects convenient for the Governmant and useful to the people. Entertaining this opinion, and deeply impressed with the belief that some of the powers and privileges possessed by the exising Bank are unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, I felt it my duty, at an early period of my administration, to call attention of Congress to the practicability of organizing an institution combining all its advantages, and obviating these objections. I sincerely regret that, in the act before me, I can perceive none of those modifications of the Bank Charter which are necessary, in my opinion, to make it compatible with justice, with sound policy, or with the Constitution of our Country. Every monopoly, and all exclusive privileges, are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing Bank must come directly or indirectly out of te earnings of the American people. It is due to them, therefore, if their Government sell monopolies and exclusive privileges, that they should at least exact for them as much as they are worth in open market. The value of the monopoly in this case may be correctly ascertained. The twenty-eight millions of stock would probably be at an advance of fifty per cent, and command in market at least forty-two millions of dollars, subjsect to the payment of the preent bonus. The present value of the monopoly, therefore, is seventeen millions of dollars, and this act proposes to sell for three millions, payable in fifteen annual installments of two hundred thousand dollars each. It is not conceivable how the present stockholders can have a claim to the special favor of the Government. The present corporation has enjoyed its monopoly during the period stipulated in the orginal contract. If we must have such a corporation, why should not the Government sell out the whole stock, and thus secure to the people the full market value of the priveges granted ? Why should Congress create and sell twenty-eight millions of stock, incorporating the purchasers with all the powers and privileges secured in this act, and putting the premium upon the sales into the Treasury. It has been urged as an agreement in favor of rechartering the present Bank, that the calling in its loans will produce great embarrassment and distress. The time allowed to close its concerns is ample; and if it has been well managed, its pressure will be light, and heavy only in case its management has been bad. If, therefore, it shall produce distress, the fault will be its own; and it would furnish a reason against renewing a power which has been so obviously abused. But will there ever be a time when this reason will be less powerful? To acknowledge its force is to admit that the Bank ought to be perpetual; and, as a consequence, the present stockholders, and those inheriting their rights as successors, be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with the Government. The modifications of the existing Charter, proposed by this act, are not such, in my views, as make it consistent with the rights of the States or the liberties of the people. Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a Bank that in nature has so little to bind it to our country. The President of the Bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-electd directory, whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our actions in peace, and for the independence of our country in war. Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regulrly renewed every fifteen or twenty years, on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers, or prevent a renewal of it privileges, it cannot be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence. Should the stock of the Bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of foreign country, and we should unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition? Of the course which would be pursued by a bank almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power, and managed by those whose interests, if not affections, would run in the same direction, there can be no doubt. All its operations within would be in aid of the hostile fleets and armies without. Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence,it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy ...... It is maintained by the advocates of the Bank, that its constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of Constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the Bank might be based on precedent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a Bank; another, in 1811, decided against it. One Congress in 1815, decided against a Bank; another in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislature, judical, and the executive opinions against the Bank have been probably to those in favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me. If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this Act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision..... It cannot be necessary to the character of the Bank as a fiscal agent of the Government that its private business should be exempted from that taxation to which all the State banks are liable; nor can I conceive it proper that the substansive and the most essential powers reserved by the States shall be thus attacked and annihilated as a means of executing powers delegated to the general government. It may be safely assumed that none of those sages who had an agency in forming or adopting our Constitution, ever imagined that any portion of the taxing power of the States, not prohibited to them nor delegated to Congress, was to be swept away and annihilated as a means of executing certain powers delegated to Congress ....... Suspicions are entertained, and charges made, of gross abuse and violation of its Charter. An investigation unwillingly conceded, and so restricted in time as necessarily to make it incomplete and unsatisfactory, disclosed enough to excite suspicion and alarm. In the practices of the principal bank partially unveiled, in the absence of important witnesses, and in numerous charges confidently made, and yet wholly uninvestigated, there was enough to induce a majority of the committee of investigation, a committee which was selected from the most able and honorable members of the House of Representatives, to recommend a suspension of further action upon the bill, and a prosecution of the inquiry. As the charter had yet four years to run, and as a renewal now was not necessary to the successful prosecution of its business, it was to have been expected that the Bank itself, conscious of its purity, and proud of its character, would have withdrawn its application for the present, and demanded the severest scrutiny into all its transactions. In declining to do so, there seems to be an additional reason why the functionaries of the Government should proceed with less haste and more caution in the renewal of their monopoly ...... I have now done my duty to my country. If substained by my fellow citizens, I shall be grateful and happy; if not, I shall find in the motives which impel me ample grounds for contentment and peace. In the difficulties which surround us and the dangers which threaten our institutions there is cause for neither dismay nor alarm. For relief and deliverance let us firmly rely on that kind Providence which, I am sure, watches with peculiar care over the destinies of our republic, and on the intelligence and wisdom of our countrymen. This his abundant goodness, and their patriotic devotion, our liberty and Union will be preserved. Andrew Jackson President of the United States of America. [ SEAL ] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Andrew Jackson 7th President - 1829- 1837. More than any of his predecessors, Andrew Jackson was elected by popular vote; as President he sought to act as the direct representative of the common man. Born in the back woods , March 15, 1767 of Waxhaw, South Carolina, he received sporadic education. But in his late teens read law for about two years, and he became an outstanding lawyer in Tennessee. Fiercely jealous of his honor, he engaged in brawls, and in a duel killed a man who cast an unjustified slur on his wife Rachel Donelson Jackson. Jackson prospered sufficiently to buy slaves and to build a mansion, called " the Hermitage," near Nashville. He was the first man elected from Tennessee to the House of Representatives, and served briefly in the Senate. A Major General in the War of 1812, Jackson became a national hero when he defeated the British at New Orleans. In 1824 some state political factions rallied around Jackson; by 1828 enough had joined " Old Hickory " to win numerous state elections and control of the Federal administration in Washington. In his first Annual Message to Congress, Jackson recommended eliminating the Electoral College. He also tried to democratize Federal officeholding. Already state machines were being built on patronage, and a New York Senator openly proclaimed " that to the victors belng the spoils ..........." Jackson took a milder view. Decrying officeholders who seemed to enjoy life tenure, he believed Government duties could be plain and simple and that offices should rotate among deserving applicants. As national politics polorized around Jackson and his opposition, two parties grew out of the old Republican Party ---- the Democratic Republicans, or Democrats, adhering to Jackson; and the National Republicans, or Whigs, oppsing him. Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and other Whig leaders proclaimed themselves defenders of popular liberties against the usurpation of Jackson. Hostile cartoonists portrayed him as King Andrew I. Behind their accusations lay the fact that Jackson, unlike previous Presidents, did not defer to Congress in policy-making but used his power of the veto and his party leadership to assume command. The greatest party battle centered around the Second Bank of the United States, a private corporation but virtually a Government-sponsored monopoly. When Jackson appeared hostile toward it, the Bank threw its power against him. Clay and Webster, who had acted as attorneys for the Bank, led the fight for its recharter in Congress. " The bank," Jackson told Martin Van Buren, " is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" Jackson in vetoing the recharter bill, charged the Bank with undue economic privilege. [ see the above letter ]. His views won approval from the American electorate; in 1832 he polled more than 56 percent of the popular vote and almost five times as many electoral votes as Clay. Jackson met head on the challenge of John C. Calhoun, leader of forces trying to rid themselves of high protective tarriff. When South Carolina undertook to nulify the tarriff, Jackson ordered armed forces to Charleston and privately threatened to hang Calhoun. Violence seemed imminent until Clay negotiated a compromise; tarriffs were lowered and South Carolina dropped nullification. In January of 1832, while the President was dining with friends at the White House, someone whispered to him that the Senate had rejected the nomination of Martin Van Buren as Minister to England. Jackson jumped to his feet and exclaimed, " By the Eternal! I'll smash them!" So he did. His favorite, Van Buren, became Vice President, and succeeded to the Presidency when " Old Hickory " retired to the Hermitage, where he died June 8, 1845. Ohio was one of his benifactors of his leadership under the Bank Veto. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tid-Bits continued in part 78. ______________________________ ------------------------------ X-Message: #2 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:14:32 -0400 From: "Maggie Stewart, OH Archives" To: OH-FOOTSTEPS-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <00f501c664f1$b5c96b10$0301a8c0@margaret> Subject: Fw: Tid-Bits - Part 78 A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darlene & Kathi kelley" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 6:09 PM Contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by Darlene E. Kelley March 21, 2006 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Historical Collections of Ohio And Then They Went West Know Your Ohio Tid-Bits - Part 78 A notes by S. Kelly ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tid-Bits - Part 78 A In Search of the First White Child born in Ohio. The earliest known occupation of the territory now embraced within the limits of the State of Ohio, by any collective body of white men, was by the French in 1680. From that time until the conquest of Canada by the English, French traders were scattered throughout the territory, having a post, station or " store " at almost every Indian town. English traders first made their appearance in the Ohio country in 1699 and 1700. From that time until 1745, we frequently hear of them at various towns and stations. In 1745 they built a small fort or block house among the Hurons on the north side of Sandusky bay. In 1748 they were driven off by a party of French soldiers from Detroit. Prior to 1763 the English in Ohio were very few in comparison to the French. Up to the period of the American Revolution thousands of French and English traders had passed into the Ohio Country. It is impossible to determine how many lived there at any one time. At some villages there was but one or two traders, at others ten, twenty, and sometimes as many as fifty. For the most part the traders were married to squaws and had children by them. In rare cases, white women accompanied their husbands on trading excursions, which generally lasted for months. This was because the savages preferred to trade and barter with those connected with their people by marriage. We have heard of but two instances where traders had white wives living with them in Indian villages. [ These were a man named Henry, a brother of Judge Henry, of Lancaster, PA., who was domiciled on the Scioto, at a Shawnee village called Chelokraty, and Richard Conner, a Maryland trader, who lived on the Scioto at Pickaway. Both these men exercised great influence among the Shawnee. Mr. Henry was living among them as early as 1768, and married a white woman, who when a child, had been taken captive. We do not know whether they had had children born to them in Ohio, but it is likely they did, for Henry continued on the Scioto for many years and amassed a fotune there. In 1770, Mr. Conner, who had lived among the Western Indians as a trader for years, married a young white woman, captive among the Shawnee at Pickaway. In 1771, a male child was born unto them. It is impossible to state at what place, though in all probability the birth occurred at Pickaway on the Scioto. In 1774, agreeably to the treaty of Fort Pitt, all whites residing among the Shawneese were delivered up at the post. Among these were Mr. Conner and wife, but the Shawneese held back their son. ] There is no possibility to trace the date of birth of the first white child born in Ohio from any French or English occupants of Ohio prior to the peace of 1763. White children were doubtless born unto some of the many traders in Ohio before that date, and yet there is no evidence that such was the fact. The information we possess is so meager and perhaps unsatifactory, that the object of the query " who was--- the first white child born in Ohio ? " may still remain as heretofore " a simple matter of conjecture," but we hope that this writing will be an opening wedge on the subject. For many years it was gradually stated and believed that Miss Johanna Maria Heckewelder was the first white child born in Ohio. She was the object of unusual attentions; visitors from all parts of the country resorted to her residence, to see and converse with the first white child born in the wilderness of Ohio. Historians sought her acquaintance, antiquarians her photograph and autograph; learned societies her correspondence through complimentary memberships, in fact everybody who knew her history, honored and respected " Aunt Polly Heckewelder, " as she was familiarly called at Bethlehem, where she lived and died.Until the year 1848, Miss Heckewelder's claim remained undisturbed; that is to say, no one publicly denied her right to appear in the role as the first white child. It took Mr. Howe in his writings of Ohio history to first put a doubt on her claim. In a brief statement of the birth of a Frenchman, named Millehomme. At a later period the investigations of Judge Blickensderfer, of Tuscarawas county, Ohio, and Rev. Edmund De Schwemitz, Bishop of the Moravian Church, among the archives of the early mission station at Guadenhutton, revealed interesting fact that a white child named Roth, son of a missionary, had been born there nearly eight years before Miss Heckewelder's birth at Salem. The birth of Roth occurred one year before that of the Frenchman, Millehomme, mentioned by Howe. Here, therefore, are two instances of birh of white children prior to Miss Heckewelder. Another one which occurred in 1764 which I believe is deserving of attention and investigation. I have already stated that no known white child was born in Ohio before the close of the French and English War ( 1763 ). The information we have of the birth of one during the year 1764, is not definate enough for acceptance by the historical reader and critic, but I gathered in the facts, such as they are, and place them upon the record in connection with the other statements on the subject. But I think there is reasonable ground for asserting that the first known birth of a white child, occuring within the limits of Ohio, was that belonging to a white woman from Virginia, who had been taken prisoner by the Delawares in April, 1764. This woman was, at the time of her capture, far advanced in pregnancy, and during the month of July, 1764, gave birth to a child at or near the Indian town of Wakatomaka, near the present site of Dresden, Muskingum county, Ohio. Let us examine into the matter: When Col. Bouquet advanced with his army into the Ohio country, in October, 1764, he was met by the principal chieftains of the Senecas, Delawares, and Shawnees, who sued for peace. In answer to their overtures, Bouquet, who was a stern and resolute man, made a dignified reply. He told them that he would give them twelve days to deliver at Wakatomaka all their prisoners in their possession without any exception -- Englishmen, Frenchmen, women, and children- whether they were adopted into their tribes, married or just living amongst them under any denomination and pretence whatsover; together with all nergros. He also told them that they were to furnish the prisoners with clothing, provisions and horses to carry them to Fort Pitt, and then when this was done he would let them know the terms of the peace they would obtain that they sued for. This bold answer to the Indian tribes made a profound impression upon them. An only alternative was left -- peace under these conditions, or war. They judiciously resolved to give up the white and black captives under their control, and on the 9th of November there was brought to Bouquet's camp all the prisoners within the Ohio country, except a few held by a Shawnee tribe, who were absent hunting, Those who were delivered numbered 206: Virginians -- males, 32; females and children, 58. Pennsylvanians -- males, 49; females and children, 67. Among the Virginians was the white woman and her child herefore alluded to. Her situation is noted in the history of " Bouquet's Expedition," page 79. He states; " Among the captives, a woman was brought into the camp,at Muskingum, with a babe about three months old at her breast. One of the Virginia volunteers soon knew her to be his wife who had been taken by the Indians six months before. She was soon delivered to her overjoyed husband, who flew with her to his tent, and clothed her and her child in proper apparel. But there joy, after the first transports, was soon dampened by the reflection that another dear child of about two years old, captured with the mother, and separated from her, was still missing, although many children had been brought in. A few days later, a number of other prisoners were brought to camp, among them were several more children. The woman was sent for and one supposed to be hers was produced for her. At first sight she was uncertain, but upon viewing the child with the greatest earnestness, she soon recollected its features; n was so overcome with joy, she literally forgetting her sucking child, she dropped it from her arms, and catching up the new found child in an ecstacy, pressed it to her breast, bursting into tears, and carried it off unable to speak for joy. The father seizing up the babe she had let fall, followed her in no less transport and affection." It may be said the Moravians had settled at Bolivar in 1761, and the children may have been born unto them. This is easily answered by the fact that prior to 1764 there were but two white Moravians in Ohio, Heckewelder and Post. Heckewelder did not marry until 1780, and Post was married to an Indian squaw. Add to this, the fact there were no white women in the Moravian settlements, prior to the year 1764, and I think the answer is complete. If any white children either French, English, or American, were born within the limits of Ohio before the year 1764, we have been unable to find evidences of the fact. I think therefore we are safe in stating that the child of the Virginia captive, born in 1764, was the first known white child born in Ohio. In 1772, John George Jungmann and wife arrived at Shoenbrun, Ohio, from Bethlehem, Pa. Jungmann was a Moravian Missionary, and his wife was the first married white woman who came west among the Christian Indians. In April 1773, John Roth and wife reached Gnadenhutten, Ohio. Roth was also a missionary, sent out by the Moravian Church. Nearly three months after her arrival, Mrs. Roth gave birth to a son at Gnadenhutten, which was named John Lewis Roth. His birth occurred on the 4th of July, 1773, and he was baptized on the 5th, by the Rev. David Zeisberger. In the narrative of Zeisberger, by Bishop De Schweinitz, will be found an interesting biographical notice of John Lewis Roth, as well as sketches of his father and mother. When John Lewis was one month old, August 1773, his parents removed from Gnadenhutten to Shoebrun. At that place Mr. Roth labored for nearly a year, with marked success. His converts were many, which filled his heart with great joy and gratitude to God. It was at this time that Dunmore's war broke out. The Chritian Indians were threatened, the missionaries' lives were despaired of, the entire destruction of all the Moravian towns daily looked for. In this trying time, Zeisberger recommended Roth to return to Pennsylvania with his family. This advice was followed. Mr.and Mrs. Roth reached Bethlehem in June, 1774, when their infant son, John Lewis was less than a year old. Mr. Roth continued in the service of the Moravian Church many years, being successfully employed at Mount Joy, York, Emmaus, and Hebron, Pa. He died at York, July 22d, 1790. Mrs. Roth died at Nazareth, February 25th, 1805. John Lewis Roth, who Bishop De Schweinitz and Judge Blickensderfer claim to have been the first white child born in Ohio, was educated at Nazareth Hall, Bethlehem, Pa. At an early age he married and settled on a farm near Nazareth. Pa., where he lived until his 63rd year. In 1836, he removed to Bath, Pa., and while residing there joined the Lutheran Church, of which the Rev. A. Fuchs was pastor. Mr. Roth was an exemplary Christian, and brought up his children in the love and fear of God. He died September 25th, 1841, and is buried in the cemetery at Bath, where a small marble tomestone bears this inscription; " Zum Andenken an Ludwig Roth, geboren 4th Juli, 1773. Gestorben, 25th September, 1841, Alter 68 Jahre, 2M.21Tage." The village of Gnadenhutten where Mr. Roth was born, was situated on the Tuscarawas river, in Clay township, Tuscarawas county, Ohio, not far from the outskirts of the present town of Gnadenhutten. It was there that the horrible massacre of Christian Indians took place in March, 1782. The next white birth in Ohio, is founded upon the assertion made by Mr, Henry Howe. He states that Mr. Dinsmoore, a planter of Boone county, Ky., orally informed him that is the year 1835, when residing in the parish of Terre-Bonne,La., he became acquainted with a planter named Millehomme, who informed him that he was born in the forest, on the head waters of the Miami, on or near the Loramie Portage, about the year 1774. His parents were Canadian French, then on route to Louisiana. We know nothing of the facts in this case other by given by my dear friend Mr. Howe. I assume he consider the statement of Mr. Dinsmoore reliable, or it would have not found a place in his vauable work. Early in the year 1780, the Moravian Church at Bethlehem sent to Ohio Missions as teacher, Miss Sarah Ohneberg. She was a young woman of fine education, with an amiable dispossion, and unaffected Christian piety. After he arrival at Shoenbrun, she became the recipent of marked attentions from Rev. John Heckewelder, then in his 38th year. Friendship blossemed into a firmer attachment, and in July, 1780, they were married at the chapel in Salem, by the Rev. Adam Grube. This being the first wedding of a white couple in Ohio, it was well attended by all the Mission families and converted Indians. During the following year, Mrs. Heckewelder gave birth to a female child at Salem. She was baptized and named Johanna Maria Heckewelder. As for being the first white child born in Ohio I believe that it has been shown to be unsustainable. Her history, however, is very interesting. I will in the following series give the account. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Continued in Tid-Bits, part 78 B. -------------------------------- End of OH-FOOTSTEPS-D Digest V06 Issue #56 ******************************************