Muskingum County, Ohio - Chapter 2: The American Indians and Ohio, 1882 (part 2 of 2)

If there had been any English settlements on the river at that time, or if it had been a part of the British Colonies, would the French have been permitted to go down the river's whole length, or would not the Court of London at least made some complaints? But then there was as yet no talk of the new pretensions, which have since risen without proof, title, or any sort of foundation. It is true, that within these late years some English traders passed the mountains of Virginia, and ventured to carry on a fur trade with the Indians on the Ohio. The French Governors of Canada contented themselves at first with acquainting them that they were within the territory of France, and enjoined them not to return, that they were within the territory of France, and enjoined them not to i-eturn there, imder penalty of having their effects seized and being made prisoners. The traders, however, returned, their goods were confiscated and sold, and they were personally arrested, taken to Quebec, and from thence to France, where they were thrown into prison at Rochelle. No reclaim or complaint was made by the Court of London ; they were looked upon as contraband traders, whom their avarice had exposed to the hazards of an illicit commerce.

After having thus firmly established the right and possession of the French on the river and territory of the Ohio, it ought to be considered as a very convincing proof of their love of peace, that they are most ready and willing to stipulate that all territor}^ between the Ohio and the mountains which bound Virginia shall remain neutral, and that all the commerce in, or passage through the same, shall be prohibited as well to the French as the English. There were four points brought in question in memorial number xiii : The limits of Acadia, the Hmits of Canada, the course and territory of the Ohio, and the islands St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Dpffiinica and Tabago.

"Notwithstanding all that is advanced upon this article, the Court of Great Britain cannot admit that France has the least title to the river Ohio and the territory in question ; even that of possession, neither can nor ought to be alleged on this point, since France cannot pretend to have had any before the treaty of Aix la Chapelle, nor since, unless it be some forts unjustly erected in the last place, upon lands which evidently belong to the Five Nations, or which they have transferred to the Crown of Great Britain, or its subjects, which may be proved from treaties and the most authentic acts.

"The title which France seems most to insist upon, is the use made of this for communication between Canada and Louisiana, but, in lact, they have never made any use of it, unless it was occasionally or secretly, and, as perhaps might have happened in so vast a region, in such a manner as not to be taken notice of, which, however, cannot give them the least shadow of right.

"The rivers Miami and Oubache only have been used for some years, as a communication between Canada and Louisiana ; not that Great Britain can admit that France has any right to these rivers, much less still to a passage, so near as they are to the river Ohio. As to the use they made of this last river, on account of the war with the Chickasaws, the allies and friends of Great Britain did not even make a formal complaint of it ; it will not follow that violence committed at a certain nice and critical conjuncture, should serve as a foundation for new encroachments. This is much the same with the rash and inconsiderate measures taken by a Governor of a remote colony, who prohibited the English from passing the mountains of Virginia, under penalty of having their goods seized and being made prisoners. The manner in which the Court of Great Britain complains of such like proceedings has been sufficiently manifested, in the memorial, although this was never delivered to the Court of France, as reported by the late Earl of Albemarle as being delivered March 7th, 1752. What the Court of Great Britain asserts and insists upon, is that the five Iroquois nations, acknowledged by France to be the subjects of Great Britain, are either originally, or by right of conquest, the lawful proprietors of the territory of Ohio in question. And as that part of the territory, which those people have ceded and transferred to the British nation, (which must be acknowledged to be the most lawful and equitable manner of acquiring it), they claim it as their property, which they have not ceased to cultivate twenty years and more, and upon several parts of which they have formed settlements from the very sources of Ohio, as far as Pickhac- Villains, which is the center of the territory between Ohio and Oubache. But, notwithstanding these facts are so clear and evident, the Court of Great Britain, for the sake of peace, and the preservation of a good understanding between the two

Courts, have proposed, in order to prevent all future disputes, to leave that tract of land in those parts neutral and uncultivated, which has already been declared to the Court of France, and Great Britain is ready to adjust and limit the precise extent of it, by an amicable negotiation. [Signed.] "T. Robinson."

"In May, 1785, soon after the ratification of the treaty concluded at Fort Mcintosh, with the Wyandots, Delawares, Chippewas and Ottawas, the United States acquired the title to all lands lying east', west and south of a line drawn from the mouth of the Cuyahoga, up that river to the Tuscarawas portage, and to the Tuscarawas above Port Lawrence ; thence to Loramies ; thence with the river to Lake Erie. The territory thus ceded included about three-fourths of the State of Ohio."

The United States, therefore, by treaty, having acquired the ownership to so much of the State of Ohio, her citizens began to go to and possess the land, and defend their right thereto ; - and the fortunes of war closed the scene, as between the Colonies and Great Britain, in favor of American sovereignty.