Talk:Northwest Ordinance

Reorganized

I've reorganized and rewritten major parts of this article following the rewrite of the Ohio Territory. These two articles, together with Northwest Territory, covered somewhat the same material. In reorganizing the articles, I'm essentially following this scheme:

• Ohio Territory focuses on the region's history prior to 1787.
• Northwest Territory focuses on the specific territorial institution established in 1787.
• Northwest Ordinance focuses on the legislation itself.

I think this can avoid some of the overlap that has been encroaching into these articles so that they don't wind up covering the same material. -- Decumanus | Talk 17:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.233.194 (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Congress

Continental Congress (which no longer exised at the time) should be replaced with Congress of the Confederation . . . and the link fixed.12.10.223.247 16:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I second that. This legislation was not passed by the continental congress, so the first sentence of the second paragraph is utterly incorrect. Please change it. (Feb 2011)

Prohibition to Slavery

This was not an attempt at abolition, since there was no real movement or widespread opposition at this point. In reality, it supported slavery the institution of slavery by having a clause allowing runaways to be captured

Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted

The problem is there is another part that is supposed to be connected to it. Continuing from "duly convicted" it says

duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.

These parts go together and change the meaning of the Article; this included a provision to capture runaway slaves, and was something slave owners really wanted and had wanted for a long time. The text is available here http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nworder.asp This section had no articles or books to support the material written; on the parts I did work, I included reputable sources. I welcome additional suggestions on improvement of this article.Ebanony (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Establishment of civil rights

The claims in this section have no source; I've placed a marker there so that the contributing editor can add it. In reality this was not a civil rights law; it took away the civil rights of Native Americans & Africans. When discussing "property rights" within the context of this law, it's a reference to French slave owners keeping their property.Ebanony (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Article III says otherwise. Can you point to specific text in the Ordinance which supports your assertion? TEDickey (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Civil rights law? V policy, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question."

Original research policy says, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." WP:PRIMARY You cited "Article III", but no where in the entire Ordinance do the words "civil rights" appear; there is no secondary source that calling it "civil rights" law. TEDickey, with all due respect, I'm not the one making "assertions". The writer made the "assertion" by claiming that a fugitive slave law that didn't prohibit slavery is somehow a "civil rights" - with no sources to boot.

You seem to be taking the statements in Article III literally, then I reiterate the need to follow the policy on secondary sources; what the ordinance claimed to do and what it actually did have no relationship. They most certaintly did not respect Native tribes, and they definately had slavery in the area - long after 1787.Ebanony (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I see you've removed the marker from the article I had just placed, citing the actual ordinance, which is a primary source - you can't rely on that. I've changed that edit & remind you of the need to follow the "pillars" of Wikipedia policy on unsourced V & OR - specifically the need to use secondary sources. You've provided 0 documentary evidence this was a "civil rights" law, & that's only part of the reason why it's been challenged.Ebanony (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is no original research involved in recapitulating the contents of the ordinance. older ≠ wiser 12:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"recapitulating the contents of the ordinance." Except that calling it "civil rights" law is not "recapitulating" anything found in the ordinance.

"Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position—called original synthesis, or original SYN—is prohibited by the NOR policy." That's not my opinionl that's V policy.

As to TEDickey, you changed my edit twice, despite not having a secondary source for your claims. Then you wrote "nonsensical request -- READ the damn statute". Please read cool and avoid language like that; plese avoid edit warring EW.

On Article II & dealing with the ordinance in general:

The "civil liberties" it protected were habeas corpus, jury trial, prohibiting bail etc. But when it came to blacks, "slaves...had no way to vindicate their rights"; there were also laws that prevented blacks from speaking in court against whites - Quotes from Onuf, From Constitution to Higher Law 19.

There was also slavery in the area: "the ordinance was not abolitionist" because slavery continued in the area "until 1848". Slavery was also "implied" in Article II. Slavery and the Northwest Ordinance Paul Finkelman 345, 369 - & he mentions the French too. [[1]] Neither he nor Onuf nor Douglas Hurt nor Staughton Lynd (all major pieces) call this a "civil rights" law as far as I know. Why do you insist on it?

As to Article III, "good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent" - See Charles Kappler Indian Treaties, 1778-1883 for treates the US broke with the indigenous peoples 1972 & also Ward Churchill, Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide and Expropriation in Contemporary North America 1993, says "Well before the end of the nineteenth century, the United States stood in default on virtually every treaty agreement it had made with native people". Do you really want to claim the "Indians" were treated fairly or that it guaranteed their rights? Shall we discuss Knox & the "utter extirpation" of these people and other genocidal references? Ebanony (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, it was me, not TEDickey, who removed your request for citation the second time. Are you seriously suggesting that the language in the ordinance does not echo that found in the Bill of Rights? Are you seriously suggesting that the topics covered there are not civil rights? That section of the article makes no mention of Indians, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. If you have reliable sources that discuss how the various governments fell short in implementing the ordinance, that may be worth mentioning in the article, but that is a different matter than describing what the ordinance says. Your comments about slavery and abolition seem pertinent to the following separate section rather than the section on "Establishment of civil rights". older ≠ wiser 15:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Point noted on the undo; let's avoid uncivil behaviour & charged words & discuss the problem. Article III of the ordinance does mention native Americans

"Art. 3. ...The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent..." [[2]]

Article II & VI mention slaves. By discussing "free", the implication is there were unfree people ie slaves. I've already cited Finkelman's article [[3]]. Further, whilst the language seemsto support civil rights, it did not protect the civil rights of blacks or indigenous peoples. Slavery is relevant because it did not "destroy slavery north of the Ohio" & was the "first important protection given to slavery by the national government" - see Finkelman's article above. This is why you need secondary sources; these laws were not straightforward; what it appears to say and what the law actually did - 2 separate things.

As to the Bill of Rights, the basis for calling it a "civil rights" law is based on what? The law actually helped protect property of whites - property being black slaves. Your claim of civil rights doesn't qualify who, what or how those unspecified were protected - if at all. This also discussed taking indigenous lands. Stop trying to deflect the problem unto me; I haven't written anything on N Americans in the main article - nor did I intend to. But you made claims without a source in the main space, have been asked to provide one & refuse. Why? Ebanony (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The parallels between the language in the ordinance and the bill of rights are, as far as I'm concerned, self-evident to anyone willing to consider it without a giant chip on their shoulder. The ordinance itself makes the connection to civil liberties clear "As for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected ...".

• Article 1 clearly parallels the first amendment with regards to religion.
• Article 2 clearly echoes both the constitution proper with regards to habeas corpus as well as the sixth amendment with regards to right to a speedy trial and the seventh amendment for trial by jury of peers and eighth amendment about excessive bale and cruel and unusual punishments

The section of this article on civil rights makes no mention of Indians or slaves. The constitution itself treats slaves as 3/5 of a person among other indignities and until early in the 20th century, Indians were not considered citizens to whom the constitution applied. I'm not sure what relevance that has to a comparison with the constitution or bill of rights if both documents arguably have similar faults. If the actual practices in the various territories and states subject to the ordinance deviated from the standards laid out in the ordinance, that would be worth describing; but asking for a reference that the language of the ordinance foreshadows the bill of rights is akin to asking for a citation that the sky is blue. older ≠ wiser 23:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what the law said it would do; I disagree with the term "civil rights law" as it appears in the main text. This 1787 Ordinance you claim was a civil rights law, and you say it's "self-evident" the parellels with the Bill of Rights. Sorry, but it is not "evident" that the law was a "civil rights law" or that there is a direct link to the Bill of Rights. You make these claims and say you don't need evidenceb & discuss the "sky is blue". Come on. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." WP:PRIMARY Again, no where in the document does the term "civil rights law" appear; it appears to be your interpretation. Correct or not, you need a source. You can do it your way or follow the clear guidelinesEbanony (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Now what it is "evident" is that the link with the Constitution is controversial - few historians say this. But here's what they say: namely that the fugitive slave clause in the Ordinance of 1787 was "the ancestor of the fugitive slave clause" in the Constitution. So it acutally denied people their rights - as in basic human and civil rights based on race ie namely black slaves, and that's clear in Article II & VI. How does a "civil rights" law put blacks in chains? That's your claim. You can't just isolate one part of it & claim the whole law was "civil rights". "Civil rights" in this context can give the impression it protected minority rights, like the real civil rights law after the Civil War (overturned by Supreme Court) & the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But that was not the intention or the consequence of this law. The only "rights" to be protected were those of white men. Finkelman's article makes that clear. Your sources?Ebanony (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are unable to see the obvious, then I have nothing more to say. Sorry, but you seem to be preoccupied with issues not directly relevant to the article. You are applying contemporary understanding of civil rights to late 18th century legislation. The contemporary understanding of civil rights has evolved over time and both this ordinance and the constitution and bill of rights were stepping stones in that process. The ordinance itself describes the clauses as establishing civil liberties. I hope you are not trying to make some pedantic point that there is some significance to civil liberties vs. civil rights. older ≠ wiser 02:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the apparant misuse of the term "civil rights" for a law that unquestionably limited the rights of a significant number of people based on race. Where did the term "civil rights" that you added come from? Not the ordinance. The links to the Constitution? That was written after the ordinance. Since the primary source doesn't say it, then you need a secondary source. Your interpretation, "The parallels between the language in the ordinance and the bill of rights are, as far as I'm concerned, self-evident. V policy asks for

::This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question."

The problem: no one knows where these claims come from. Finkelman, Onuf etc were the major articles published in recent times. They do not say what you say. Please remove the term "civil rights" or add a source that supports this claim & that of the link to the Constituion.Ebanony (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a clear example:

"The right of habeas corpus was written into the charter, as was freedom of religious worship and bans on excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. Trial by jury and a ban on ex post facto laws were also rights granted."

These rights did not pertain to non-whites. Blacks were specifically denied habeas corpus, and slave owners petitioned Congress to ensure that Article VI did not deprive them of their "property rights". Yes, the reliable source is right here [[4]]. The source also says that the status of blacks brough to area was highly controversial (owners travelling with them). So when you discuss "civil rights", it is not evident in the paragraph that a significant number of non-whites did not get these protections. If you read the source I posted 3 times, you would know this.Ebanony (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You're using a contemporary understanding of civil rights to pass judgement on what is quite obviously civil rights language, (at least to anyone without a gigantic chip on their shoulder). Given your willful predilection to misconstruing the obvious, I have nothing more to say to you. older ≠ wiser 23:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

older ≠ You believe that I interpret the above based on a modern concept of civil rights. Even if true, it would be irrelevant. I wrote on the talk page; your defending material you admit is your interpretation & opinion in the main space. You've got no sources, and say you don't any. That violates wikipedia's policy V. Further, it's in a section under Effects of the legislation. These statements on civil liberties need to be qualified. * Ok, I revised my comment seeing that you added a source. Thank you for doing so. But no need to be uncivil saying, "I have nothing more to say to you", "add a cite for those unable to see the obvious" & "nonsensical request -- READ the damn statute". [[5]] [[6]] Arguing why you don't need sources & then using such language is not going to improve the article. "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." CIV I hope you can move beyond this and focus on working with others to improve the article.User:Ebanony|Ebanony]] (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to engage with editors making long, rambling, barely coherent screeds that confound common sense. older ≠ wiser 00:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy asks editors to collobrate: "When there is a more serious dispute over an edit...Editors open a section on the article's talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense."

That's what I did. No need for you to keep insulting people. As to my "rambling...screed" response, Wiki says "Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil." That's what I did - in good faith. But "Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should be resolved through the dispute resolution process." NPA "Don't label, give names or even disparage people or their edits; assume good faith" See CALM 3rd time I've asked you to stop that. Since there is now a source, the problem is solved.Ebanony (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Vandalism

This article needs to be given protection to prevent vandailism. A good number of the edits made to it could be reduced if it were at least semi-protected. Ebanony (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

I have just reverted a number of edits by an IP, not because of that, but because i find some of them rather questionable. In particular, there were a number of syntax errors introduced, some usage errors, some incorrect language use (the tense varied from past to present and back to past, in the same sentence), and perhaps some misleading information. I merely record it here so that if there is any question, this provides a place to discuss it. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Education encouraged clause

@Drdpw: If this phrase is recognized as a codification of a Jeffersonian ideal that's been repeated in multiple state constitutions, perhaps that should be mentioned somewhere? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes indeed, though the assertion that it's "a codification of a Jeffersonian ideal" is mine, based on TJ's role in developing the '84, '85 and '87 ordinances. This journal article may be a good source for information: Kaestle, Carl F. (1988). "Public Education in the Old Northwest: 'Necessary to Good Government and the Happiness of Mankind'". Indiana Magazine of History. 84 (1): 60–74 – via JSTOR. Drdpw (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• • Perhaps we should transform the "Commemoration" section into a broader "Legacy" section? -Indy beetle (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)