Mason, on the other hand, remained active in scientific endeavors and in seeking sufficient income. Two years after his return to England, Mason's financial needs multiplied when he remarried, as he and his second wife produced six children. Following the American Revolution, Mason brought his family to Philadelphia in hopes that he could earn more money, owing to his and Dixon's boundary line being so widely known among American leaders. Upon arriving in September 1786, he contacted his now eighty-year-old a.s.sociate from years gone by, Benjamin Franklin. "I have a family of wife, seven sons, and a daughter, all in a very helpless condition, as I have been confined to my bed with sickness ever since I came to town, which is twelve days," he wrote. "Had I been able I would have laid before you something curious in astronomy. The expense of putting it in execution would be very trifling. I do hereby send you a plan of the design."5 What that celestial oddity was remains unknown. Mason died shortly after sending Franklin his letter.

His name, however, along with that of his surveying partner, lived on, engraved in the American psyche as the border between North and South. Its earliest recorded use for this purpose may well have been when Virginia Congressman John Randolph ominously declared in 1824 that "we who belong to that unfortunate portion of this confederacy which is south of Mason and Dixon's line, and east of the Allegheny Mountains, have to make up our mind to perish ... or we must resort to the measures which we first opposed to British aggressions and usurpations."

Why was this said in 1824, as opposed to, say, 1800? Very likely because the 1820 Missouri Compromise established a line above and below which slavery was prohibited or permitted in the Louisiana Purchase. That line was the lat.i.tude 3630' (with the compromise exception of Missouri). No such boundary existed in the eastern states. Indeed, when Randolph made his reference to the Mason-Dixon Line, slavery was still allowed in Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. But-and herein the reason for Randolph's reference-three of those states had already enacted laws for the gradual abolition of slavery. New Hampshire did not enact a law to end slavery until 1857, and Delaware remained a slave state through the Civil War, though of course it was not a Confederate state.

But the Mason-Dixon Line to which Randolph referred didn't include its transpeninsular and tangent lines defining Delaware. He meant only the line dividing Pennsylvania, the nation's southernmost free state, from Maryland, the nation's northernmost slave state. As for the exceptions-Delaware extending slightly north of Maryland, and New Hampshire with (as per the 1800 census) a total of eight slaves-neither was enough to stand in the way of a catchy phrase.

CONNECTICUT, PENNSYLVANIA.

ZEBULUN BUTLER.

Connecticut's Lost Cause

Whereas the pet.i.tion of Zebulon Butler and others, claiming private right of soil under the State of Connecticut, and within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ... the claims of Zebulon Butler and others be, and hereby are, repealed.

-JOURNALS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, SEPTEMBER 21, 1785 Zebulon Butler was Connecticut's foremost military leader in its boundary war with Pennsylvania over Wyoming. Connecticut and Pennsylvania fighting over Wyoming? Didn't these people have maps? Didn't they notice that New York and the northern end of New Jersey are in between Connecticut and Pennsylvania, and that Wyoming hadn't even been invented?

They did have maps-pretty good ones, by then-and the Wyoming they were fighting over was the original Wyoming, which was the name of a valley along the Susquehanna River. The conflict resulted from the fact that Connecticut's colonial charter gave it reason to lay claim to Pennsylvania's northern tier. The dispute led to warfare-forts, cannons, deaths-three times over thirty years. Though Connecticut ultimately lost, those battles that it won were led by Zebulon Butler.

Butler grew up in Lyme, Connecticut. The hilly and rocky nature of the area likely contributed to his purchasing, at the age of twenty-nine, newly available land being sold by Connecticut's Susquehanna Company in the fertile Wyoming Valley. Like his fellow pioneers, Butler knew that Pennsylvania disputed the legality of their purchases. Pennsylvania's reasons were quite simple. The land being sold and deeded in Connecticut was well within the borders stipulated in Pennsylvania's 1681 charter.

The boundaries in Connecticut's 1662 charter, however, overlapped those of Pennsylvania. It had granted Connecticut a northern border along its (yet-to-be) agreed-upon boundary with Ma.s.sachusetts, a southern border at Long Island Sound, and a western border at the Pacific Ocean. Ma.s.sachusetts and Connecticut ultimately agreed upon a line located just above the 42nd parallel. Its southern coast at Long Island Sound extends as far south as the 41st parallel. Hence, colonial Connecticut could make a claim to a swath of land that crossed the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and onward to what is today the northernmost tier of California and a thin slice of Oregon.

Connecticut land claims Connecticut gave little thought to this vast western wilderness during its first hundred years. There was land enough for cultivation and expansion surrounding its settlements in the bays and rivers leading to Long Island Sound. But its population grew exponentially as the initial hardships and dangers in the New World dissipated.1 By the mid-1700s, Connecticut needed more land.

Connecticut first a.s.serted its western claims in 1754, when Governor Roger Wolcott allowed the Susquehanna Company to purchase land from the Iroquois along the Susquehanna River. The fact that Connecticut made no effort to a.s.sert its claim to the intervening lands in New York and New Jersey would later become legally significant. Politically and militarily, however, Connecticut knew it could not achieve a claim to land already populated by New York and New Jersey. The land in Pennsylvania, however, was still populated primarily by Iroquois tribes. If Connecticut thought that Pennsylvania's pacifist Quakers would enable it to settle the disputed land without a fight, that notion was soon corrected. When the first forty pioneers arrived in January 1769, three were promptly arrested and the others ordered to leave. Leave they did, but en route they encountered 200 other Connecticut settlers heading for the valley. Joining their ranks, they returned and were joined by even more in the months that followed-one of whom was Zebulon Butler.

When Butler arrived in July 1769, he was simply another settler, though he had distinguished himself in the recently concluded French and Indian War. The group's leader was Major John Durkee, who named the first settlement after two members of England's Parliament who supported the growing protests of the nation's American colonists: Isaac Barre and John Wilkes. To this day Connecticut's imprint, and an imprint of the approaching Revolutionary War, remains in the name Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

In early November Pennsylvania Governor John Penn sent troops to attack the Connecticut settlements. (This Governor Penn, whose father had returned to the Anglican Church, did not hesitate to use force.) The Pennsylvanians captured Durkee, and within two weeks the Connecticut settlers surrendered and again agreed to leave.

In the wake of this defeat, Zebulon Butler's leadership began to surface. No sooner had the settlers returned to Connecticut than they began to plan their return, with Butler among those mapping out their strategy. He served as a key aide to the newly released Durkee when the Connecticut settlers departed yet again for the Wyoming Valley in March 1770. To clear the way for their return, Connecticut settlers availed themselves of the services of a group of Pennsylvania vigilantes known as the Paxton Boys, for which they would later pay a heavy price. In the series of skirmishes, cannonades, and sieges that ensued, both Butler and Durkee were captured. This time Pennsylvania kept Durkee imprisoned. But Butler was released after four months and emerged as the new leader of Connecticut's forces.

Butler displayed a keen sense of when to attack, when to wait, and when to lay siege to an enemy settlement. In mid-August 1771, the Pennsylvanians, trapped and without provisions, surrendered to Captain Butler, thus ending the first eruption of what became known as the Pennamite War.

A stalemate prevailed over the next four years as both colonies awaited a ruling from King George III regarding their conflicting claims. The king, however, was in no hurry to issue such a ruling. Since relations with his American colonies were deteriorating, conflict between colonies served his purposes by obstructing efforts by many of the colonists to unite.

Meanwhile, Connecticut's settlements in the Wyoming Valley prospered under Butler's leadership. Connecticut officially named the area Westmoreland and declared it to be part of Litchfield County. Governor Penn, aware that silence could be interpreted as concession, responded with a proclamation in March 1774. Published in the Pennsylvania Gazette, it pointedly included: AND WHEREAS I have received information that a certain Zebulon Butler, under pretence of authority from the government of Connecticut, hath lately presumed to issue and disperse, through the counties of Northampton and Northumberland, in this province, a summons, or advertis.e.m.e.nt, setting forth, that the General a.s.sembly of the Colony of Connecticut had appointed him a Justice of the Peace for the County of Litchfield, and in a town lately made and set off by the a.s.sembly of the said colony, called by the Name of Westmoreland ... I do hereby strictly prohibit and forbid the inhabitants of the said Counties of Northampton and Northumberland, and all other the inhabitants of this province, to yield any obedience or to pay the least regard whatsoever to the aforesaid summons, or advertis.e.m.e.nt, or to any orders which may be hereafter issued or given by the said Zebulon Butler.

Prosperity in Connecticut's settlements led to growth and, in August 1775, a new settlement was founded along Warrior Run, a tributary to the Susquehanna and, most significantly, the first Connecticut settlement located on the river's western side. This westward push raised Pennsylvania's concerns beyond the battle of words. Should Connecticuters come to occupy regions west of the Susquehanna (the extent of its initial purchase from the Iroquois), they stood a greater chance of ultimately prevailing in their larger claim to possess the entirety of what they had come to call their Western Reserve. One month after the Connecticut settlers broke ground at Warrior Run, they were attacked by 500 soldiers from the Pennsylvania militia.

In response, Zebulon Butler led 400 Connecticut soldiers along the river's western side, where, on suitable terrain, he erected formidable defenses. Never before had so many men faced off in the conflict. Butler, however, knew his forces need not attack. They simply had to maintain a presence west of the Susquehanna. He also knew that Pennsylvania, to support its claim to the area, could not allow their presence to go unchallenged and would have to attack. On Christmas Day 1775, the Pennsylvanians did just that. But Butler's shrewdly located fortifications served their purpose, enabling Connecticut's militia to repel the Pennsylvanians. That in itself const.i.tuted victory in this second eruption of the Pennamite War.

Almost immediately, both militias turned to fight side by side in the American Revolution. Even then, however, the conflict continued to haunt them. In late June 1778 approximately 400 British soldiers and 600 American Indians approached the Wyoming Valley. On June 30 they attacked, driving back Butler's outnumbered forces. Butler retreated to a nearby fort, where he received word that reinforcements were en route. He and his officers decided to remain in the fort until the additional troops arrived. But many among the rank and file believed that, while waiting, they could be surrounded and destroyed.

Leading the opposition were Connecticut's earlier "shock troops," the Paxton Boys, who had good reason to fear for their lives. Their name derived from their hometown of Paxtang, Pennsylvania, where, under the leadership of Lazarus Stewart, they had formed a notorious anti-Indian rangers group. Twice they had raided peaceful Conestoga villages, ma.s.sacring men, women, and children. Their fellow Pennsylvanians were outraged-most notably Governor Penn, who ordered them captured, and Benjamin Franklin, who published a pamphlet attacking their actions.2 It was then that the Paxton Boys thought it best to ally themselves with the newcomers from Connecticut.

Now, in 1778, finding themselves at risk of being surrounded by 600 Indian warriors who had joined forces with the British, Stewart and his fellow Paxton Boys impressed upon the Connecticut soldiers the extreme jeopardy they were in. Butler, facing disapproval and terror among his men, and not entirely certain they were wrong, reversed his order and agreed to a counterattack. Their position was weak, however, and they were promptly outflanked. Butler ordered his men to retreat but, in the confusion of the rout, many never received the order.

Then came payback time. The Indians tortured and murdered the captured men, including Stewart. Despite efforts by the British to restrain them, the warriors spread into the neighboring communities, plundering and burning homes and barns.

The poison of prior conflicts did not end there. Connecticut blamed Pennsylvania for not sending nearby troops to protect the civilian population. Pennsylvania, in turn, blamed Butler for undertaking a foolhardy counterattack before the arrival of reinforcements. In similar fashion, the venomous relations between the Americans and the British explain what came next. Despite the fact that no civilians were killed during the rampage, and despite the fact that the British commander immediately offered sanctuary to those left homeless and rest.i.tution for their property, the American press blamed England for the disaster.3 To this day, accounts of the Wyoming Ma.s.sacre, as it has come to be known, often perpetuate this wartime propaganda.

The Continental Congress did not blame Butler, who was soon promoted to colonel. He continued to serve in the Wyoming Valley and elsewhere along what was then America's western frontier.

Congress also created a commission to rule on the Connecticut and Pennsylvania boundary dispute. It ultimately decided in favor of Pennsylvania. The decision was based on the fact that Connecticut had made no prior effort to a.s.sert its claim for nearly a hundred years, that it had previously (during a boundary dispute with New York) recognized that it was bounded on the west by New York, and that it had never a.s.serted claims to areas of New York and New Jersey that it could have a.s.serted for the same reasons it used in Pennsylvania.4 Zebulon Butler accepted the ruling. After the Revolution, he worked to validate the settlers' land t.i.tles in Pennsylvania. His efforts led to his being arrested four times, though he was never indicted. Violence erupted again in March 1784 following a flood that wiped out fences, houses, and barns in the valley. When the residents commenced rebuilding, they were driven away and ordered to evacuate by Pennsylvania troops still on active duty. Numerous men, rather than evacuate, hid in nearby caves and engaged in insurgent attacks. Butler was not among them. His fighting days were over.

When Pennsylvania's troops in the Wyoming Valley were finally discharged, Butler and his fellow settlers returned, and issues involving land t.i.tles were eventually resolved. Butler lived out his days in what became Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

VERMONT, NEW YORK.

ETHAN ALLEN.

Vermont: The Fourteenth Colony

Lately purchased by Allens and Baker, in company, a large tract of land situate[d] ... on Lake Champlain containing about forty five thousand acres.... The land will be sold at a moderate price. Whoever inclines to be a purchaser may, for further particulars, apply to Ethan, Zimry and Ira Allen or Remember Baker on the premises, or Heman and Levi Allen of Salisbury, per Ethan Allen & Company.

-ADVERTIs.e.m.e.nT IN THE CONNECTICUT COURANT, 17731 Ethan Allen was not a furniture maker. He did, however, burn a good deal of it as the leader of a self-proclaimed military force known as the Green Mountain Boys. Their mission was to defend homesteads whose land t.i.tles had been issued in New Hampshire but were being claimed by New York.

The dispute, based on conflicting colonial charters, had actually already been resolved. In 1764 King George III ruled that the region above Ma.s.sachusetts, between the Connecticut River and the Hudson River, was part of New York. Prior to his ruling, however, New Hampshire had begun selling land in the region and issuing t.i.tles. In an effort to strengthen its claim, New Hampshire's land sales suddenly increased between 1761 and 1763.2 The landowners themselves, for the most part, didn't have particularly strong feelings whether they were part of New York or New Hampshire-until New York declared their deeds invalid.

Ethan Allen (ca. 1738-1789) (photo credit 8.1) New York before the Revolution In order to validate a deed, New York required that a fee be paid for registering it in New York. The fee was based on the current value of the land, which, following occupation and settlement, was far higher than when it had been purchased as uncleared property. Consequently, registration fees were often as much as the original purchase price. This did not set well with the settlers. To make matters worse, New York frequently sold land t.i.tled in New Hampshire but not in New York. When surveyors appeared to stake out these lands, they began to face increasingly large groups of hostile New Hampshire-based settlers. Among those settlers was Ethan Allen.

Allen was the eldest of eight children, born and raised in Connecticut. His plans for a college education were derailed by the death of his father, which obliged Ethan to become a farmer while continuing his education informally. In time he added lead mining and iron manufacturing to his endeavors. With his profits he began purchasing land, often in partnership with his brothers, in what would eventually become Vermont. By the time New York declared the "New Hampshire Grants" invalid, Allen had extensive holdings throughout the region, including the 45,000 acres advertised in the Connecticut Courant.

When, in 1770, the owners of land t.i.tled by New Hampshire were named in lawsuits being brought by New York claimants to their lands, the defendants turned to Ethan Allen to take the lead in coordinating their defense. Allen collected official doc.u.mentation of New Hampshire's deeds and, for the trial, secured the services of Jared Ingersoll, a prominent attorney who later served in the Continental Congress and partic.i.p.ated in the writing of the Const.i.tution. The trial was presided over by Judge Robert R. Livingston, who himself owned 35,000 acres of Vermont land deeded, in his case, by New York. Livingston refused to admit into evidence the doc.u.ments Allen had gathered, and the subsequent verdict in favor of the New York plaintiffs surprised no one.

Before returning to his home in Bennington, Allen was visited by the attorney general of New York, John Taber Kempe, and James Duane, attorney for the New York plaintiffs in the case. They told Allen that if he and other leaders in Vermont could understand New York's view, and convey the justice of that view to the people in Vermont, Kempe and Duane could arrange for Allen and the other Vermont leaders to acquire considerable amounts of land in the region on highly favorable terms. Allen did not say no. He said, "The G.o.ds of the valleys are not the G.o.ds of the hills." When Kempe asked what that meant, Allen suggested he accompany him to Bennington, where he'd find out.

The following summer, New York's deputy surveyor general, William c.o.c.kburn, arrived in Rutland to divide it into lots. As his crew commenced work, he was approached by two property owners with New Hampshire deeds. In a letter to the land's New York proprietor (none other than attorney James Duane), c.o.c.kburn related that, "Your acquaintance Nathan [sic] Allen was in the woods with another party [of men], blackened and dressed like Indians.... By all accounts, we should not have been very kindly treated."3 The incident was the first of many that would ensue between New York surveyors or property claimants and Allen's Green Mountain Boys. It took place against a backdrop of increasingly violent confrontations. What had begun as spontaneous gatherings of angered residents were now evolving into organized groups of as many as a hundred men, dressed in a lurid mixture of American Indian headwear, women's caps, and powdered wigs. They had taken to brandishing clubs, swords, and rifles, issuing threats, knocking down fences, destroying crops, and burning haystacks. Often these frightening mobs were led by a man named Seth Warner. But New York's worst Vermont nightmare was about to take place: Seth Warner and Ethan Allen joined forces.

Allen's furniture-burning days were first recorded that fall in an October 1771 deposition regarding a dispossessed New York claimant. "One, surnamed Allen," a witness recounting what the victim had told him, vowed that "they had resolved to offer a burnt sacrifice to the G.o.ds of the world in burning the logs of that house. That they then kindled four fires on the logs of that house.... Allen and Baker, holding two clubs over the deponent's head, commanded him to leave that land."4 Allen and others named in the proceedings soon found their efforts widely publicized in notices offering a reward of 25 for their arrest.

Allen's response revealed his continuing outrage at the corruption he had encountered in the New York legal system now seeking his arrest. He posted notices saying: TWENTY FIVE POUNDS REWARD.

Whereas James Duane and John Kempe of New York have by their menaces and threats greatly disturbed the public peace and repose of the honest peasants of Bennington and the settlements to the northward ... any person that will apprehend these common disturbers, viz. James Duane and John Kempe, and bring them to Landlord Fay's at Bennington, shall have fifteen pounds for James Duane and ten pounds for John Kempe, paid by, ETHAN ALLEN.

REMEMBER BAKER.

ROBERT COCHRAN.

With confrontations escalating on both sides, New York Governor William Tryon sought the a.s.sistance of British troops. But the last thing England wanted, with its American colonies already a political tinderbox, was to have its army firing upon its subjects. Likewise, the residents living on land obtained through the New Hampshire Grants turned to New Hampshire for a.s.sistance from its militia. New Hampshire, with its own concerns about potentially igniting the tinderbox politics in the colonies, abstained. Vermont was, as it would remain, on its own.

By August 1773 Ethan Allen and Seth Warner were burning entire settlements that had recently been established under grants from New York. Governor Tryon increased the reward for Allen's arrest to 100. The New York legislature upped the ante, declaring that if Allen, Warner, and six other named cohorts did not turn themselves in within seventy days, they would be deemed guilty of felonies for which they would be (if caught) put to death.

As before, New York's declaration was answered by a declaration, this time issued in the name of the Green Mountain Boys, though widely believed to be the voice of Ethan Allen. It met New York's bet ... and raised it: And furthermore that we will kill or destroy any person or persons whomsoever that shall presume to be accessory, aiding or a.s.sisting in taking any of us as aforesaid; for by these presents we give any such disposed person or persons to understand that, though they have license by the law aforesaid to kill us, and "indemnification" for such murder from the same authority, they have no indemnification for doing so from the Green Mountain Boys.5 Going all in with their chips, Allen and the other leaders of the Green Mountain Boys set up their own government. New York claimants now found themselves being put on trial in courts created by the Green Mountain Boys. Floggings and other sentences were administered as homesteads continued to be burned.

A major confrontation with New York was on the verge of exploding. Then suddenly it ended-silenced by a gun fired 137 miles away. On April 19, 1775, British troops marching to Concord, Ma.s.sachusetts, to destroy a cache of weapons, encountered an armed group of colonists in the village of Lexington. In moving to disarm them, a shot was fired, triggering a battle that triggered the American Revolution.

Allen recognized a major opportunity here, but it required a critical choice. His writings attacking the tyranny of New York's royal governor had always made a point of expressing nothing but devotion to the king. Moreover, Vermont, positioned like a dagger from Canada wedging through New England before piercing the upper reaches of the Hudson River, could be of inestimable value to the Crown. Should Vermont make good on Allen's professions of fealty, it would undoubtedly gain control over the conflicting deeds to its land-if the British won the war. On the other hand, by denying the British this weapon and instead joining forces with the colonists, Vermont stood to gain independence as a state in an independent nation-provided the colonists won.

Being, if nothing else, an independent man-tumultuous, riotous, licentious, in the words of New York's legislature6-Allen opted for the colonists. At first the Continental Army wasn't sure what to do with this audacious man and his Green Mountain Boys when they ran into each other, both heading for the stronghold guarding the main highway to Canada: Fort Ticonderoga. Confusion over protocol, however, was quickly resolved, and their combined forces ousted the British on May 10, 1775-less than a month after the battle at Lexington and Concord. By surprising the British through such quick action, the Americans gained control of a vital artery.

Allen quickly seized the political opportunity afforded by this victory. He wrote to the Continental Congress, asking that the Green Mountain Boys be incorporated as a regiment in the Continental Army. The members of the Continental Congress were well aware of the group's vigilante reputation, but under the circ.u.mstances, how could they say no? In June they pa.s.sed a resolution stating "that it be recommended to the Convention of New York, that they, consulting with General Schuyler, employ in the army to be raised for the defense of America, those called Green Mountain Boys, under such officers as the said Green Mountains Boys shall choose." Representatives from Vermont's towns soon met to elect the commander of their now respectable and official regiment. The choice of either Allen or Seth Warren was a foregone conclusion. By a vote of 415 they elected Warner. Evidently, Allen's independent nature, while ideal for rebellion, was not ideal for friendship.

To his credit, Allen continued to serve, accepting an offer from General Schuyler to perform a.s.signments as needed. Schuyler availed himself of Allen's persuasive skills by sending him to seek support from the French Canadians of Quebec. Allen wrote to Schuyler that he was returning with both recruits and information he'd been given regarding local pathways and routes. While returning, however, Allen's independent nature surfaced again. He and a fellow officer, Major John Brown, concluded that the British in nearby Montreal, being focused on Schuyler's advance, could be ousted by a surprise attack in which Allen and Brown divided their small force and slipped into opposite ends of the city under cover of night. Not wanting to lose precious time by awaiting approval, they went ahead with their plan. Allen's men made it across the St. Lawrence River; Brown's did not. In short order, Allen and his men were surrounded.

Allen's defeat was no small thing. The Continental Congress had been sending letters and emissaries to the French Canadians, hoping that the province of Quebec would become the fourteenth colony to join the rebellion. Allen's debacle, Warner wrote, "put the French [Canadian] people into great consternation.... The Canadians were before nine-tenths for the Bostonians; they are now returned to their duty."7 For Allen, the consequence was that he spent the bulk of the American Revolution as a prisoner of war. From a public relations point of view, it was the best thing that could have happened to him. After being released in a prisoner exchange in 1778, he was widely hailed-in no small part because of his book, published within a year of his release, A Narrative of Colonel Ethan Allen's Captivity. As before, his skill with words served him well: the book quickly sold out several printings and went on to be reissued in 1807, 1814, 1838, 1846, 1849, 1930, 1961, 1992, and 2000.

Allen returned to Vermont, which, during his absence, had declared itself an independent republic. Arriving to a hero's welcome, his compatriots immediately sent him back to Philadelphia-three times, in fact-to lobby the Continental Congress for statehood. By the time of his third effort, in 1780, he was secretly contacted by an agent for the British who suggested that a negotiation regarding Vermont joining England's efforts to win the war might yield mutually beneficial results.

Ever the high-risk negotiator, Allen commenced negotiations with the British and also secretly informed the Continental Congress that he was negotiating with its enemy. "Vermont had an indubitable right to agree on terms of cessation of hostility with Great Britain, provided the United States persisted in rejecting her application for a union with them," he wrote, arguing that Vermont "would be the most miserable were she obliged to defend the independence of the United States, and they at the same time claiming full liberty to overturn and ruin the independence of Vermont."8 Congress yielded. But another eleven years would pa.s.s before the details regarding land deeds and rest.i.tution could be ironed out, enabling Vermont to enter the union in 1791. While Allen had led Vermont to the threshold of statehood, he did not live to cross it with them. He died in 1789 at the age of fifty-one.

OHIO, INDIANA, ILLINOIS, MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN.

THOMAS JEFFERSON.

Lines on the Map in Invisible Ink

With respect to the new States, were the question to stand simply in this form: How may the ultramontane territory [the land west of the Appalachians] be disposed of so as to produce the greatest and most immediate benefit to the inhabitants of the maritime States of the Union?-the plan would be ... laying it off into two or more states only.... Good faith ... requires us to state the question in its just form: How may the territories of the Union be disposed of so as to produce the greatest degree of happiness to their inhabitants?

-THOMAS JEFFERSON1 Whether or not the Founding Fathers truly shared a common vision, there is no question that Thomas Jefferson possessed and expressed a vision that gazed far into the nation's future. And while many of his views are difficult to pin down, his views regarding the American map were crystal clear.2 Yet, looking at what that map has become, the United States appears to have closed its eyes to his vision. Or is it that his influence can be difficult to detect?

One example of Jefferson's mercurial legacy is the eastern border of Iowa. He was responsible for establishing what is today the eastern border of Iowa, yet not responsible for the same border of its neighboring state, Illinois. The border separating Iowa and Illinois is the Mississippi River. It was the eastern boundary of the Louisiana Purchase, which was completed by Jefferson as president in 1803. Subsequently the river became the eastern border of present-day Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and segments of Minnesota and Louisiana. Since the Mississippi had been the western boundary of the United States prior to the Louisiana Purchase, it was already in place as the western border of present-day Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and segments of Wisconsin and Mississippi.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) (photo credit 9.1) Louisiana Purchase: boundary uncertainties Other than those states with eastern borders on the Mississippi River, no other state has a boundary reflecting Jefferson's historic purchase. The Louisiana Purchase is now all but invisible on the map because of the language in Jefferson's treaty with France conveying the land to the United States. It declared that, after Spain officially ceded the land back to France, France would sell to the United States "the Colony or Province of Louisiana with the same extent that it now has in the hand of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it." Compared to today's government doc.u.ments, the treaty, running less than 1,500 words, was extraordinarily brief and clear. On the other hand, it lacked certain details-such as the precise boundaries of the land it conveyed. This was because Jefferson knew that Spain (and England) disagreed with France as to the extent of the province of Louisiana. But Jefferson also knew that Napoleon's offer wouldn't last long, so he accepted it without quibbling over that detail.

Though the Louisiana Purchase is Jefferson's most famous geographic contribution to the United States, back in his days as Virginia's representative to the Continental Congress, he made other important contributions that, by contrast, provided highly specific details of his vision for the future of the United States. Today, however, only the ghosts of that vision inhabit the lines on the American map. Their geodetic life ended when Congress began tinkering with Jefferson's vision.

While in the Continental Congress, Jefferson chaired a committee that had been created to prepare a plan for the temporary government of the western territory of the United States. At the time, the nation's western territory consisted of the land acquired in 1763 by England and the American colonists in the French and Indian War (the Northwest Territory) and all the other land west of the Appalachian Mountains. Prior to the Revolution, this second area of land had belonged to a number of the colonies. After the onset of the Revolution, these colonies-now states-eventually, if not happily, ceded their western regions to the federal government to create additional, more equally sized states.

United States, 1784 Jefferson's 1784 proposal for new states Jefferson's committee reported back to Congress in March 1784. It proposed boundaries for the future states to be created in the western lands, the process by which they would become states, how these areas would be governed prior to becoming states, and even names for most of the proposed states. While the report was issued by a committee, considerable evidence suggests that the states it proposed reflected the vision of Jefferson.3 The boundaries of these states and even their names tell us a good deal about this particular Founding Father. The names he a.s.signed included Sylvania, Michigania, Cherronesus, a.s.senisipia, Metropotamia, Illinoia, Polypotamia, and Pelisipia-all neocla.s.sical constructions hearkening back to the ancient democracies of Greece and Rome. The two remaining names, Saratoga and Washington, memorialized the American Revolution. In addition, while the monarchs of England often named American colonies after individuals, Jefferson named only one of his proposed states after an individual-an ethos that continued long after Jefferson. In the years ahead, Congress would reject Tennessee's originally proposed name (Franklin) and Colorado's first proposed name (Jefferson). Most senators and representatives viewed only one American as worthy of having a state named after him, that person being George Washington. Other than Washington, however, none of Jefferson's proposed names was ever used, although Illinoia and Michigania, once decla.s.sicized, did become state names.

Similarly, Jefferson's proposed boundaries were also sc.r.a.pped between then and now. But the principle underlying his boundaries is all over the map. Jefferson's underlying tenet was that all states should be created equal, or-characteristically applying pragmatism to his ideals-as equal as possible. Jefferson's report stated: The territory ceded or to be ceded by individual states to the United States ... shall be formed into distinct states bounded in the following manner, as nearly as such cessions will admit, that is to say: northwardly & southwardly by parallels of lat.i.tude so that each state shall comprehend from south to north two degrees of lat.i.tude.

Still, as can be seen from the map of his proposed states, Jefferson did not consider size to be the sole factor in determining equality; he also considered geographic and agricultural factors. Consequently, the widths he proposed varied slightly: Eastwardly and westwardly they shall be bounded, those on the Mississippi by that river on one side and the meridian of the lowest point of the rapids of Ohio on the other; and those adjoining on the east by the same meridian on their western side and on their eastern by the meridian of the western cape of the mouth of the Great Kanhaway [the present-day Kanawha River].

In effect, Jefferson proposed two tiers of states with slightly different dimensions to mitigate differences in resources. While his lines do not appear on the American map, their prototypical dimensions do. Indeed, two tiers of states ultimately did emerge, side by side, further west: Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota all have three degrees of height. Neighboring them, the mountainous states of Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana all have four degrees of height. Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, and South Dakota all have seven degrees of width, as do (allowing for coastal wiggles) Oregon and Washington.

Ghosts of Jefferson: prototype shapes When did Congress begin fiddling with this Founding Father's vision? Answer: eighteen days after his report. The report was delivered to Congress on March 1, 1784, and on March 19 Congress began altering it. Three days later, Jefferson presented additional revisions, to which additional amendments were made the following month. But the largest change came in 1787, when Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance. Jefferson's proposed state names were now gone and, with the Northwest Ordinance, his proposed boundaries were also swept under the carpet. Moreover, the new proposed state borders were now confined solely to the Northwest Territory.

By then Jefferson himself was no longer in Congress; in fact, he was no longer in the country. He was in Paris, serving as the American amba.s.sador to France. But he was not happy with what Congress was doing to his plan. The Northwest Ordinance stipulated that the region would be divided into "not less than three nor more than five States." It then described where those divisions were located. These new boundaries were largely the work of Jefferson's fellow Virginian (and fellow future president) James Monroe. Jefferson wrote to Monroe, his friend and protege: Borders stipulated in Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Will their inhabitants be happiest divided into states of 30,000 square miles, not quite as large as Pennsylvania, or into states of 160,000 square miles?... They will not only be happier in states of a moderate size, but it is the only way in which they can exist as a regular society. Considering the American character in general ... a state of such extent as 160,000 square miles would soon crumble into little ones ... and if they decide to divide themselves, we are not able to restrain them. They will end up by separating from our confederacy and becoming its enemies.4 Indeed, 160,000 square miles is the approximate size of the westernmost state proposed in the Northwest Ordinance, composed of present-day Illinois, Wisconsin, and regions of Minnesota and Michigan. Had such a state ultimately been created, it would be roughly the size of California.

As can be seen on today's map, Congress eventually divided the Northwest Territory into five states. It also relocated numerous borders stipulated in the Northwest Ordinance. Nevertheless, each of the states that finally emerged exceeds 30,000 square miles.

Knowing when Congress tinkered with Jefferson's vision begs the more important question: why? The congressional resolution that ultimately altered Jefferson's boundaries stated that increased knowledge of the regions involved revealed that some of the proposed states would be deprived of navigation and others would consist almost entirely of barren mountain land. Indeed, this was true, but it wasn't the whole truth. The rest of the story wasn't openly revealed in Congress until 1845, during the debate over Iowa's statehood. Arguing for a return to more Jeffersonian boundaries, Ohio Congressman Samuel F. Vinton explained how the result of Jefferson's proposed borders would have been ultimately to give the country beyond the mountains a majority of the States.... Shortly after the conclusion of the war with England [the Revolution], very serious difficulties arose between Spain and the United States respecting navigation of the Mississippi. Our settlers in Kentucky and Tennessee ... looked to the Mississippi and its outlet through the Gulf of Mexico as their early road to market.... An opinion seems to have sprung up in the Atlantic States that the interests of the transmontane country would always be adverse to theirs.

That earlier Congress did indeed have cause for concern. The residents of North Carolina's land west of the Appalachians (present-day Tennessee) had grown impatient at the delays preventing it from becoming a separate state, and in 1784 they declared themselves the state of Franklin. Many of its residents further agitated for the state of Franklin to declare itself an independent republic and commence negotiations with Spain.5 This risk not only spurred Congress to begin at once creating states in the land west of the Appalachians, but also to create larger and therefore fewer states than Jefferson had recommended. Fewer states in the region, Vinton went on to point out, would translate into fewer votes in the Senate. And treaties could be ratified only by the Senate.

One other of Jefferson's proposals, however, did survive the crucible of democracy. At the same time that he was proposing the division of the nation's western lands into future states, Jefferson offered a separate proposal stipulating the method by which the boundaries of and within these western lands would be located. "It shall be divided into Hundreds of ten geographical miles square ... by lines to be run and marked due North and South, and others crossing these at right angles," he urged. "These Hundreds shall be subdivided into lots of one mile square each ... marked by lines running in like manner due North and South, and other crossing these at right angles."6 Jefferson, whose many accomplishments including surveying, did not invent this approach. It was already known as the rectangular survey system, one of several methods used by surveyors at that time.