Talk:Northwest Ordinance

message: 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)
thread_title: Reorganized

message: 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)
thread_title: Congress

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prohibition to Slavery 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Excessive Vandalism 

message: 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, LindsayHello 12:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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:  Drdpw (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education encouraged clause