# data[].attributes.body
When the United States was first developing its first free frontier, a “pioneering movement so massive and successful changed the legal and social landscape of our country.” This movement consisted of free Africans. These settlers became some of the earliest of the Great West, building hundreds of small farming communities across the land. This settling and homesteading occurred in the earliest days of American expansion.

Black pioneers possessed the determination and bravery to grow their farms and families on the frontier, striving to create a country where all men were created equal.

The Northwest Territory was set aside to be free of slavery and to provide an area offering equal voting rights to men regardless of skin color.

According to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, men of any skin color owning at least two hundred acres of property, a sign of considerable economic success, were eligible to run for office. Many African American settlements at this time possessed such wealth and acreage. The Northwest Territorial Ordinance of 1787 also “promised that this region would not only be free of slavery but offered equal voting rights to any man who owned at least fifty acres of land.”

African American farming families often did not want themselves or their farms counted on federal documents in order to avoid racist laws.

Pioneers, white and black, settling around African American farmers testified to the ability of the African American settlements and people to survive and thrive in this environment, and a possibility of a future that could hold the solidification of a fruitful position in America for African Americans.

Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison expressed admiration for a reality in the Great West that he knew existed; people of different races living side by side in equality and civilization.

These African American settlers faced many social and legal difficulties whilst trying to establish successful farming settlements. They were able to experience some freedom and equality in the edges of the nation, where laws and culture were more loosely enforced, and were even joined by white people who believed in justice. While the rest of the young nation fought over equality, growing hostile towards the subject, this part of America was able to achieve great levels of peace and balance.

African Americans intended to succeed on the frontier, despite the violence. They pushed for change and equality, and as their numbers grew, they worked to further their liberty and even organized conventions that fought prejudiced laws. “It was in the rural spaces of this region that the first African American was elected to political office in a free and open election before the Civil War.”

However, African Americans discovered that their success would cause prejudiced people to target and attack them. In the years before the Civil War, the increase of African American success led to the realization of this success, then furiosity at said success, then reactions of violence. “While achieving success may not have been a solution to prejudice, prejudice could not erase the fact that African Americans were succeeding-were rising- in much of the rural and frontier spaces of the region.”

African Americans understood that by settling the new portion of the nation, they were establishing their citizenship in symbolic ways. In early America, a man could only vote if he owned property, and therefore this ownership was the key to being considered a “full person, a full American.” As African Americans attempted to forge their future across the frontier, they created and challenged the discussion about the meaning of freedom, equality, and African Americans’ place in American history.

# data[].attributes.body
As we learn about the journey of African Americans as they struggled to establish lucrative communities in a new nation amidst violence and prejudice, we can understand their desire and determination to create peaceful and successful lives in farming communities. The Northwest Territory provided the means to do so, at least at first. Many African American settlements possessed significant property and consequential voting rights, by permission of the Northwest Ordinance. Many of these settlements lived in harmony with white people. However, as African Americans continued to establish their success on the frontier, the national conversation of equality, and the accompanying prejudice, started to become more hostile. We can understand the white animosity and discrimination stemming from the realization of black success that caused much of these early African American Hoosiers to lose their right to vote and own property. As the white people, specifically white people in power, came to this realization, 1851 lawmakers possessing contempt for the success of African American farmers, and grievances pertaining to whether black people deserved this progress, began to craft legislation stripping away African American rights.

# data[].attributes.body
By 1860, the continued rise of African Americans living in the Northwest Territory had seen to the establishment of integrated churches and schools.

African American men could vote, purchase land, own guns, and purchase the freedom of their enslaved family members.

This region gave the most rights offered to African Americans during this time, largely due to the remnant themes of the American Revolution; equality, rights, liberty, and opportunity. Many people here believed this desired system would not work if equality was not present, and even some politicians believed the prejudice was erroneous.

Newly formed states in this region were required to form a constitution guaranteeing basic rights, religious freedom, trial by jury, the right to bail, and the encouragement of education.

The Northwest Territory was unique because the area provided means of living out the “American Dream” of successfully owning and farming land, even for African Americans. However, significant prejudice prevailed, and African Americans were forced to pay up to $500 to show they wouldn’t be a burden while living on the land.

As these African American homesteaders tried to develop life outside slavery, racism, injustice, and violence were persistently inescapable. They continued to be persecuted by white people violently upset over the fact that black people were able to thrive in farming communities.

# data[].attributes.body
This document demonstrates the severity of the reversal of African American rights. The Northwest Territory exhibited several signs of growth, of the further freedom that mirrored the desires of the Jacksonian Democracy era. However, as we learn the story of African Americans during this period, we can understand the contradictions to a Jacksonian Democracy mindset that occurred in 1851. When prejudice escalated, rights were only maintained for white men and taken away from African Americans, proving that this period of wanting and obtaining further democracy only existed for the privileged population.

# data[].attributes.body
Racism was evident in Northwest laws and politics throughout the nineteenth century, and most historians assumed they were created to prevent African Americans from coming to the frontier, but as we learned from “The Bone and Sinew of the Land”, this was not the case.

These laws were in response to over 330 African American farming settlements across the Northwest Territory.

These farmers used their wealth to “fight for equality and liberty long before the Civil War”, but white people started to ingrain prejudice into the new laws and constitutions of an area that was supposed to hold equal voting rights.

As backlash and white hostility to black success arose, African Americans and their white allies strove to fight the racism.

Activists used movements like the Colored Convention to fight against anti-equality and pro-slavery radicals.

When analyzing the lesser-known race patterns in the early Northwest Territory, we can recognize the direct connections and influences between history and the present.

# data[].attributes.body
This document reinforces that the cause of many African American Hoosiers losing their rights was due to their success. While the Northwest Territory originally provided sufficient freedom, in its anti-slavery and pro-suffrage status, for African Americans to establish lives and start to push for further equality, white people began to become resentful and hold grievances with such success of black people. This led to the corruption of laws that had first meant to provide equal citizenship rights, removing voting and property rights of certain Hoosiers.

# data[].attributes.body
Numerous counties in early Indiana were known for their racial cooperation and white anti-slavery allies.

Numerous counties had very successful black settlements with hundreds of residents and thousands of acres.

However, African American pioneers were around for a significantly long time before they were truly considered citizens or residents of Indiana.

African American numbers began declining as prejudice and racism became more prominent in society due to the success of these settlements.

# data[].attributes.body
The proof this document explores reinforces the reality we discovered about early  black settlements in the Northwest Territory, and elaborates more on specifically Indiana's history. African American pioneers had occupied Indiana’s space for a significantly long time, yet lacked the status of citizenship. We can connect this lack of citizenship to the ability of legislators to employ growing prejudice when eradicating African American rights such as voting and owning property.

# data[].attributes.body
The militia should consist of “all free” able bodied males (“Negroes, Mulattoes, and Indians excepted”)

It is the duty of the General Assembly to provide a system of education “equally open to all”

“There shall not be slavery nor involuntary servitude” other than for the punishment of crimes. “Nor shall any indenture of any negro of mullato hereafter made, and out of the bounds of this state be of any validity within the state.”

# data[].attributes.body
Within the constitutions, the word “all” is used often. Because of the context of the times, we must wonder how “all” is defined. In regards to 1816, we can assume that many of these instances that included the word “all” could be applied to black men, who still had a certain amount of rights. However, we can also speculate on why slavery is banned, because a possible reason could be the attempt to entirely keep African Americans from the state. Looking at this Constitution can help give insight into the existing African American settlements in Indiana before their subjugation.

# data[].attributes.body
Claims that ALL people are created equal with God given rights that cannot be taken away.

Goes on to order that only white males have the right to vote in an election, and “no Negro or Mulatto shall have the right to suffrage.”

Again, the Constitution bans slavery or indentured servitude from occuring in Indiana.

Article 13 is titled “Negroes and Mulattoes” and its entirety is dedicated to the restrictions placed on African American settlement: “No negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the State, after the adoption of this Constitution”.

# data[].attributes.body
Looking at the Constitution of 1851, the question of who is considered as “all’, as people, is again raised. But the most critical thing to notice when evaluating this Constitution is the severe changes made from the 1816 Constitution. We can recognize the fact that only white males can vote now, when black males owning a certain portion of land could before as well. The Constitution also now outright states that African Americans are not permitted to enter or settle in the state. At a time when democracy is supposed to be advancing, a certain portion of Hoosiers are losing their basic rights. Prejudice, in violence and in law, had even further infiltrated an area of land meant to provide equality.

# data[].attributes.body
Passed September 18, 1850

Slaves were now required to be returned to their owners, even if the slave was in a free state.

People helping escaped slaves were subject to up to $1,000 fine and imprisonment up to six months.

The federal government was given the responsibility of finding, returning, and trying escaped slaves.

Those who dealt with enslaved people were compared to those who dealt with criminals and were paid the same amount as those who dealt with criminals. “The said officer and his assistance, while so employed, to receive the same compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses, as are now allowed by law for transportation of

criminals . . .”

# data[].attributes.body
The infringement upon African Americans and their settlements had now been elevated to a federal level. Free states were not a safe place to be an African America, either. These decisions within the Fugitive Slave Act further attacked the community as a whole, and affected free African Americans’ ability to continue establishing life, as their limited freedom was further stripped away.

# data[].attributes.body
Affirms that:

1. The Constitution states enslaved people are property.

2. Enslaved people can be bought and sold like any other type of merchandise.

3. The government has a duty to guard and protect the owner and his rights.

4. The fact that Scott is in a free state does not mean he is free.

Dred Scott was a Missouri slave who was taken by his master to a free area in the Wisconsin Territory, and what is now Minnesota. Minnesota abolitionists “sued for his freedom on the grounds of residence on free soil”. The Supreme Court struggled to outline answers to the questions “Was a slave a citizen under the Constitution?” and “Was Dred Scott rendered free by residence in Wisconsin Territory, under the terms of the Missouri Compromise?”

# data[].attributes.body
Before 1800, free African American men had partial rights, and could vote, participate in skilled work, serve on juries, and more. But as the desire to justify slavery increased, and racist attitudes spread, free African Americans in the Northwest lost what few freedoms they had. Through violence and legislation, black citizenship was denied. In 1857, the Dred Scott decision served as the declaration that slaves were not citizens of the United States, even in a free state. This validation that slaves were not citizens served to solidify the decision to dismantle African American rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Debate with Lincoln during the 1858 Illinois Senate race.

In this part of Douglas’s oration, he presents his counterpoints to Lincoln’s views.

Douglas states Lincoln is “utterly opposed to the Dred Scott decision, and will not submit to it, for the reason that he says it deprives the Negro of the rights and privileges of citizenship.”

Douglas asks the crowd: “Are you in favor of conferring upon the Negro the rights and privileges of citizenship? Do you desire to strike out of our state constitution that clause which keeps slaves and free Negroes out of the state and allow three Negroes to flow in?”  “Do you want emancipated slaves to become citizens and voters, on equality with yourselves? “The crowd answers “No no” and “Never”.

Douglas asserts “If you desire Negro citizenship, if you desire to allow them to come into the state instead of with the white man, if you desire them to vote on an equality with yourselves, and to make them eligible to office, to serve on jury‘s into a judge your rights, then support Mr. Lincoln.”

Douglas opposes citizenship for anyone other than white people and believes in white supremacy: “For one, I am opposed to Negro citizenship in any and every form. (Cheers) I believe this government was made on the white basis. (“Good.”) I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon Negroes, Indians, and other inferior races. ("Good for you," "Douglas forever.")

Douglas declares “I do not regard the Negro as my equal.  He belongs to an inferior race and must always occupy an inferior position” in response to Lincoln’s assertion that all men are created equal by God and the Declaration of Independence confirms that.

Douglas insists that each state should have the right to decide whether slavery is legal or not: “I hold that . . . each and every state of this Union is a sovereign power, with the right to do as it pleases upon this question of slavery, and upon all its domestic institutions.”

# data[].attributes.body
Stephen Douglas typifies and represents the widely-held racist attitudes of the majority white population in 1800 America. His outright white supremacy and racial prejudice inform his judgment and action as well as his involvement in political decisions and legislation. As black Americans were considered inferior to white Americans by many people, including politicians and lawmakers, those in power acted to limit the rights of African Americans or even ban them from their area. The culmination of this prejudice was Article XIII of the Indiana Constitution of 1851, which stated “No Negro or mulatto shall come into, or settle in the State, after the adoption of this constitution.” Racist attitudes, like those of Douglas, impacted the culture as well as the law in Indiana, which ultimately led to causing some Hoosiers to lose their right to vote and own property.

# data[].attributes.body
Debate with Douglas during the 1858 Illinois Senate race.

Lincoln responds to Douglas’s accusations that he regards Black and White Americans to be equal and deserving of equal rights.

Lincoln insists he doesn’t plan to interfere with the states’ “right” to own slaves: “I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Lincoln believes the physical and mental differences between the races makes white people superior:  “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

Lincoln asserts that although Black people aren’t his equal in many respects, they are equally entitled to basic human rights: “There is no reason in the world why the Negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.”

# data[].attributes.body
Abraham Lincoln illustrates the fact that even among those enlightened Americans who believed African Americans were entitled to equal rights, the attitude that Black people were inferior to White people and White people should therefore enjoy a superior position persisted. Although Lincoln advocates for equal rights, he insists that he doesn’t plan to impose political and social equality between Black and White people or to interfere with the states’ “right” to own slaves. This attitude mirrors the contradictions prevalent in Jacksonian Democracy. Just as Jacksonian Democracy strived to expand democratic principles and achieve egalitarian ideals such as creating a classless, inclusive, unrestricted society while simultaneously offering such privileges to white men almost exclusively, Lincoln claims Black people are entitled to equal rights while simultaneously claiming they aren’t equal to White people as human beings. Contradictory attitudes like these led to some Hoosiers losing their right to vote and own property. Rather than try to combat the success of free African Americans living in Indiana or deal with emerging calls for equal rights, the legislature simply banned Black people from entering the state in Article XIII of the Indiana Constitution of 1851. Legislators furthered prejudice by requiring African Americans living in Indiana to register with county clerks in order to receive a certificate allowing them the right of contract or to be legally employed anywhere in the state. Popular racist opinions and laws prevalent in Jacksonian Democracy combined to negatively affect minority populations’ right to vote and own property.

# data[].attributes.body
As we discuss the rights and privileges of subsets of Hoosiers in the 1800s, and further some marginalized groups’ loss of aforesaid rights, we can understand the causes and effects of these losses. The documents I have assessed by observing and reflecting on them in regards to our CHQ have helped me explore possible answers as to why some Hoosiers lost their right to vote and own property in 1851. The documents have provided proof, and analysis of proof, that prejudice weaved into laws created during this time period stripped away the blossoming life African Americans had started to forge in these Northwest farming communities.

# data[].attributes.body
When exploring possible answers as to why some Hoosiers lost their right to vote and own property in 1851, we must consider the factors surrounding the circumstances. While African Americans began shaping lives as farmers and homesteaders in the Northwest Territory, an area meant to provide equal rights (where at first they could even vote or hold office), they ended up with even further limitations by 1851. Because African Americans had been so successful in creating lucrative settlements, and proven the ability of black people to grow, to educate, and to prosper, white people who held the belief that black people were inferior became irate at such success and at the disproval of their conviction. Because white men were viewed as superior, they held the power to wield their prejudice in impactful ways, ingraining racism into laws that further restricted African Americans and denied their citizenship. As racism solidified, they were supported by the majority of citizens. Throughout the Jacksonian era, the push for democracy was headed and dominated by white men, and consequently served white men. The contradiction of striving for expanded democracy while employing and reinforcing systems of slavery, colonization and imperialism, and further marginalization is an important piece of the story of how and why groups in our history lost rights such as voting and owning property.