And it was later struck down as unconstitutional, just as the father of the Constitution said it was.
The NW Ordinance was never 'struck down. If you are talking about the Scott v. Sanford decision, it was not the NW Ordinance, which was moot at that point in time since all of the territory it covered were by then States.
What the Scott decision struck down was the 1820 Missouri Compromise that applied to Federal territories beyond the Mississippi River, and the rational for that decision was every bit as contrived as the discovery of un-enumered 'privacy rights' in the 1973 court used for Roe v Wade. The Stanford decision was not based on the Constitution, precedent, or even history. It was pure hard-ball politics by a handful of unelected judges who thought themselves to be deities.
Activist courts are nothing new in American history. The Taney court stepped into partisan politics thinking they could settle the expansion issue but in reality only made things far worse than anyone could imagine. That's what activist courts and egotistical judges with no respect for the Constitution always end up doing.
So if you liked the Scott decision, you must love the Roe decision, Mama.
BTW. Tell us about Madison's complaint with the NW Ordinance. Some details please.