Comments on Instructions to Peace Commissioners, [2 August] 1782

Comments on Instructions to Peace Commissioners

Printed copy (Thomson, “Debates,” description begins Charles Thomson, “Debates in the Congress of the Confederation from July 22d to September 20th, 1782,” Collections of the New-York Historical Society, XI (1878), 63–169. description ends p. 82). See Comments on Temple, 1 August 1782, headnote.

Editorial Note

After Congress had listened to the dispatch of 28 April 1782 from John Jay, minister plenipotentiary-designate at Madrid, telling of “the delay, chicane & slight” to which he had been subjected by the court of Spain during the preceding six months and of his financial embarrassments, John Rutledge (S.C.) moved that a committee be appointed to recommend possible “alterations or additions” in Jay’s instructions of 2 May 1781, which JM had drafted (Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends , V, 336–77; Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (5 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 101–4; IV, 168–69; 189–90; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 427). Congress acquiesced without a recorded vote, and a committee of five, including JM, was appointed with Rutledge as chairman (Thomson, “Debates,” description begins Charles Thomson, “Debates in the Congress of the Confederation from July 22d to September 20th, 1782,” Collections of the New-York Historical Society, XI (1878), 63–169. description ends p. 82; NA: PCC, No. 186, fol. 47). John Lowell then moved that Jay’s letter and also the instructions of 15 June 1781 to the American peace commissioners, of whom Jay was one, be referred to this committee (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XX, 651–52; XXII, 428). JM addressed his remarks to the two recommendations made by Lowell in his motion.

[2 August 1782]

Mr Madison called for a division. He approved the committing the letter but objected against the other part of the motion. It was a delicate subject1 and ought to be handled with caution & circumspection. The introducing it at this time would give ground to suspect that there was something in the letter which gave rise to it. That the Letter contained new proof of the friendship of France.2 That if at the moment we were about to revise and alter the instructions respecting Spain3 a step was taken which might shew our want of confidence in France and give offence to that Court it might endanger our affairs.4

1. That is, the instructions to the American peace commissioners.

2. In his dispatch Jay frequently mentioned how he had been helped by the ambassador of Louis XVI to Spain (Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends , V, 341, 346, 350–51, 372, 376–77).

3. Thomson’s report at this point is surprising, because Lowell’s motion did not relate to Jay’s instructions. Moreover, JM favored a deletion from them of the offer to yield the right of Americans to navigate the Mississippi River freely, if by making this concession Spain would consent to ally with the United States (Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (5 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , IV, 168–69; 190). On the other hand, Lowell’s motion concerned the peace commissioners’ instructions which JM had opposed revising as recently as 24 July 1782 (ibid., IV, 436–37; 437, n. 1). JM may have suspected that Lowell, as a delegate from Massachusetts and a member of the anti-Gallican, Lee-Adams faction in Congress, sought to have those instructions reconsidered in the hope that the committee would recommend adding free use of the Newfoundland fisheries to the ultimatums and deleting the requirement that the commission “undertake nothing in the negotiations for peace or truce without their [the French ministers’] knowledge and concurrence; and ultimately to govern yourselves by their advice and opinion” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XX, 651; Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (5 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , IV, 6; 10–12; 15, n. 22; 16, n. 25; 17, n. 30; 342, n. 1; 435).

4. As soon as JM had completed his remarks, Arthur Lee “inveighed against” the instruction, quoted immediately above, “as derogatory to the honor, dignity and independence of the United States” and as one “which must expose us to the contempt of our allies and all the nations of Europe.” Instead of bringing the peace commissioners’ instructions under review in the “indirect” manner proposed by Lowell’s motion, Lee expressed his determination to have a vote upon his own motion of 24 July, calling for a reconsideration both of their commission and instructions, presumably by a grand committee comprising a member from each state then represented in Congress, or at least by a committee which was not also expected to review the instructions to Jay (Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (5 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , IV, 436; 438, n. 9; Thomson, “Debates,” description begins Charles Thomson, “Debates in the Congress of the Confederation from July 22d to September 20th, 1782,” Collections of the New-York Historical Society, XI (1878), 63–169. description ends p. 82). After Lowell and several other members had shared in the debate, Congress voted to refer Jay’s letter to the committee, but “the other part of the motion was put off by an adjournment” (ibid., p. 83; William E. O’Donnell, Chevalier de La Luzerne, pp. 204–5). For a continuation of both matters, see Comments on Instructions to Jay, 6 August; and Comments on Instructions to Peace Commissioners, 8 August 1782.

Index Entries

You Are Looking At

Source Project: Madison Papers
Title: Comments on Instructions to Peace Commissioners, [2 August] 1782
Author: Thomson, Charles
Date: 2 August 1782

Reference

Cite as: “Comments on Instructions to Peace Commissioners, [2 August] 1782,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-05-02-0004. [Original source: The Papers of James Madison, vol. 5, 1 August 1782 – 31 December 1782, ed. William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967, pp. 14–16.]