James Madison Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="Virginia Delegates" AND Recipient="Harrison, Benjamin" AND Period="Revolutionary War"
sorted by: editorial placement
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-04-02-0111

Virginia Delegates to Benjamin Harrison, 14 May 1782

Virginia Delegates to Benjamin Harrison

RC (McGregor Library, University of Virginia). In JM’s hand. Docketed: “Lr. from the Virga Delegates[.] May 23d. 1782[.] referred to the Committee appd: to prepare Instructions to the Delegates in Congress.” This statement is discussed in n. 13.

Philada. May 14th. 1782

Sir

In our letter of the 17th Ulto. we informed your Excelly. that we had called upon Congress for a decision on the report of the Committee on the territorial cessions, a copy of which was inclosed in our letter of the 17th. of Novr last;1 and that a day had been assigned for the consideration of that report.2 The extract from the Journals of Congress herewith transmitted, shews the progress of the business down to the 6th. of May, when it was postponed sine die.3

Our revival of this subject at the time above stated proceeded from the manifest expediency of obtaining from Congress such a decision thereon, as would explain their ultimate views, and enable the Genl. Assembly at their present Session to take such measures as the case required. During a suspension of this decision of Congress, the misrepresentations & fallacies contained in the report supplied to interested persons, abundant calumny against Virginia; and the precautions which her Western interests might dictate, were exposed to be animadverted upon as premature & improper.4 These considerations were urged upon Congress as equally obliging the State to demand and them to give a definitive answer either in the affirmative or negative to her cession. Congress were reminded too that this cession was proposed not from any interested motives on the part of Virginia, nor even originated with her, but was made at the instance of Congress themselves, who pressed it upon her as a sacrifice essential to the general Interest;5 that the least therefore that could be expected from Congress was a speedy attention & explicit answer to it. These considerations, weighty as they were in themselves, made little impression, nor were they other wise answered, than by the evasive propositions & unseasonable adjournments stated in the extract from the Journals. The only solid objection of which the case admitted, and which on a former occasion6 prevailed, was a thinness of the House. But on this occasion there were both at the time of assigning a day for the discussion of the report, & of the vote which finally postponed it, no less than eleven States present,7 a number which experience has shewn to be greater than can be calculated upon at any given future period. During the course of the business the number was indeed reduced to nine States by the voluntary departure of a member for Connecticut & of another for Delaware; and advantage was taken of that conjuncture, as will be seen in the extract above referred to, to introduce the proposition made by Mr. Clarke & Mr. Ellery on the first instant.8

Having pursued this subject to the issue of a postponement sine die, and having found from the temper of a great part of Congress,9 as well as the repeated declarations of individual members on the floor, that no other issue was to be expected, we thought it inconsistent with the respect due to the State we represent, to other public business, and to our friends in Congress, to persist longer in urging it. We accordingly apprized Congress that such was our determination, and that we should forthwith transmit a State of the whole proceeding to our Constituents, with whom it would remain to take such Steps as it should suggest.10 What these Steps ought to be we presume not to point out.11 We are persuaded that they will be the result of mature & temperate deliberation, and that they will equally tend to the honor of the State & the security of its interests. We only entreat that whatever Duties they shall assign to us may be chalked out in full and precise instructions.12 Possessed of such instructions we shall not only speak and act with greater confidence & satisfaction to ourselves, but with greater weight and effect with respect to others. Indeed the advantage of being able to speak the declared sense of our constituents is so great that we can not but intimate the expediency of our being furnished with it on all questions which involve their important interests.13

Intelligence from the W. Indies renders it pretty certain that an action has lately taken place between the French and British fleets in that quarter. The result is not circumstantially known, but there is reason to believe that it was considerably in favor of the former wch. preserved its convoy and prosecuted its course to Hispaniola. At this place it is universally understood that a junction was to be made with the Spaniards, and that the combined armaments were to proceed from thence agst. Jamaica.14

The Gazettes which accompany this will inform your Excellency of the revolution which has taken place in the British Ministry, and of the arrival of General Carlton at N. York in quality of Commander in cheif, and joint Comissr. with Admiral Digby for treating of peace with America.15 A letter was [received] yesterday by Congress from Genl. Washington inclosing one to him from Genl Carlton in which the latter announces his arrival, his commission, the pacific disposition of G. Britain towards this country, and his personal desire in case the war should be continued, of rendering it as little destructive as possible;16 and finally requests a passport for Mr. Morgan his Secy. to convey a similar letter of compliment to Congress. Genl Washington’s letter is not yet answered, but we run no risk in assuring your Excelly. that he will be directed to refuse the passport to Philada. for Mr. Morgan.17

The late proceedings in the British Parliamt. with the avowed repugnance of the New Ministry, particularly of Ld. Shelburne the Minister for the American Department, to a recognition of our Independence and of our Alliance with France, forbid any hope that a peace on that ground is the object of the Commission just mentioned. On the contrary we have every reason to suspect that its object is to seduce us from the latter if not from both of those essential preliminaries to peace.18 The stile of Genl. Carlton’s letter to Genl Washington perfectly coincides with this Suspicion. It gives us great pleasure to be able to observe on this occasion, that the apparent unanimity & firmness of Congress, afford every security to the honor & rights of the U. States wch. depends on their Councils.

A public Audience was yesterday given to the Minister of France in which he announced in form the birth of a Dauphin. The important light in which this event is regarded by the French Nation, and more especially the present conjuncture of public affairs rendered it proper to testify our satisfaction in it by the demonstrations specified in the Gazette of this morning.19

We have been disappointed in procuring the Legislative proceedings of this State relative to the Inhabitants of the district lately in dispute between it & Virga. We are assured that the whole will be printed in time to be sent by the next post.20 The explanation & apology which your Excelly’s favor of the 4th. instt. wishes to be made to the Chevr. de la Luzerne shall be duly attended to. We shall also transmit the orders you think expedient with regard to the Stores at Boston.21

We have the honor to be with sentiments of the highest esteem & respect Yr. Exc[e]llency’s Obt. & very hbl. Servants

J. Madison Jr.

Theok: Bland Jr.

1See Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 305, n. 1.

3The enclosure is missing, but it probably was a copy of the journal entries of 16 and 18 April and 1, 2, and 6 May, summarizing the unsuccessful efforts of the Virginia delegates to have Congress unambiguously accept or reject the recommendations of the Boudinot committee (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 184, 191–94, 223–35, 240–41; Motion To Amend Lee’s Motion on Western Lands, 18 April, and n. 1; Virginia Delegates to Harrison, 23 April; JM to Pendleton, 23 April, and nn. 7 and 8; JM to Randolph, 1 May, and nn. 6 and 7; and 7 May, and nn. 8, 10, and 11; Observations Relating to Influence of Vermont and Territorial Claims, 1 May, and n. 9; Motion on Delegates’ Financial Interest in West, 2 May; Motion on Point of Order, 3 May, and nn. 1 and 2; JM to Lee, 7 May 1782, and n. 10).

5Here the delegates are referring to the preamble of the resolution of Congress of 6 September 1780 (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XVII, 806–7; Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , II, 72).

6JM no doubt had in mind the tabling of the Boudinot committee report on 14 November 1781, when only seven states had two or more delegates in Congress (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 1113–14; Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 304, and n. 1; 305, n. 2).

7The JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends does not record when Congress decided to make the Boudinot committee report the order of the day for 16 April. Eleven states were each represented by at least two delegates on 3 April, and nine or ten states were so represented during the period 15 April to 6 May, inclusive (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 162–63, 180–241, passim). Although JM correctly writes that there were “eleven States present” on 6 May, when a further consideration of the report was “finally postponed,” he might have added that Connecticut, being represented by only one delegate, could not cast an effective vote.

8The last recorded vote of Oliver Wolcott until December 1782 was on 20 April (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 203). Between that day and 5 May Philemon Dickinson was also absent from Congress. Abraham Clark (1726–1794), seconded by William Ellery, moved on 1 May that, since there were “but nine states represented,” further consideration of the Boudinot committee report be postponed until 1 August 1782. The motion also recommended that during the interim “the executive authority of the several states be … furnished with copies of the said report, in order that each State may be fully represented, and their delegates properly instructed upon the subject at that time.” Even though Wolcott and Dickinson were absent, enough delegates joined with those from Virginia to defeat this motion (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 224–25). For the indefinite postponement of the issue on 6 May, see Motion on Point of Order, 3 May 1782, n. 2.

9JM originally wrote and then deleted “general temper of the House.”

10The Virginia delegates may have waited several days after 6 May before apprising Congress, because JM had not immediately regarded the vote on that date as conclusive evidence that Congress could not be induced to decide definitely either for or against the Boudinot committee report (JM to Lee, 7 May 1782, and n. 10).

12See Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 309, n. 7; JM to Randolph, 1 May 1782, n. 7.

13See headnote of this letter. On 6 May Governor Harrison referred to the speaker of the House of Delegates the Virginia delegates’ letter of 17 November 1781 about the western lands issue in Congress. This dispatch and its many enclosures had reached Richmond too late to be considered by the October session of the Virginia General Assembly (Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 305, n. 1; McIlwaine, Official Letters description begins H. R. McIlwaine, ed., Official Letters of the Governors of the State of Virginia (3 vols.; Richmond, 1926–29). description ends , III, 213; Harrison to Virginia Delegates, 11 January 1782). On 16 May 1782 the delegates’ letter of 17 November 1781 was referred to a committee of eight men, with Richard Henry Lee as chairman. The present letter was also referred to this committee on 23 May (McIlwaine, Official Letters description begins H. R. McIlwaine, ed., Official Letters of the Governors of the State of Virginia (3 vols.; Richmond, 1926–29). description ends , III, 233; Minute Book, House of Delegates, May 1782 description begins Minute Book, House of Delegates, May 1782, MS in Virginia State Library. description ends , pp. 46, 51). Apparently the only instructions recommended by the committee and accepted by the General Assembly were those prescribing how the delegates should stand on matters relating to the peace negotiations (ibid., pp. 52, 53). For these, see Instructions to Virginia Delegates, 24–25 May 1782. The decision of the committee to suggest no instructions about the western lands may reflect the appointment on 1 June of a special committee to prepare a report which would validate the title of Virginia to the area north and west of the Ohio River. See JM to Randolph, 1 May 1782, n. 7.

14The delegates were reporting what they had read in the Pennsylvania Packet of 9 May 1782. The cheering rumor of a French naval victory intensified the shock which the Pennsylvania Journal caused six days later by reporting that Rodney and Hood had disastrously defeated Grasse and his fleet in the Battle of the Saints, 9–12 April 1782 (JM to Jefferson, 15 January, n. 16; JM to Pendleton, 9 April, n. 3, and 23 April 1782, n. 3). This and the next two paragraphs, slightly amended so as to conceal the addressees’ and addressor’s identities, appeared in the issue of the Virginia Gazette description begins Virginia Gazette, or, the American Advertiser (Richmond, James Hayes, 1781–86). description ends for 25 May 1782.

15For Rear Admiral Robert Digby, see Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 198, n. 6. The delegates must have enclosed the Pennsylvania Packet or Pennsylvania Journal of 11 May, or both of them. The Pennsylvania Gazette, a weekly, did not print this news until 15 May. See JM to Pendleton, 23 April, n. 5; and Virginia Delegates to Harrison, 7 May 1782, n. 4.

16The receipt of Washington’s letter of 10 May enclosing a copy of General Sir Guy Carleton’s letter to him of 7 May is noted in the JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends for 14, not 13, May (XXII, 263). The two dispatches are in NA: PCC, No. 152, X, 525, 559. See also Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington description begins John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, from the Original Sources, 1745–1799 (39 vols.; Washington, 1931–44). description ends , XXIV, 243–44. JM repeated “to him” after “Carlton.”

17In 1782 Maurice Morgann (1726–1802) served as undersecretary of state to William Petty (1737–1805), Earl of Shelburne, later first Marquis of Lansdowne. In the short-lived ministry of Charles Watson-Wentworth, Marquis of Rockingham (d. 1 July 1782), Shelburne was secretary of state for the home office, thus having domestic, Irish, and colonial affairs in his charge. In 1783 Morgann was secretary to the British commission for ratifying the peace treaty with the United States. Shakespearean scholars remember him for his An Essay on the Dramatic Character of Sir John Falstaff (London, 1777). See JM to Randolph, 14 May 1782, n. 8. JM underlined the italicized phrase.

18JM’s surmise was accurate. If the Marquis of Rockingham had intended to acknowledge the independence of the United States, he would have entrusted the peace negotiations to Charles James Fox, the secretary of state for foreign affairs. Following the death of the Marquis, Shelburne became head of the government (11 July 1782), and Fox resigned.

Index Entries