Notes on Debates, 20 May 1783
Notes on Debates
MS (LC: Madison Papers). For a description of the manuscript of Notes on Debates, see , V, 231–34.
On the proposal to discharge the troops who had been enlisted for the war (amounting to ten thousand men) from the want of means to support of them.
Mr. Carroll urged the expediency of caution, the possibility that advantage might be taken by G. B. of a discharge both of prisoners and of the army, and suggested the middle course of furloughing the troops.1
Mr. Dyer was strenuous for getting rid of expence; considered the war at an end: that G. B. might as well renew the war after the definitive Treaty as now; that not a moment ought to be lost in disburdening the public of needless expence.
Mr. Rutlidge viewed the conduct of G. B. in so serious a light that he almost regretted having voted for a discharge of Prisoners.2 He urged the expediency of caution, and of consulting the Commander [in] chief. He accordingly moved that the Report be referred to him for his opinion & advice. The motion was seconded by Mr. Izzard.
Mr. Clarke asked whether any military operation was on foot that the Commander in Chief was to be consulted. This was a national question, which the National Council ought to decide. He was agst. furloughing the men because they would carry their arms with them:3 He said we were at peace, & complained that some could not separate the idea of a Briton from that of cutting throats.
Mr. Ellsworth enlarged on the impropriety of submitting to the Commander in Chief a point on which he could not possess competent materials for deciding. we ought to discharge the men engaged for the war or to furlough them. He preferred the former.
Mr. Mercer descanted on the insidiousness of G. B. and warmly opposed the idea of laying ourselves at her mercy, that we might save fifty thousand dollars; altho’ Congress knew that they were violating the Treaty as to Negroes.4
Mr. Williamson proposed that the Soldiers be furloughed. Mr. Carroll seconded him, that the two modes of furlough & discharge might both lye on the table.
By general consent this took place.
The Report as to confiscated property, on the Instructions from Virga. & Penna. was taken up, & agreed to be recommitted,5 together with a motion of Mr. Madison to provide for the case of Canadian refugees, & for settlement of accts. with the British, and a motion of Mr. Hamilton to insert, in a definitive Treaty a mutual stipulation not to keep a naval force on the Lakes.6
1. The journal of Congress does not mention the proposals about troops noted by JM (, XXIV, 348). On 24 April Congress resolved that although the war would not officially end until the signing of the definitive peace treaty, Washington should use his discretion in furloughing or discharging troops enlisted for the duration of the war (, VI, 486, and nn. 1–3). Prior to the date of the present item, Washington authorized at least one commanding officer to grant furloughs to the most discontented among his troops but apparently decided against discharging those enlisted for the duration of the war (, XXVI, 384, 429, and n. 53, 430).
2. , VI, 457; 458, nn. 3, 10; 462, and n. 2; 465; 466, n. 3; 466, and n. 1; 479; 480, n. 5. For the vote on 15 April 1783 by John Rutledge, see , XXIV, 243.
3. Although Abraham Clark may have assumed correctly that duration-of-war troops on furlough would “carry their arms” to their homes, he could not defend his statement by quoting the resolutions of 24 April. They obviously were a compliance with Washington’s suggestion of 18 April that “at the Discharge” those soldiers should be complimented by giving them their “Arms and Accoutrements” (, XXIV, 270; , XXVI, 332–33; , VI, 486, and n. 1). On 26 May 1783, however, Congress adopted Hamilton’s motion to furlough duration-of-war troops and allow them “to take their arms with them” (, XXIV, 364). See also , XXIV, 390.
4. Walke to Delegates, 3 May, and nn. 2, 3, 5, 7; JM to Randolph, 6 May 1783, n. 6.
5. JM Notes, 19 May 1783, and n. 1. The report of the committee, Osgood, chairman, apparently exists no longer in its original form. During the debate on 20 May, the report may have been amended before it was referred to a committee comprising Mercer, chairman, FitzSimons, and Bland (, XXIV, 375 n.). The report, as printed in the journals (, XXIV, 372–76), is no doubt a mixture of the recommendations of the Osgood committee, the Hamilton committee, the Mercer committee, and still later the Wilson committee, and probably also of amendments made during the debates in Congress on 19, 20, 29, and 30 May. Since separate documents written by each of these committees and detailed records of the debates are no longer extant, the evolution of the report from its first to its final form cannot be traced. The much corrected manuscript of the ultimate report is in NA: PCC, No. 20, II, 153–56.
6. Instructions to Peace Commissioners, 20 May 1783, and n. 2; , XXIV, 348, and nn. 1, 2; , III, 361; JM Notes, 29 May, and n 1; 30 May 1783, and n. 3.