Comments on Instructions to John Jay, [6 August] 1782

Comments on Instructions to John Jay

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. 90). See Comments on Temple, 1 August 1782, headnote.

Editorial Note

On 2 August 1782 John Rutledge had been appointed chairman of a committee, of which JM was also a member, to recommend “alterations or additions” in Jay’s instructions of 2 May 1781 as minister plenipotentiary to Spain (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; Comments on Instructions to Peace Commissioners, 2 August 1782, ed. n., and nn. 3, 4). The manuscript of the committee’s report of 6 August has not been found. The committee recommended that Jay be instructed to send to Congress “for their approbation” any treaty proposed to him by the court of Madrid, unless he was obliged to assent to a treaty immediately because it conformed with the pledge made by the United States “in the seperate and secret article of their treaty” with King Louis XVI. The committee’s further recommendation that “Jay be at liberty to leave Spain, and go into any other part of Europe, whenever the state of his health may require it,” was unanimously adopted, apparently without debate (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 449–51). Although Jay had suffered from rheumatism, this second resolution probably was intended to sanction covertly his trip to Paris to share in the peace negotiations, as requested of him by Franklin on 22 April (Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends , V, 150, 320–21, 404).

On the other hand, the first recommendation of the committee invited vigorous dissent. In the “secret article” to which the proposal referred, the United States had pledged that their envoy to Spain would sign “on the first Requisition of his Catholick Majesty, the act or acts necessary to communicate to him” his right “at such time as he shall judge proper” to become a party to the Treaty of Alliance and the Treaty of Amity and Commerce concluded in 1778 between France and the United States (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XI, 454–55). Arthur Lee initiated the debate by moving that the committee’s recommendation be confined solely to a directive obliging Jay to send to Congress any treaty proposals made by Spain. After Lee, Noble Wymberley Jones (Ga.), and Ralph Izard (S.C.) had supported this motion, and Joseph Montgomery, James Duane, and David Ramsay (S.C.) had opposed it, JM entered the discussion (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 pp. 88–90).

[6 August 1782]

Mr Madison is also against the amendment; grants that there is some weight in the observation of his colleague with regard to the time of Spain’s accession.1 That the design of France was to engage Spain to enter into the present war & guarantee the independence of the U. S. agst G. B. Should she decline acceding until the conclusion of the war she ought not to be entitled to the benefit of the alliance or the future guarantee of the U. S. for her American possessions.2 He was not for striking out the paragraph or for limiting the time without the consent and concurrence of France.3

1. Arthur Lee had contended that only “a reasonable time” was meant by “at such time” as the king of Spain “shall judge proper”; and that the king had refused to acquiesce for over four years, and “therefore Congress is no longer bound” (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. 89).

2. Article XI of the Treaty of Alliance committed France and the United States to a perpetual guarantee of each other’s territorial possessions in North America, along with any acquired there from Great Britain as a result of the war. The adherence of Madrid to the alliance with full “reciprocity,” as was stipulated in the secret article, would bind the United States to guarantee to Spain possession of vast domains in North America “from the present time and forever” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XI, 451–55).

3. Following considerably more debate, during which Lee somewhat moderated his stand, the motion was defeated by a vote of ten states to one (Georgia). John Rutledge then moved to delete from the recommendation its concluding words, namely, “in which case he [Jay] is to conclude such treaty on the first requisition of his Catholick Majesty.” Rutledge suggested the change because this portion of the directive ran counter to the provision of the secret article extending the king of Spain the right either to subscribe to the treaties between France and the United States or to “propose other conditions analogous to the principal aim of the alliance.” In the latter case Jay, of course, should not be directed to agree to proposals before they had been approved by Congress. After deciding by a vote of ten states to one (Pennsylvania) that the words indicated by Rutledge should be excised, Congress unanimously agreed to the recommendation, as amended (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XI, 454; XXII, 450–51; 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 pp. 91–92). On 7 August 1782, again at Rutledge’s suggestion, Congress slightly altered what it had agreed to on the sixth, by further instructing Jay “to forbear making any overtures” to the court of Madrid (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 455–56; 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. 92).

Index Entries

You Are Looking At

Source Project: Madison Papers
Title: Comments on Instructions to John Jay, [6 August] 1782
Author: Thomson, Charles
Date: 6 August 1782

Reference

Cite as: “Comments on Instructions to John Jay, [6 August] 1782,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-05-02-0008. [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. 23–25.]