From John Jay to John Adams, 1 November 1786
To John Adams
NYork 1st. Nov 1786
Dr. Sr.
My last to you was dated 4th. ult. since wh. I have been honored with yours of the 15th July last, wh. was immediately communicated to congress—1
My Report on the answer of the british Minister to your memorial reques respecting our Frontier Posts is under the Consideration of Congress—2 Your Ideas & mine on those Subjects very nearly correspond, and I sincerely wish that you may be enabled to accommodate every Difference between ^us^ and Britain, on the most liberal Principles of Justice and Candor—The Result of my Inquiries into the Conduct of the States, relative to the Treaty is, that that there has not been a single Day since it took effect, that ^on which^ it has not been violated in America by one or other of the States—and this observation is equally just whether the Treaty besupposes3 to have taken Effect either on ^at^ the Date or exchange of the provisional Articles, or on the day of the Date of the definitive Treaty, or of the Ratifications of it.4
our affairs in ^are^ in a very unpleasant Situation and Changes become necessary and in some little Degree probable. When Government either from Defects in its Construction or administration, ceased ceases to assert its Rights, or is too feeble to afford Security, inspire Confidence and overawe the ambitious and licencious, the best Citizens naturally grow uneasy and look to other Systems.
That How ^far^ the Defenders of Massachusetts ^may extend or how they^ will terminate, or how far extend is problematical;5 nor is it possible
to decide whether the people of Rhode Island will be remain much longer obedient to the very extraordinary and exceptionable Laws then passed for giving imposing the Belief of the public compelling ^them^ to embrace the Doctrine of the political transubstantiation of Paper into Gold & Silver—6
I suspect Poster that our posterity will read the history of our last four Years with much Regret.
I enclose for your Information a Pamphlet containing the Acts of the different States granting an Impost to Congress.7
You will also find enclosed a Copy of an Act of Congress of 20 ^& 21^ Ult. for raising an additional number of Troops—This Measure was doubtless necessary; altho the Difficulty of providing for the Expense of it, is a serious one. I flatter myself you will be able to obviate any ^improper^ Impressions which the minister may be led to entertain respecting the Object of this Force.8 I have pressed the Policy of deciding on my Report on the Infractions of the Treaty as without Delay, that you may thence be furnished with conclusive arguments against the Insinuations of those who may wish to infuse Ideas and support Opinions unfavorable to us, on those points9
The news Papers herewith sent will give you Information in Detail of Indian affairs but they will not tell you what however is the Fact that our People have committed several unprovoked acts of violence against them—These acts ought to have excited the Notice of Government and been severely punished in an exemplary manner but
There is Reason to believe that the People of Vermont are in Correspondence with Canada—This Hint by calling your attention to that Subject may possibly suggest modes of Inquiry & further Discoveries on your Side of the Water. Some suppose that the eastern Insurgents are encouraged if not moved by Expectations from the same Quarter—but this as yet is mere Suspicion.10
B I have left my Dispatches for Mr Jefferson (wh. you will find under the same Cover with this) open for your Inspection—You will percieve that the Nature of them is such, as to render it expedient that they shd. be conveyed to him without being Risque of Inspection. That Consideration induced me to decline sending them by the french packet.11 With great and sincere Esteem and Regard I have the Honor to be Dr Sr yr. most obt. & very hble Servt
The honb. John Adams Esqr Miny ply of the U. States at the Court of London
1. JJ to JA, 4 Oct. 1786, Dft, NNC (EJ: 5867); LbkC, , 209–16; 5: 139–40. JA to JJ, 15 July 1786 [LS, DNA: PCC, item 84, 6: 339–41 (EJ: 11895); LbkC, DNA: PCC, item 104, 6: 187–88; 5: 135–36], stated that the Lords of Admiralty had recalled Captain Henry Stanhope. His letter is endorsed by CT: “… Read 19 Septr. 1786. Referred to Secy. for foreign Affairs to Communicate to the Executive of Massachusetts so much as relates to Capt. Stanhope and the eastern boundary.” JJ transmitted it in JJ to the President of Congress, 19 Sept. 1786, LS, DNA: PCC, item 80, 3: 77 (EJ: 249); LbkC, , 2: 252 (EJ: 2033).
2. See JJ’s report of 13 Oct. 1786, above.
3. “Be supposed” in LbkC.
4. On treaty infractions, see JJ’s report of 13 Oct., above. For the Preliminary Treaty (30 Nov. 1782) and the Definitive Treaty (3 Sept. 1783) and their ratifications, see 3: 264–74, 462–75, 543–44; : 21, 22, 436, 546, 676–77n.
5. On Shays’s Rebellion, which began on 15 Aug. 1786 and was not completely suppressed until the spring of 1787, see note 8, below.
6. The fact that the Rhode Island legislature had passed an act making “the paper currency of that state receivable on all arrears of taxes due to the United States,” was reported in Congress on 18 Sept. 1786: “if the bills of credit of the States of Rhode Island and New Jersey were to be received from these States in discharge of federal taxes, upon the principles of equal Justice, bills emitted by any other states must be received from them also in payment of their proportions, and thereby, instead of the requisitions yielding a sum in actual Money, nothing but paper would be brought into the federal treasury, which would be wholly inapplicable to the payment of any part of the interest or principal of the foreign debt, or the maintenance of the government of the United States.” Thereupon Congress resolved that “the maintenance of the federal government, cannot be provided for, but by payments in specie into the federal treasury of the sums respectively required of the states therein, no payments, either in bills of credit or in any other mode than those pointed out by the said requisitions, can or ought to be admitted in discharge of the same.” See 31: 663–64; for the resolution broadside, issued by Congress 23 Sept. 1786, see 31: 966.
7. Possibly the broadside of the congressional report of 3 Mar. 1786, headed “United States in Congress assembled, March 3, 1786. The committee consisting of Mr. Kean, Mr. Gorham, Mr. Pinckney, Mr. Smith and Mr. Grayson, to whom were recommitted sundry papers and documents relative to commerce, and the act passed by the states in consequence of the recommendations of Congress of the 30th April, 1784, report,—” (New York, 1786), no. 20086.
8. Congress’s unanimous resolution of 20 Oct. 1786 called for 1,340 “noncommissioned Officers and privates to be raised for the term of three years,” adding up to a total of 2,040. The unanimous resolution of 21 Oct. 1786 specified that a body of troops should be immediately raised under its authority, but that the reason for the levy should not be published. It indicated, however, that the troops were to be raised mainly in the New England states where they might affect “salutary purposes” before being assigned to the west. It noted that a “dangerous insurrection,” had arisen in parts of Massachusetts and was “rapidly extending its influence;” that insurgents had, “by force of arms, suppressed the administration of Justice in several counties;” and that its spread could not be stopped without aid from the federal government. It was necessary to stop the insurgents’ progress, it continued, before they took possession of the arsenal at Springfield, subverted the “constitutional government,” and left Massachusetts in a state of anarchy that might “probably involve the United States in the Calamities of a civil war.” 31: 892, 895–96.
9. See above, JJ’s report on relations with Great Britain, 8 May 1786; and JA to JJ, 16 May 1786.
10. The connection sought by Vermonters with Canada was a commercial and not a political one. Levi Allen memorialized Canada’s governor in the fall of 1786 for permission for Vermonters to trade via Lake Champlain directly and duty free with Canada. Lord Dorchester, the Canadian Council, and Montreal and Quebec merchants all desired such trade, and sought to bypass the British order-in-council of 26 May 1785 that prohibited trade with the United States. The Canadian Council accomplished this by declaring that the order did not apply to Vermont since it was not yet a state and therefore not a part of the United States. JA was able to report back to JJ on 19 Apr. 1787: “The Canada merchants give out, that there is some negotiation on foot between Lord Dorchester and Vermont, the object of which is to give vent to the productions of that territory, through Canada, and the river St. Lawrence, that the West Indies may derive some assistance from that source.” He enclosed a new act of Parliament continuing the trade regulations, with additional restrictions, between the United States and Britain and its dominions. JA to JJ, 19 Apr. 1787, DNA: PCC, item 84, 6: 433–34 (EJ: 11944); 5: 234–35; A. L. Burt, The United States, Great Britain, and British North America from the Revolution to the Establishment of Peace after the War of 1812 (New York, 1961), 63–67.
11. JJ to TJ, 27 Oct. 1786, LbkC, , 211–15 (EJ: 2475); Dft, NNC (EJ: 5873); 10: 488–90: “This Letter will be carried to London by the Rev. Mr. Provost [Samuel Provoost], who will with his own Hands deliver it to Mr. Adams with one from me, requesting him to convey to you by some trusty Hand.”