James Madison Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="Madison, James" AND Period="Revolutionary War"
sorted by: author
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-06-02-0096

Notes on Debates, 4–5 March 1783

Notes on Debates

MS (LC: Madison Papers). For a description of the manuscript of Notes on Debates, see Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (6 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , V, 231–34.

The motion of Mr. Hamilton on the Journal relative to abatement of the quotas of distressed States was rejected, partly because the principle was disapproved by some, and partly because, it was thought improper to be separated from other objects to be recommended to the States.1 The latter motive produced the motion for postponing which was lost.2

The Committee to whom had been referred the letters of resignation of Mr. Morris reported as their opinion that it was not necessary for Congs. immediately to take any steps thereon. They considered the resignation as conditional, and that if it sd. eventually take place at the time designated, there was no necessity for immediate provision to be made.3

Mr. Bland moved that &c (See Journal of Mar: 5)4

This motion produced on these two days lengthy & warm debates.5 Mr. Lee & Mr. Bland on one side disparaging the administration of Mr. Morris’, and throwing oblique censure on his character.6 They considered his letters as an insult to Congs. & Mr. Lee de[c]lared that the man who had published to all the world such a picture of our national character & finances was unfit to be a minister of the latter.7 On the other side Mr. Wilson & Mr. Hamilton went into a copious defence & Panegyric of Mr. Morris, the ruin in which his resignation if it sd. take effect wd. involve public credit and all the operations dependent on it; and the decency altho’ firmness of his letters. The former observed that the declaration of Mr. Morris that he wd. not be the minister of Injustice cd. not be meant to reflect on Congs. because they had declared the funds desired by Mr. Morris to be necessary;8 and that the friends of the latter could not wish for a more honorable occasion for his retreat from public life, if they did not prefer the public interest to considerations of friendship.9 Other members were divided as to the propriety of the letters in question. In general however they were thought reprehensible, as in general also a conviction prevailed of the personal merit & public importance of Mr. Morris. All impartial members foresaw the most alarming consequences from his resignation.10 The prevailing objection to Mr Bland’s motion was that its avowed object & tendency was to re-establish a board in place of a single minister of finance.11 Those who apprehended that ultimately this might be unavoidable, thought it so objectionable that nothing but the last necessity would justify it. The motion of Mr. Bland was lost: and a Comme appointed generally on the letters of Mr. Morris.12

1Alexander Hamilton offered his motion on 4 March (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 162). For earlier attempts by him and other delegates to have Congress provide for an “abatement,” see JM Notes, 8 Feb., and n. 3; 11 Feb., and n. 9; 17 Feb.; 26 Feb., and nn. 8–13, 22, 25, 28, 37, 43; JM to Randolph, 25 Feb. 1783. Hamilton’s repeated effort to that end certainly reflected in large degree the occupation by the British of New York City and its environs ever since mid-summer 1776—by far the longest period of their control anywhere in the United States during the Revolution. Of the ten states effectively represented in Congress, only New York voted in favor of Hamilton’s motion (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 163).

In a letter of 5 March explaining to Governor George Clinton their lack of success, Hamilton and William Floyd, the only other delegate in Congress from New York, wrote: “Different motives operated in the dismission. Many were opposed to the principle and others wished to postpone ’till this matter with many others could be taken up on a general plan” (Syrett and Cooke, Papers of Hamilton description begins Harold C. Syrett and Jacob E. Cooke, eds., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (15 vols. to date; New York, 1961——). description ends , III, 281). Representing a state which naturally would favor an “abatement,” JM was among the “others” who agreed with the “principle” of the motion but voted against it as premature (Harrison to Delegates, 7 Feb.; JM Notes, 26 Feb. 1783).

2Prior to the vote mentioned in n. 1, Abraham Clark of New Jersey, seconded by Phillips White of New Hampshire, moved to postpone action on Hamilton’s proposal. Clark’s motion was unanimously supported by the delegates from six states, including Virginia—thus failing of adoption by a margin of one state (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 162–63).

3JM Notes, 24 Jan., and nn. 20, 23; 26 Feb., and n. 14; 27 Feb. 1783. Although unnoted in the official journal, the Rutledge committee submitted its report on 4 March 1783 (NA: PCC, No. 19, IV, 385; No. 186, fol. 85). The report was debated on that day and the next.

4Theodorick Bland, seconded by Arthur Lee, moved that the report of the Rutledge committee “be postponed, in order to take into consideration” their proposal to appoint a committee “to devise the most proper means of arranging the department of finance.” The “arranging” which Bland and Lee had in mind was the replacement of the office of superintendent of finance by a Treasury Board. See JM’s sentence near the close of his present notes, and n. 11.

John Rutledge, seconded by Samuel Holten, countered by moving that the report of his committee and the Bland-Lee proposal “be committed.” The two Virginians voted for the Rutledge-Holten recommendation but it failed to carry. Congress thereupon rejected the Bland-Lee motion by a vote of 5 to 1. Rutledge voted “no,” but his South Carolina colleagues, Ralph Izard and John Lewis Gervais, turned that state’s vote in favor of the motion (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 165–66). See n. 12.

5JM’s statement is misleading, for the debate on the Bland-Lee motion, introduced on 5 March, was confined to that day (NA: PCC, No. 36, II, 47–48). The report of the Rutledge committee, submitted on 4 March, was debated without doubt on both that day and the next (NA: PCC, No. 186, fol. 85).

6For earlier attacks upon Robert Morris by Lee and occasionally by Bland, see Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (6 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , IV, 247; 250, nn. 13, 17; 264; 313; 341, n. 4; 343; 419; 447; 449, n. 7; V, 431, n. 4; Harrison to JM, 4 Jan., and n. 3; JM to Randolph, 22 Jan.; Randolph to JM, 7 Feb. 1783. See also Lee’s letter of 5 March 1783 to Samuel Adams in Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, 67–68.

7Arthur Lee referred to the Morris letter of 24 January 1783 (JM Notes, 24 Jan. 1783, and n. 20). This letter and Morris’ letter of 26 February appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet of 4 March and in the Pennsylvania Gazette of the next day.

8In his letter of 24 January to Congress, Morris had stated, “I should be unworthy of the Confidence reposed in me by my fellow Citizens, If I did not explicitly declare that I will never be the Minister of Injustice” (NA: PCC, No. 137, II, 115–16; JM Notes, 24 Jan., and n. 20; 28 Jan., n. 40). For the resolution of Congress referred to by James Wilson, see JM Notes, 29 Jan. 1783, and n. 13.

9Morris’ choice of a time to “retreat” could be defended as “honorable,” both for the reason stated by him in n. 8 and because, as he remarked in his letter of 24 January, the “public Danger” from the “common Enemy,” which alone had induced him to accept the office of superintendent of finance, had greatly “lessened.”

10Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, 56, 65, n. 4; JM to Randolph, 4 Mar.; 11 Mar. 1783.

11The word “board” was underlined by JM. Between 1775 and 1779 Congress administered its financial operations through a succession of boards, committees, and “offices.” An ordinance of 30 July 1779 established a “Board of Treasury” with a structure which remained essentially unchanged until its dissolution on 20 September 1781—nearly three months after Robert Morris began his tenure as superintendent of finance (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XIV, 903–7; Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (6 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 137, n. 4; Jennings B. Sanders, Evolution of Executive Departments of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 [Chapel Hill, N.C., 1935], pp. 50–74, 132). Morris continued to serve until November 1784. Although Congress on 29 May of that year provided for the creation by 10 November of a Board of Commissioners of the Treasury, the first election of the three commissioners was delayed until 25 January 1785 (Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, 486, 523, 538, and n. 2, 541, 544, 606, and n. 3; Harrison to JM, 4 Jan. 1783, n. 5; Jennings B. Sanders, Evolution of Executive Departments, pp. 145–47).

12The committee of five, with Rutledge as chairman, apparently submitted no report before being discharged on 28 April 1783 (NA: PCC, No. 186, fols. 85, 86; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 168, and n. 1).

Index Entries