Comments on Instructions to Peace Commissioners, [24 July] 1782

Comments on Instructions to Peace Commissioners

Printed copy (Charles Thomson’s “Debates in the Congress of the Confederation, from July 22d to September 20th, 1782,” Collections of the New-York Historical Society, XI [1878], pp. 64–65). This edition was made from a transcript rather than from Thomson’s manuscript (ibid., p. xi) and will be referred to hereafter as Thomson, “Debates.” Both the manuscript and the transcript are lost.

Editorial Note

As JM had predicted in his letter of 23 July 1782 to Randolph (q.v.), Arthur Lee presented his “proposition” to Congress the next day by moving: “That the Commission of 15th. June 1781 appointing ministers plenipotentiary to negociate a treaty of Peace with G. Britain, together with the Instructions given to the said Commissioners—be re-considered” (NA: PCC, No. 36, I, 355). Bland attempted to second the motion, giving his reason for so doing, but was forced to withdraw on a technicality. After Jonathan Jackson seconded the motion, John Lowell opened the debate by supporting “the propriety of a reconsideration” (JM to Randolph, 30 July 1782; 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. 63; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 415). The following is Thomson’s summary of what JM said in opposition to the motion.

[24 July 1782]

Mr Madison objected to it.1 He took notice that the motion before the house went much farther than the reasoning in support of a reconsideration. That the reasoning was confined entirely to the impropriety, inexpediency and dangerous consequences of one single clause in the instructions;2 that the motion was pointed against the ministers as well as against the instructions; that nothing was said to show that the appointment was improper and that therefore he could not agree to the motion.3 But waiving this he should object to the motion if confined to the instructions; as to the objection started4 on account of an amendment to the original instructions which was carried by seven states,5 he apprehended the articles of confederation did not require the vote of nine states for the purpose of making peace;6 but even admitting it did and that there was an error or defect in the instructions by reason of the amendment, admitted by seven votes on the 11th June 1781, yet the passing them afterwards on the 15 of the same month which appears to have been done without dissent, and the confirmation of them by the act of the 31st of May last removed every defect or error which the admission of the amendment might have occasioned.7 That before gentlemen condemned the instructions they ought to consider the times & circumstances in which they were passed. Here he went into a detail of the critical situation of affairs in America in June 1781, the interposition of mediating powers, the rejection of the motion for joining other persons in the Commission with J. Adams, the unfortunate difference between him & the Cot de Vergennes & the information given that the court of F. had not a full confidence in Mr Adams prudence & management.8 Upon the whole he did not think it prudent or proper to reconsider the instructions; that they could not be productive of any ill consequences and that the reconsidering and altering them might interrupt the harmony which at present subsists between the U. S. & F., might abate the zeal she has hitherto shown in our favour & that our affairs were not at present in such a situation as to warrant so hazardous a step.9

1. That is, to a reconsideration of the instructions to, and the appointment of, the peace commissioners, Adams, Franklin, Jay, and Henry Laurens. Although Jefferson had also been named to the commission, he declined the appointment on 4 August 1781 (Boyd, Papers of Jefferson description begins Julian P. Boyd et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (16 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950——). description ends , VI, 113, 114 n., 240). For the election of these commissioners, the adoption of their instructions, and the subsequent efforts in Congress to alter the commission’s personnel and instructions, 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, 133; 147–54; 168–70; 188–90; Instructions on Peace Negotiations, 7 January, and editorial note, and nn. 5, 30; Report on Fidelity to French Alliance, 31 May, and editorial note; Motion Concerning Peace Negotiations, 17 June, and n. 1; JM to Randolph, 2 July 1782, and n. 19.

2. JM referred to the “clause” directing the commissioners to be at all times governed by the “advice and opinion” of “the ministers of our generous ally, the King of France” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XX, 651; Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VI, 389–90).

3. Bland and Lowell so far had spoken only against the “clause,” but the resolution also challenged the appointment of the commissioners.

4. Thomson may have written, or intended to write, “stated.”

5. JM refers to a roll-call vote on 11 June 1781, whereby the acquiescence of seven state delegations served to amend the proposed instructions of the peace commissioners by limiting their freedom in the manner summarized in n. 2, above. Of the Virginia delegates, Bland had opposed, but JM, Jones, and Meriwether Smith had supported the amendment (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XX, 626–27).

6. JM erred, granting that his remarks were summarized accurately by Thomson. The ninth article of the Articles of Confederation stipulated that Congress should not “enter into any treaties … unless nine states assent.” A treaty was virtually indispensable for “making peace.” JM may have differentiated between the ratifying of a treaty, which clearly would depend upon the approval of at least nine states, and amending the peace commissioners’ instructions, which in his opinion would require only “the votes of a majority of the united states in congress assembled” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XIX, 220).

7. Shortly before JM spoke, he listened to the reading of the journal of Congress for 11 and 15 June 1781 (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. 64). The record for 15 June justified JM’s remark that the instructions appeared to have been adopted “without dissent,” because a tallied vote on them had not been required by their opponents on that day (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XX, 651–54). Although all of the nine states then represented in Congress had agreed to the instructions, individual delegates almost certainly voted against them (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, 154 nn.; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XX, 626–27, 650; Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VI, 115–18, 119–20, 121–22, 124–25, 129). How a reference to “the confirmation” of 31 May 1782 could strengthen JM’s position is not clear, since on 25 May only seven states had as many as two delegates present in Congress, and no more attended during the next six days (Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VI, xliii–liii; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 300, 311–13; Report on Fidelity to French Alliance, 31 May 1782, and editorial note).

8. The citations in n. 1, above, are in point here. See also 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, 154, n. 5; William E. O’Donnell, Chevalier de La Luzerne, pp. 123–24, 237.

9. Thomson closed his entry for 24 July 1782 by adding, “Sundry other members opposed the reconsideration & at last an adjournment was called for which was agreed to” (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. 65; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 415).

Index Entries

You Are Looking At

Source Project: Madison Papers
Title: Comments on Instructions to Peace Commissioners, [24 July] 1782
Author: Thomson, Charles
Date: 24 July 1782

Reference

Cite as: “Comments on Instructions to Peace Commissioners, [24 July] 1782,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-04-02-0202. [Original source: The Papers of James Madison, vol. 4, 1 January 1782 – 31 July 1782, ed. William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965, pp. 436–438.]