Notes on Debates, 9 April 1783
Notes on Debates
MS (LC: Madison Papers). For a description of the manuscript of Notes on Debates, see , V, 231–34.
A memorial was recd. from Genl. Hazen in behalf of the Canadians who had engaged in the cause of the U.S. praying that a tract of vacant land on L. Erie might be allotted to them.1
Mr. Wilson thereupon moved that a Come. be appointed to consider and report to Congress the measures proper to be taken with respect to the Western Country. In support of his motion he observed on the importance of that Country, the danger from immediate emigrations of its being lost to the public; & the necessity on the part of Congress of taking care of the fœderal interests in the formation of New States, which could not take place by the authority of any particular States.2
Mr. Madison observed that the appointment of such a Come. could not be necessary at this juncture & might be injurious, that Congs. were about to take in the report on Revenue &c. the only step that could now be properly taken, viz to call again on the States claiming the W. Territory to cede the same;3 that until the result sd. be known every thing wd. be premature & wd. excite in the States irritations & jealousies that might frustrate the Cessions; that it was indispensable to obtain these cessions in order to compromise the disputes, & to derive advantage from the territory to the U. S.;4 that if the motion meant merely to prevent irregular settlements, a recommendation to that effect ought to be made to the States, that if ascertaining & disposing of garrisons proper to be kept up in that Country was the object it was already in the hands of the Come. on the peace arrangements; but might be expressly referred to them.5
Mr. Mercer supported the same ideas.
Mr. Clarke considered the motion as no wise connected with peace arrangements; his object was to define the western limits of the States which Congs. alone cd. do, and which it was necessary they sd. do in order to know what territory properly belonged to the U. S. and what steps ought to be taken relative to it. He disapproved of repeatedly courting the States to make cessions wch. Congs. stood in no need of.6
Mr. Wilson seemed to consider as the property of the U. S. all territory over which particular States had not exercised jurisdiction particularly N. W. of Ohio, & said that within the Country confirmed to the U. S. by the Provisional articles, there must be a large Country over which no particular claims extended.7
It was answered that the exercise of jurisdiction was not the criterion of the territorial right of the States; that Pa. had maintained always a contrary doctrine; that if it were a criterion Va. had exercised jurisdiction over the Illinois & other places conquered N. W. of the Ohio:8 that it was uncertain whether limits of the U. S. as fixed by the Prov:l. Arts: did comprehend any territory out of the claims of the individual States: that sd. it be the case a dicision or examination of the point had best be put off till it sd. be seen whether Cessions of the States wd. not render it unnecessary; that it cd. not be immediately necessary for the purpose of preventing settlemts. on such extra lands, since they must lie too remote to be in danger of it.9
Congress refused to refer the motion to the Come. on peace arrangents, and by a large majority referred it to a special Come. viz Messrs. Osgood, Wilson, Madison, Carrol & Williamson; to whom was also referred the Meml. of Genl. Hazen.10
On the preceding question Cont. was strenuous in favr. of Mr. Wilsons motion.11
A motion was made by Mr. Dyer to strike out the drawback on salt fish &c.. Mr. Ghorum protested in the most solemn manner that Massts. wd. never accede to the plan without the drawback. The motion was very little supported.12
1. Moses Hazen, brevet brigadier general, petitioned Congress to grant to the Canadian refugees under his command, and to other Canadians who had fled with their families to the United States, a huge tract of land comprising what would become much of southeast Michigan and northwest Ohio, with a frontage on Lake Erie from the mouth of the Huron River on the north to six miles east of the mouth of the Maumee River. Hazen pointed out that this area, once a part of the “Province of Canada,” was now “under the sovereignty of the United States” (NA: PCC, No. 42, III, 451–54).
After long service as an enlisted man and officer in the French and Indian War, Hazen (1733–1803), a native of Haverhill, Mass., settled near St. John on the Richelieu River, Canada. In recognition of this military experience, of the confiscation by the British of his large estate, and of his assistance to the Montgomery-Arnold expedition in the autumn of 1775, Congress on 22 January 1776 unanimously elected him to be the “Colonel commandant” of the “second Canadian Regiment” (, IV, 78, 192, 198–99; VI, 900).
Although Hazen’s vigorous recruiting made the personnel of the regiment largely Canadian at the outset of its notable service, his command came to include, in accord with an act of Congress of 3 October 1780, a miscellany of foreign-born “non-commissioned officers and privates” who had belonged to “any of the reduced regiments and corps” (, XVIII, 896). The penchant of Hazen for embroiling himself in controversies and the fact that his regiment was a unit apart from the normal structure of the continental establishment long delayed his promotion. Finally on 29 June, 1781, yielding to Washington’s recommendation and following a reorganization which associated the regiment with the New York and New Jersey continental lines, Congress appointed Hazen “a Brigadier in the Army of the United States by Brevet” (, XX, 540, 711–12; , XXI, 326–27). After leading a brigade through the Yorktown campaign, he commanded the detachment, including the Canadian regiment, which guarded British prisoners and trained recruits at Lancaster, Pa. (, XXIII, passim; XXIV, 74, 107–10; NA: PCC, No. 78, XII, 285–97). Hazen and his regiment had rejoined Washington’s main army about four months before he presented his memorial to Congress (, XXV, 234, 348, 400; XXVI, 282; Pa. Journal, 9 Nov. 1783).
2. According to Article XI of the Articles of Confederation, Canada was welcome to join “this union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.” Article IX further stipulated that “no state shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the united states” (, XIX, 218, 221). See also , XVIII, 915; , V, 246, n. 7.
For the first time since Congress on 29 October 1782 had accepted New York’s cession of her western claims, the complex issue of the lands west of the Appalachian Mountains was revived by the motion of James Wilson (ibid., III, 303, n. 4; IV, 34, n. 8; V, 245, nn. 3, 5; 246, n. 10; , XXIII, 694). His motion was posited upon the controversial assumption that Congress, having received Great Britain’s title “to the Western Country,” could govern it, control migration to it, derive desperately needed revenue from selling its land, confirm or refuse to confirm the alleged titles conferred by Great Britain or Indian tribes upon land companies, and prescribe the rules for the formation of new states in the area. All these matters had been debated many times in Congress but were now placed in a new context by Great Britain’s transfer to the United States, rather than to the six claimant states, of her rights of jurisdiction and soil in the West. Members of Congress from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, with boundaries extending beyond the mountains, could plausibly contend that Congress could be no more than trustee, on behalf of those states, of all rights possessed by Great Britain in the West prior to 4 July 1776. Furthermore, the vacating by Great Britain of her title could not annul equally valid titles to the same area. For the long background of the issue, see the indexes of , II, III, IV, and V, especially under Continental Congress, actions; Western lands; Madison, James, Jr., views of western lands; Virginia, western land claims of.
3. Report on Restoring Public Credit, 6 Mar. 1783, and n. 14.
4. Among “the disputes,” JM may have had in mind the overlapping claims of Virginia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts to land in the territory north and west of the Ohio River. See JM Notes, 27 Mar., and n. 11.
5. JM Notes, 4 Apr. 1783, and ed. n., and n. 10.
6. This extreme view, often expressed before by delegates from the “landless” states, was now advanced even more confidently by Abraham Clark of New Jersey because of the cession to the United States by Great Britain of her title to the West. See , II, 72–77; IV, 32–33; 35, nn. 9, 10; 179, nn. 7, 8; V, 82–83; 84, n. 6; 200; 201, n. 8.
7. If the only true test of ownership to the area north and west of the Ohio River was the exercise of effective jurisdiction there, Massachusetts and Connecticut obviously had no defensible claims whatsoever, and Virginia’s valid title would be restricted to a few posts precariously held. Wilson’s argument could readily be turned against him, for Congress had not even attempted to govern in that region (, I, 261–62; 263, n. 10; III, 210, n. 4).
8. Using this “criterion,” Virginians could point to the campaigns of George Rogers Clark, the creation of the county of Illinois by the Virginia General Assembly on 18 December 1778, and to the civil government of that county, centering at Kaskaskia, beginning in May of the next year (, I, 219, n. 9; 274–77; 277, nn. 2, 3; II, 24, and nn. 2, 3; 105, n. 4; III, 342–43; 345, n. 7; 346, nn. 9, 10; IV, 120, n. 5; 439, n. 1). Pennsylvania had maintained a “contrary doctrine” during her boundary dispute with Virginia in the Monongahela River and Youghiogheny River valleys (Colonial Records of Pa., XIII, 79, 541–42, 685–86; , IV, 184–87; 276–77; 277, nn. 5, 8, 9). For a boundary controversy with Maryland decided in Pennsylvania’s favor by applying a contrary principle, see Randolph to JM, 15 Feb. 1783, n. 7.
9. If the grant of “Virginia” to the London Company of Virginia in the charter of 1609 was still valid, the state appeared to have a legal title to all of the Northwest Territory, with the possible exception of small areas in what became western Wisconsin, east central Minnesota, and northeastern Ohio (, II, 72–78; III, 14, n. 17; 284–86; 304–5; IV, 32–34; V, 117, n. 7; 292, n. 19; Randolph to JM, 15 Feb. 1783, and nn. 5, 6). The last of these three, which probably would be the first to be entered by white settlers, was within the area embraced in the claims of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Congress accepted their cessions on 19 April 1785 and 14 September 1786, respectively (, II, 73–74; IV, 34, n. 8; V, 118, n. 15; 119, n. 20; , XXXI, 654–55; Edmund C. Burnett, The Continental Congress, p. 626).
10. The report of this committee, insofar as the memorial was concerned, was rendered on 22 April and adopted the next day. Congress promised that whenever it “can consistently make grants of land, they will reward in this way, as far as may be consistent, the officers, men and others, refugees from Canada” (NA: PCC, No. 186, fol. 93; , XXIV, 268–69).
11. JM probably made particular note of the “strenuous” support by Eliphalet Dyer, Oliver Ellsworth, and Oliver Wolcott, in view of the continuing refusal of Congress to accept Connecticut’s and Virginia’s offers of cession because of the provisos attached to each offer. A regard for the interests of Connecticut would seem to require her delegates to join with those of Virginia in opposing Wilson’s motion. See also , V, 243; 247, n. 16; JM Notes, 18 Apr. 1783, and nn. 2–6.
12. JM Notes, 27 Feb., and n. 9; 11 Mar., and n. 3; 18 Mar. 1783, and n. 8.