| PREVIOUS | NEXT | ITEM LIST | NEW SEARCH | BEST MATCH |
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
My dear Sir Philada. Novr. 5th. 1782
My last informed you that a proposition had been made in Congress for accepting the territorial Cession of N. York. The paper inclosed contains the proceedings which ensued. The acceptance of this Cession singly met with a negative from Virginia for obvious reasons. In the first place such a measure, instead of terminating all controversy as to the western Country, the object proposed by the original plan, introduces new perplexities. And in the 2d place, an assent from us might be hereafter pleaded as a voluntary acceptance of the U. States in the room of N. York, as litigants against Virginia.
On the subsequent motion you will find Virga. divided.(1) The proviso expressed in this motion if referred to the territory retained by N. York appeared to me to be at least nugatory, or rather to imply that a Resolution of Congress might operate towards depriving another State of the benefits of the Confederation; and if referred to the territory ceded by N. Y. to imply that the 9th Art. was the constitutional rule of deciding controversies as well where the U. S. as where a particular state were the party. All that Congress could, as I supposed, have properly done, would have been to guard against any biass on future decisions by declaring that their acceptance of the Cession of N. Y. was not to be considered as expressing any opinion as to the rightful claims or limits of that State. But I did not feel myself at liberty to substitute such a proposition because it militated against the guarantee required by Virga. and would have prejudged that condition of her Cession.
The success of {the middle states}(2) in obtaining the Cession of N. Y. has given great encouragement; and they are pursuing steadily the means of availing themselves of the other titles. That of Connecticut is proposed for the next object. Virginia will be postponed for the last. By {inlisting the two preceding} into {their party they hope to render their measures more effectual with respect to the last}.
Page 349
NOVEMBER 5, 1782
Link to date-related documents.
Besides the effect which may be expected from this {coalition with New York} on {territorial questions in Congress}, it will I surmise prove very {unfriendly to the pretentions of Vermont. Duane} seems not un{apprized of the} advantage which {New York has gained} and is already {takeing measures for a speedy vote on that question}.(3) Upon the {whole New York has either} by {a fortunate} coincidence of circumstances, {or by skilful management or by both} succeeded {in a very important object: by ceding a claim which was tenable} neither {by force nor by law she has} acquired {with Congress the merit of liberality} rendered the {title to her reservation more respectable and} at least dampt {the zeal with which Vermont has been abetted}. If you should be {surprized that} these considerations did not {dissuade Connecticut from an unqualified acceptance of the cession of New York} you will only be {affected} as others {were at the time}. The truth is, {they were surprized at it themselves after it was too late and} would gladly {have revoked their error}.
You were also informed in my last of the situation in wch. the affair of Lippencut remained. In the midst of our {perplexities} a letter arrived from Gel. Washington inclosing an intercession from the Count de Vergennes in favor of the life of young Asgill, founded on a most pathetic and importunate Memorial from his Mother. The Ct. writes to Gel. Washington, as he says not in the quality of a public Minister, but of a man who feels the force of Mrs. Asgill's supplications. He backs his intercession however, with the desire of the King & Queen who were much affected with the Memorial, observes that, altho' Asgill is no doubt a prisoner to the U. States, yet as he became such by an event to which the arms of his Majesty contributed, the interest he takes in behalf of this officer, is the more admissible, & signifies that if the British Commander should not in this instance fully comply with the demands of Justice there is reason to believe that future instances of barbarity will be prevented.
The judgment {formed of} this {intercession by} different {members is very different}. All {indeed agree that} retaliation {cannot be executed in the face of it. But some} are of {opinion} that {it} luckily {affords and ought to be made the ground of re}treat {from that measure; while others suppose} that {our honour will be more wounded by such a public mark} both {of our obsequiousness to France and of her disapprobation of our views than by a retreat of ourselves on the ground of} Carlton's {promise to continue his pursuit of the} murderer. {Some think also that an omission in our act of the wish} expressed {on the part of the King & Queen of France} may {give umbrage. Others again} infer from the circumstances {of the letter from the Count being} addressed to {General Washington not to Congress and in his private not official quality} that a {public notice of it cannot be expected and} that {a private} explanation {by the secre-
Page 350
NOVEMBER 5, 1782
Link to date-related documents.
tary of} foreign affairs {to the Minister of France will be as much as will be proper}.
The {Minister also} received {an instruction to interest himself in the affair and had even} prepared {a memorial to Congress relative to it}. Having {discovered however the diversity of} sentiments {prevailing in Congress and being apprehensive} that {his interposition} might render {the case more perplexing and} possibly {be not treated with due notice in the final act of Congress, he has very prudently desisted from his purpose}.
Untill Congress shall have come to some decision with respect to the notice to be taken of {the intercession above mentioned} I would not wish it to be generally spoken of from this letter.
Yesterday being the 1st Monday in Novr. The vacant chair was filled by Mr. Boudinot. The distribution of the votes was as follows, for Mr. B. {New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pensylvania, Delaware, Maryland}, for Mr. {Bland Virginia, South Carolina}, for Mr. {Rutledge} N. C.,(4) (for Mr. {Nash, New York}. Massachusetts had no Delegate present but Mr. Osgood. Georgia was wholly unrepresented. As you were present at the last election I need not recite to you the motives to the one in question.
A letter from Carmichael dated 8 July, says that the Resolutions of Congress & the States against separate negociations with the new British Ministry were exceedingly applauded at the Spanish Court; and that he had discovered that the Imperial & Russian Ministers had renewed an offer of the Mediation of their Courts to Spain. The silence of our other Ministers in letters of later date renders the latter article very doubtful.
A letter of the 5th of Sepr. from Mr. Laurens at Nantz repeats his purpose to return to America; adding that the risk of capture & the advice of his friends had led him to apply to the Court of London for a passport via Falmouth & N. York, to Philada., that Ld. Cornwallis had interested himself in his case, and that the passport was to be transmitted to him. It was uncertain whether he was to embark t[his] fall, or wait till the spring. {Unless the} embarkation {from a British port was more necessary than I am aware} a {direct passport from France} would {in my view have been more eligible}.
The army we are informed by a letter from Gel Washington of the 30th Ult. are going into their winter cantonments. Part of the British fleet, consisting of 14 Ships of the line, 1 of 40 guns, 7 frigates & 14 transports sailed from N. York on the 26th supposed to be bound to the W Indies, and to have no troops [on] board. Two vessels were despatched it is said for Charlestown immediately after the arrival of the last packet, for the purpose of countermanding the evacuation.
Mr. Jones has recovered rapidly within a few days past & has once more got about.
Your favor of the 26th past was duly received yesterday.(5) I am anx-
Page 351
NOVEMBER 5, 1782
Link to date-related documents.
ious for the new Cypher which it promises as well for my own use as yours; and for the same reasons. I conclude from your silence as to my late communications in L____ls Cypher that the key I sent you some time ago answered its purpose.6
RC (DLC: Madison Papers). In Madison's hand, though not signed. Madison, Papers (Hutchinson), 5:242-45.
1 On Madison's division with Theodorick Bland, his fellow Virginia delegate, over Hugh Williamson's October 30 motion, see ibid., p. 247n.6 and 7; and JCC, 23:695-96.
2 Words printed in braces in this text were written by Madison in the official Virginia cipher.
3 For Duane's disappointment this day over the action taken by Congress on the Vermont issue, see David Howell to Nicholas Brown, this date.
4 The "N.C." was interlineated by Randolph.
5 See Madison, Papers (Hutchinson), 5:217-18.
6 That is, in his letters to Randolph of October 15 (partially in cipher), and August 27, 1782 (in which he had enclosed a key for the Lovell cipher).
Samuel Osgood to John Lowell
Dear Sir. Philadelphia Novr. 6th [i.e. 5th] 1782(1)
I had the Pleasure of receiving your Favor of the 24th Octor. by the Post. I am uncertain whether I shall congratulate myself or not upon the Information you give me with Respect to the New Choice of Delegates. Whether any one of them will come forward, you do not inform me; & I apprehend for a very good Reason, which is, that you could not know whether they would accept or not. I feel mortified to be alone, because it is the first Instance in which the State has not been represented. But it is a Time when no material Injury can befall the State--because the Business before Congress has not been very important. We have been considering this Day, the Report of the Committee of the 17th of April last respecting Vermont--after considerable Debate; some hard Words &ca &ca. We have postponed the Matter without Day--& I am very glad of it, because I am sure that no Vote could be obtain'd, which would satisfy any Party.
I am led to doubt of the real Policy of Masstts. in resolving that if Congress would make Vermont independent, they should have no Objection, or something to that Purpose. I am rather in Opinion, that an Instruction to the Delegates to favor their Independence would have been more eligible. If they should not finally be independent, I fear that Vote will be construed against the State--tho I am convinced the State has an unquestionable Right to a very considerable Part of that Country. And, my good Friend, whatever others may think, I am convinced that it will be good Policy in the State to extend its Views of Soil & Jurisdiction as far as possible--for a very Plain Reason, that as the State has undoubtedly supported a very great & unequal Share of the War, unless she can have her Accounts fairly adjusted, she must
Page 352
NOVEMBER 5, 1782
Link to date-related documents.
make the best of her Territory that she can. It is said that Massachusetts has made no Cession of western Lands. I am glad they have not--for a Number of the States think those Lands of immense Value--we can therefore more easily make our Relinquishment of Right & Claim, a sine qua non of the Adjustment of our Accounts. And if we cannot have our Accounts properly adjusted for the Sake of Massachusetts' Posterity, let us not tamely give up one other Just prerogative & priviledge of the State. When the Cession of New York was accepted, the Yeas & Nays were called; you will find me against it.(2) I leave it to you to Judge whether I did not do Right. I am Satisfied at present that I did. Indeed the Voice of one Delegate of Massachusetts in Favor of it, might have been quoted in future as an Evidence that the State had no Views of Claim or Right there. So I fear the Vote respecting Vermont will be.
We have no News here later than I see in your Papers excepting what is in the Papers here also.
Yesterday I was attending the New Election at the Bank; whilst there Mr. Boudinot was the first attempt made President. I am told a Letter was also read from Mr. Laurens (I have not seen it) intimating that he has Views of returning to England--to take Passage to New York and save the Risque of being again captured. It was mentioned as a Letter wanting Explanation. I think if he goes to England again, that Measure will be rather extraordinary. The Motives for human Volition are often inscrutable & sometimes desultory & volatile--perhaps the last may be applicable to Mr. L____s.(3)
Our mutual Friend the General has lately been at Camp.(4) The Genl had wrote him that he wish'd to see him soon. I think our good Friend did much good in that Visit. The Army were very uneasy about the Arrangement which is to take Place on the 1st of Jany. next--And I believe the General rather began to doubt the Policy of it. But the Secretary persevered & I think all will work well. I think the General is Satisfied as to its Expediency--and the General and the Secretary at War co-operating, Congress will be able to carry thro' the economical Arrangements which they have adopted. We are greatly indebted to our Secretary's unremitting Industry in the War Office. His reputation with the Army is an additional Advantage. After his return from Camp he stated to Congress the Greivances of the Army, exclusive of the Greivance of Pay. He mentioned that the Officers in General wish'd to have the Matter of half Pay referr'd to the States--his Letter was committed to Colo. Bland, Mr. Carroll & Mr. Boudinot--who I am informed have unanimously agreed to Report in Favor of referring the same to the States.(5) And to gratify the Army in every other Thing mentioned in the Secretary's Letter which is in the Power of Congress to do.
I am, Dear Sir, very sincerely yours, Saml. Osgood
Page 353
NOVEMBER 5, 1782
Link to date-related documents.
RC (DLC: Osgood Papers).
1 Although Osgood dated this letter "Novr. 6," he probably wrote it on November 5, the date the action on Vermont reported in the first paragraph as happening "this Day" was recorded in the journals. Moreover, Osgood subsequently reports that the November 4 election of Elias Boudinot as president had occured "Yesterday." See JCC, 23:708, 713-14.
2 Osgood's negative vote was recorded in the journals, but because Massachusetts did not have two delegates in attendance the vote was not tallied. JCC, 23:694.
3 For Henry Laurens' September 5 letter, see James Madison's Notes of Debates, November 4, note 4.
4 That is, Maj. Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, secretary at war.
5 For the disposition of Lincoln's October 30 letter reporting "the Officers sentiments on the present situation of the army," see Madison to Edmund Randolph, October 29, note 3.
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | ITEM LIST | NEW SEARCH | BEST MATCH |