Excerpts from The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792

Robert A. Rutland, ed., 3 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1970).

1780 Documents

[4 July 1780] A Resolution to Suspend the Sale of Public Lands, pp. 638-639.

"Resolved, That the treasurer be required to forbear receiving money for the purchase of any waste or unappropriated lands, except upon certificate of settlement or pre-exemption rights, until the further orders of the General Assembly therein."

Ed. note: [This resolution] appears to be a reversal of Virginia's attitude and an attempt to bring it into harmony with the congressional resolution of 30 Oct. 1779 (Ford, ed., Journals of the Continental Congress, XV, 1226-1230). . . . Privately, some influential Virginians had acknowledged that retention of the state's western territory was not desirable (R. H. Lee to Henry, 15 Nov. 1778, Lee Papers, ViHi; Joseph Jones to Jefferson, 30 June 1780, Boyd, III, 473). Thus the 4 July resolution is not a repudiation of the remonstrance [of 10 Dec. 1779], but an expression of willingness by the Virginia General Assembly to cooperate with Congress. Congress had made its own friendly gesture on 23 May 1780 with a resolution acknowledging that the states had complete jurisdiction over their own territory, an expression that did not make much sense unless the delicate western land dilemma was considered (Hunt, ed., Journals of the Continental Congress, XVII, 452). And by July 1780 Congress took under consideration a report (from a special committee studying the western lands problem) which called on the states with transmontane claims to pass laws that would "effectually remove the only obstacle to a final ratification of the articles [of Confederation]" ibid., XVII, 580, 586, 807). These conciliatory moves seemed to have had an impact in Richmond. Besides pressure to meet Congress half way on the matter, Virginia was also involved with North Carolina in a boundary settlement complicated by uncertain land titles along their common border (JHD, 1827 ed., 4 July 1780). Added to these considerations [was] . . . an awareness that eventual cession of western lands would reduce friction with both impatient settlers and jealous sister states.

27 July 1780 To Joseph Jones, pp. 655-663.

p. 655: "The agreement of the commissioners from the two states, for settling the dispute of territory between Virginia and Pennsylvania, by fixing the line commonly called Mason and Dixon's line as the southern boundary of Pennsylvania [etc.] has been at last ratified by our assembly. . . ."

"I think it the duty of a staunch whig, and friend to his country, to do every thing in his power to remove any cause of ill will or disagreement with a sister state; and therefore (though I clearly saw from the proceedings that our commissioners had been overmatched by those of Pennsylvania) I labored the ratification of the agreement, as heartily as I did any subject in my life. There was so strong an opposition that we were able to carry it only by a small majority; for this reason, and from my attachment to the common cause of America, I sincerely wish the dispute may now be closed, and not remitted again to our assembly."

p. 656: "Nothing has been moved in our assembly respecting our western territory since the remonstrance to congress, nor do I think there will be shortly, unless there are some propositions from congress on the subject; but I am sure the most judicious men in our legislature, and the firm friends to American independence, are well disposed for the sake of cementing our union, and accelerating the completion of the confederation, to make great cessions to the United States, and wish for such reasonable propositions from congress as they can unite in supporting. You will observe a hint in the remonstrance to this purpose; it was intended to bring on offers from congress, and there can't be a fitter time than the present, upon our having settled our dispute with Pennsylvania."

[Mason goes on to delineate 7 conditions under which he thinks Virginia cede most of its western lands to the United States. Taken in its entirety, this letter forms an interesting discussion of the western lands issue from Virginia's point of view.]