Excerpts from The Papers of Thomas Jefferson
Julian P. Boyd, ed. (Princeton, N.J., 1951)
Volume 3: 18 June 1779 to 30 September 1780
25 November 1779 From Joseph Reed (in Philadelphia), p. 200.
"The Assembly of this State having ratified the agreement made between the Commissioners of the States of Virginia and Pennsylvania touching their disputed boundaries: I have now the honour and satisfaction to inclose their ratification, which I must request you to lay before the Honorable the Legislature of the State over which you preside [as Governor]."
[I transcribe this letter only because the dispute between Va. and Pa. over their boundary, along with the creation of Va.'s Land Office, seem to have turned
Congress against Virginia, an attitude which may have played a role in Virginia's decision to cede land to Congress later.]
29 November 1779 Thomas Scott in Westmoreland to Joseph Reed, pp. 206-208.
p. 206: "In the latter end of July last the Assembly of Virginia passed a Law for selling their back lands, and adjusting Claims amongst the inhabitants on their frontiers in a summary way by a Board of Commissioners, appointed for the purpose with jurisdiction within certain districts; . . ." [Scott goes on to describe, with disapproval, the prosecutions made by the commissioners in his area. Reed was the President of Pennsylvania's Assembly, and Scott was warning him of the dangers to Pennsylvania settlers in this disputed area as a result of the Virginia law.]
p. 208: Ed. Note: "A Law for selling their back lands, and adjusting Claims": Actually two laws: (1) Bill for Establishing a Land Office and (2) Bill for Adjusting
and Settling Titles of Claimers to Unpatented Lands, both printed above, 8-14 Jan. 1778. In consequence of Scott's information and the resolve of Congress of
27 Dec., Reed published a proclamation, dated 28 Dec., embodying the resolve of Congress and assuring Pennsylvania settlers in Westmoreland of protection by
the state (Reed to Scott, 28 Dec. 1779, Penna. Archives, 1st ser., VIII, 63-4; Reed's Proclamation, Penna. Colonial Records, XII, 212-14). See also entry for
Reed to TJ, 8 Jan. 1780.
8 January 1780 From James Mercer (in Fredericksburg), pp. 261-262.
p. 262: "For entre nous, I am sure the prejudice of Congress against Virginia on account of the Land office is now so great that I cou'd not expect Justice at their
Hands, and if I mistake not, the Nature of Virginia's Demand, is such as to require Chancellors, not prejudiced Judges at Common Law to settle them."
30 January 1780 To David Shepherd (from Williamsburg), p. 281.
"I find that the execution of a Commission for determining disputed titles to land, so far as the same has taken place in the controverted territory, has given great alarm and uneasiness to the State of Pennsylvania, who have applied to Congress on the occasion, and produced their interference. . . . I must intreat you to exert the whole of your influence and to call in that of the Captains and subordinate Officers under You, to keep the inhabitants on both sides in good temper with each other, and to induce ours rather to neglect little circumstances of irritation, should any such happen, than by embroiling their two Countries to Shipwreck the general cause and bring on events which will destroy all our Rights."
Ed. Note: Shepherd was county lieutenant of Ohio.
9 February 1780 To Samuel Huntington (in Philadelphia), pp. 286-289.
[More on the Pa.-Va. boundary dispute.]
30 June 1780 From Joseph Jones (in Philadelphia), pp. 472-475.
p. 473: "The present is the season for accomplishing the great work of Confederation. If we suffer it to pass away I fear it will never return. The example of
New York is worthy of imitation. Could Virginia but think herself as she certainly is already full large for vigorous Government she too would moderate her
desires, and cede to the united States upon certain conditions, her Territory beyond the Ohio. The Act of New York the Instructions of Maryland to their
Delegates and the Declaration of that State upon the subject And the late remonstrance of Virga. are now before a Committee, and I expect they will report, that
it be recommended to the States having extensive western unappropriated Claims to follow the example of New York and by Law authorise their Delegates to
make the cession. I some time past sent Mr. Mason a Copy of the New York Act."
10 September 1780 From Samuel Huntington (in Philadelphia), pp. 625-636.
pp.634-635: Ed. Note: This communication, together with its several enclosures which are printed in full here because of the "vast Importance of the Subject," unfolds the complex history, up to this point, of the controversy between those states claiming extensive territories in the West under 17th-century charters and those other states, such as Maryland, whose boundaries were limited. The issue that was here joined in one of the darkest periods of the war, just after Gates' defeat and just prior to Arnold's treason, was in part a legacy of an earlier century's ignorance of geography: charter-limits that ran to the "South Sea" (Pacific Ocean) in the 17th century were legally recognizable if impracticable claims that had assumed an increasing importance as the frontier moved westward toward the Alleghenies. Such conflicting charter claims as those between Connecticut and Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania and Virginia had, by the opening of the Revolution, produced animosities that came near wrecking the new confederacy, and the great land companies that had maneuvered in London to obtain support of the government for their ambitious schemes involving millions of acres of western lands now transferred their activities to state legislatures and to the Continental Congress. The Declaration of Maryland, the Act of Cession of New York, and the Remonstrance of Virginia-all have the lofty expressions proper to freemen engaged in defending their rights under principles of equity and justice; yet the researches of Alvord, Abernathy, and others have proved beyond doubt that land companies and individual speculators in land were far from disinterested spectators of this great drama concerning the American West. The Maryland Declaration-"ultimatum" would be a more precise term-avowing that she would never ratify the Articles of Confederation unless Congress were given power to fix the bounds of all states claiming to the Mississippi, and to secure to the several states right in common to all lands westward of the bounds thus fixed, made a significant exception of lands that had been granted to or surveyed for individuals at the beginning of the war-an exception which protected the claims of the great land companies, with some of which, as the Virginia remonstrance pointedly hinted, several of the political leaders of Maryland were associated. The author of the Virginia Remonstrance, George mason, was himself interested in on of the land companies. New York's step was more magnanimous in appearance than in fact; its Act ceding its western lands-lands likewise claimed by Virginia and over which New York had extended scarcely a shadow of control-was expressly for the purpose of creating "a common fund for the expenses of the war," but those who instigated it were also seeking support from states without western lands for New York's case in her current dispute with New Hampshire over Vermont.
p. 635: Ed. Note: Yet, admitting the full force of economic interpretations of the acts reflected in these significant documents, the uncompromising stand taken by Maryland in her eloquent Declaration cannot be explained solely in such terms. The Declaration upon western land claims was also a declaration upon the nature of the Union. Political leaders who were identified with land companies might have found private interest coinciding with public policy as they viewed Maryland's insistence upon the "general welfare" and upon principles of equity and justice, though there were some who advocated adoption of the Articles of Confederation when it appeared to be contrary to their private interest to do so (see St. George L. Sioussat, "The Chevalier de La Luzerne and the Ratification of the Articles of Confederation by Maryland, 1780-1781," PHMB, LX [1936] 391-418,especially the note at p. 406). There were also, undoubtedly, many disinterested persons who viewed with concern the threat of increasing power of a state like Virginia that might, in time, admit the necessity "of dividing its territory and erecting a new State under the auspices and direction of the elder . . . [thus] establishing a Sub-confederacy Imperium in Imperio." Indeed, TJ's proposed Constitution for Virginia of 1776 had made specific provision for what Maryland now prophesied by stating that Virginia's charter limits should stand until the General Assembly should lay off one or more territories west of the Alleghenies, to be "established on the same fundamental laws contained in this instrument, and . . . be free and independant of this colony and of all the world." Such a proviso, had it been adopted, would have confused the nature of the confederacy and have interfered with the constructive measures pertaining to the West, concerning which TJ later had so much to do. Maryland's ultimatum, whatever motives inspired it, forced one of the first and greatest of America's constitutional compromises and laid the groundwork for the Ordinances of 1784 and 1787. The significant fact was not that the private and personal motives were present in the complex issue, but that, when Congress wisely refrained from investigating the charges and countercharges by which one state was impugning another's motives, statesmanship triumphed.
pp. 635-636: Ed. Note: Both the Maryland Declaration (Enclosure I) and the Maryland Instructions (Enclosure II), passed together by the Maryland General Assembly on 15 Dec. 1778, were the product of committee authorship. The Declaration was laid before Congress on 6 Jan. 1779 and prudently deferred (JCC, XIII, 29-30). The Instructions, however, were withheld by the Maryland delegates until the Virginia delegates had taken the step, authorized by their Assembly on 19 Dec. 1778, of proposing the adoption of the Articles with less than thirteen states as signatories (see JHD, Oct. 1778, 1827 edn., p. 124-5; JCC, XIV, 617-18). A motion to this effect was introduced on 20 May 1778, and the next day the Maryland delegation drew forth its Instructions, which were spread upon the Journals. Maryland took the next step by instigating a resolution of Congress on 30 Oct. 1779 (see Huntington's letter to TJ of that date) calling upon Virginia to close its newly reopened land office (see the Act printed above under 8 Jan. 1778), and upon all the states with western claims to yield them only to the general government (JCC, XV, 1226-30). Virginia's rejoinder to this was the Remonstrance (Enclosure III), which was drawn by George Mason. This Remonstrance was laid before Congress on 28 Apr. 1780, but no action was taken upon it (same, XVI, 398). Meanwhile, New York, alarmed by Congress' resolve of 30 Oct. 1779 pointing toward nationalization of the West, adopted her Act of Cession (Enclosure IV), which was read in Congress on 7 Mch.; again no action was taken (JCC, XVI, 236). At last, on 26 June, Congress appointed a committee to consider the Maryland Declaration and Instructions, the Virginia Remonstrance, and the New York Act of Cession. The members chosen were Duane of New York (who had moved that the committee be formed), John Henry of Maryland, Joseph Jones of Virginia, Sherman of Connecticut, and Willie Jones of North Carolina (same, XVII, 559-60). The result of this was the Report (Enclosure V) which was submitted 30 June, debated on 2 Sep., and adopted on 6 Sep. (same, XVII, 580, 802). It should be noted that on 30 June Joseph Jones, a member of the committee, wrote to TJ making observations to the same effect as the report-that states with western claims should, in brief, follow the example of New York in accelerating "the federal alliance."
p. 636: Ed. Note: In consequence of this appeal, Virginia ceded her western claims, with certain provisos, on 2 Jan. 1781 (see TJ to Huntington, 17 Jan. 1781), and Maryland ratified the Articles of Confederation exactly a month later; but this was far from the end of the problem of western claims by the states or of TJ's involvement in that problem. See Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation [Madison], 1940, chs. X-XII; Burnett, Continental Congress, p. 493-501; Brant,Madison, II, ch. VII; Abernathy, Western Lands, p. 238-9, 242-5.
[I will transcribe the enclosures on request.]