Excerpts from The Papers of Thomas Jefferson
Julian P. Boyd, ed. (Princeton, N.J., 1952)
Volume 6: 21 May 1781 to 1 March 1784
18 November 1781 From James Madison (in Philadelphia), pp. 131-132.
p. 131-132: "By the conveyance through which you will receive this the Delegates have communicated to the State the proceedings in Congress to which the
territorial cessions have given birth. The complexion of them will I suppose be somewhat unexpected, and produce no small irritation. They clearly speak the
hostile machinations of some of the States against our territorial claims, and afford suspicions that the predominant temper of Congress may coincide with them.
It is proper to recollect however that the report of the Committee having not yet been taken into consideration no certain influence can be drawn as to its issue,
and that the report itself is not founded on the obnoxious doctrine of an inherent right in the U. States to the territory in question, but on the expediency of
cloaking them with the title of New York which is supposed to be maintainable against all others. It is proper also to be considered that the proceedings of the
Committee, which we laboured in vain to arrest, were vindicated not by the pretext of a jurisdiction belonging to Congress in such cases, but alledged to have
been made necessary by the conditions annexed to the Cession of Virginia. Although the Cession of Virginia will probably be rejected on the whole, I do not
think it probable that all the principles and positions contained in the report of the Committee will be ratified. The Committee was composed of a Member from
Maryland, Pennsylvania, N. Jersey, Rhode Island and N. Hampshire all of which States except the last are systematically and notoriously adverse to the claims of
the Western territory and particularly those of Virginia. The opinion of the Committee is therefore no just index of the opinion of Congress, and as it is a rule
observed since the Confederation was completed, that seven votes are requisite in every question, and there are seldom more than 7. 8. 9. or 10. States present,
and even the opinion of a Majority of Congress is a very different thing from a Constitutional vote. I mention these particulars that you may be the better able to
counteract any intemperate measures that may be urged in the legislature. I do not hesitate to declare my opinion that the State will not only find in the
communications we have made to them ample justification for revoking or at least suspending that Act of Cession, and remonstrating against any interference
with respect to cases within their jurisdiction, but that they ought in all their provisions for their future security, importance and interest to presume that the
present Union will but little survive the present war. I am equally sensible nevertheless of the necessity of great temper and moderation with respect to the first
point, and in the last they ought to be as fully impressed with the necessity of the Union during the war as of its probably dissolution after it. If the State wishes
any particular Steps to be pursued by the Delegates, it would be well for particular instructions to that effect to be given. There will not only be a guide to us, but
will give greater weight to whatever is urged by us."
15 January 1782 From James Madison (in Philadelphia), pp. 147-149.
p. 147: "Your favor of the [ ] day of [ ] written on the eve of your departure from Richmond came safe to hand by the last week's post."
p. 149, Ed. Note: TJ's letter, written just before he left Richmond on 22 Dec., has not been found.
pp. 147-148: "The machinations which have long been practised by interested individuals against this claim [of Virginia's to "Western territory"] are well known to you. The late proceedings within the walls of Congress in consequence of the territorial cessions produced by their recommendations to the States claiming the Western Country were many weeks ago transmitted for the Legislature by a Capt. Irish. By the same conveyance I wrote to you on the subject. We have the mortification to find by your latest letters from Richmond that this gentleman had not at the date of them appeared there. As it is uncertain whether that information may not have totally miscarried it will be proper to repeat to you that the States besides Virga. from which the cessions came were Connecticut and N. York. The cession of the former consisted of all her claim west of N. York as far as the Missippi. That of the latter of all her claims beyond a certain western limit drawn on the occasion. . . . These cessions with that of Virga. and Sundry memorials from the Inda. [Indiana] and other land Companies were referred to a Committee composed of a Member from N.H. R.I. N.J. Pa. and Maryld. The ingredients of this composition prepared us for the complexion of their proceedings. Their first Step was to investigate and discuss the respective titles of the States to the territory ceded. As this was directly in the face of the recommendation of Congress which professed to bury all such discussions and might prejudge future controversies between individual members of the Union, we refused to exhibit any evidence in favor of the title of Va. and endeavoured though in vain to prevail upon Congress to interdict the Committee from proceeding in the enquiry. The next step of the Committee was still more obnoxious. They went fully into a hearing of the Memorialists through their Agents, and received all the evidence adducted in support of their pretensions. On this occasion we renewed our remonstrances to the Committee and our complaints to Congress, but with as little effect as on the first occasion. The upshot of the whole was a report to Congress rejecting the Cessions of Virga. and Connt. and accepting that of N.Y.; disallowing also the claims of the Companies N.W. of the Ohio, but justifying that of the Inda. Compy. The report seems to distrust the doctrine hitherto maintained, of territorial rights being incident to the U.S. Collectively which are not comprehended within any individual State; substituting the expedient of recognizing the title of N.Y. stretching it over the whole country claimed by the other ceding States, and then accepting a transfer of it to the U.S. In this state the business now rests. The report having never been taken into consideration, nor do we wish it should, tillit shall have undergone the consideration of Virga."
pp. 148-149: "In whatever light the policy of this proceeding may be viewed it affords an additional proof of the industry and perseverance with which the territorial rights of Virga. are persecuted and of the necessity of fortifying them with every precaution which their importance demands. As a very obvious and necessary one we long since recommended to the State an accurate and full collection of the documents which relate to the subject. If the arrival of Capt. Irish had taken place before the adjournment of the Assembly and during your stay with it we flattered ourselves that this recommendation would have been attended to and that the task would have fallen on you. As this was not the case we have no hope at present of being enabled from any other sources than the voluntary aids of individuals to contradict even verbally the misrepresentations and calumnies which are daily levelled against the claims of Va. and which cannot fail to prepossess the public with errors injurious at present to her reputation and which may affect a future decision on her rights. Col. Masons industry and kindness has supplied us with some valuable papers and remarks. Mr. Jones has also received from Mr. Pendleton some judicious remarks on the subject. We are still notwithstanding far from possessing a complete view of it. . . . Indeed if you would prevail upon yourself to spare as much time as would survey the whole subject, beginning with the original charter, pursuing it thro' the subsequent charters and other public acts of the crown thro' the Governors of Virga. and referring all the transactions with the Indians which have been drawn into the question, the public utility I am persuaded would sufficiently reward you for the labor."
p. 149: Ed, Note: TJ was elected to serve as a delegate to Congress on 30 Nov. 1781 and resigned the appointment on 19 Dec. (JHD, Oct. 1781, 1828 edn., p.
23, 49). The letter to TJ, together with one to the Governor of Virginia "transmitted . . . by a Capt. Irish," was that of 18 Nov. 1781.
13 March 1782 From Arthur Lee (in Philadelphia), pp. 164-165.
p. 164: "You will see in what state our western Country rests in Congress, by the Extract that I shall subjoin. The report has not been taken up because the Enemy think they shall acquire an accession of strength, by their usual arts, and by the admission of Vermont, as a state. On our part, not being strong enough to give it a final dismission, we can only watch their motions, and act on the defensive. I doubt whether Vermont will be admitted. The publication of the names of all the Adventurers in these land Companies, woud I conceive greatly lessen their influence by showing that they are interested, [Thomas] Jo[hns]on, [Jeremiah Towley] Chase and [Daniel] Carroll, who have committed Maryland into a quarrel with Virginia on this subject, are among them."
p. 165: Ed. Note: Enclosure: "Extract from a report of a Committee (M[ss]rs. [Elias] Boudinott, [Daniel of St. Thomas] Jenifer, [?] Livermore, [?] Smith &
[James Mitchell] Varnum) on the Western Lands, read Nov. 3d. 1781." Although the report was presented on 3 Nov. 1781 it was postponed, and is printed in
the Journals under date of 1 May 1782, when it was considered. The extract enclosed in Lee's letter includes that portion of the report which states the reasons
of the committee for not accepting "the cession proposed to be made by the State of Virginia" or guaranteeing "the tract of country claimed by them in their act
of cession" (JCC, XXII, 227-8).
24 March 1782 To James Madison, pp. 170-171.
pp. 170-171: "I have received from you two several favours on the subject of the designs against the territorial rights of Virginia. I never before could
comprehend on what principle our right to the Western country could be denied which would not at the same time subvert the rights of all the states to the whole
of their territory. What objections may be founded on the Charter of N. York I cannot say, having never seen that charter nor been able to get a copy of it in this
country. I had thought to have seized the first leisure on my return from the last assembly to have considered and stated our right and to have communicated to
our Delegates or perhaps to the public so much as I could trace, and expected to have derived some assistance from antient M.S.S. which I have been able to
collect. These with my other papers and books however had been removed to Augusta to be out of danger from the enemy and have not yet been brought back.
The ground on which I now find the question to be bottomed is so unknown to me that it is out of my power to say any thing on the subject. Should it be
practicable for me to procure a copy of the charter of N.Y. I shall probably think on it, and would cheerfully communicate to you whatever could occur to me
worth your notice. But this will probably be much too late to be of any service before Congress who doubtless will decide ere long on the subject. If I am not
totally deceived in the determination of this country the decision of Congress, if unfavourable, will not close the question. I suppose some people on the Western
waters who are ambitious to be Governors &c. will urge a separation by authority of Congress; but the bulk of the people Westward are already thrown into
great ferment by the report of what is proposed, to which I think they will not submit. This separation is unacceptable to us in form only and not in substance. On
the contrary I may safely say it is desired by the Eastern part of our country whenever their Western brethren shall think themselves able to satnd alone. In the
mean time on the petition of the Western counties a plan is digesting for rendering their access to government more easy."
16 April 1782 From James Madison (in Philadelphia), pp. 176-177.
p. 176: "Your favor of the 24 of March . . . came to hand yesterday."
pp. 176-177: "I intreat that you will not suffer the chance of a speedy and final determination of the territorial question by Congress to affect your purpose of tracing the title of Virga. to her claims. It is in the first place very uncertain when a determination will take place, even if it takes place at all; and in the next it will assuredly not be a final one, unless Virga. means to be passive and silent under aggression on her rights. In every event therefore it is proper to be armed with every argument and document that can vindicate her title. Her adversaries will be either the U. States or N.Y. or both. The former will either claim on the principle that the vacant country is not included in any particular State and consequently falls to the whole, or will cloath themselves with the title of the latter by accepting its cession. In both cases it will be alledged that the Charter of 1609 was annulled by the resumption of it into the hands of the Crown, and that the subsequent grants to Maryland &c. denote this to have been the construction of it; that the Proclamation of 1763 has constituted the Allegheny Ridge the Western limit of Virga. and that the letter of Presidt. Nelson on the subject of a New Colony on the Ohio relinquishes on the part of Virga. all interference with the Authority of the Crown beyond that limit. In case the title of N.Y. should alone be opposed to that of Virginia, it will be further alledged against the latter that the treaties of 1684. 1701. 1726. 1744 and 1754 between the Government of the former and the 6 nations have annexed to it all the Country claimed by those nations and their tributaries, and that the expence of N. York in defending and protecting them ought in equity to be reimbursed by this exclusive advantage. The original title of N.Y. is indeed drawn from the charter to the Duke of York in 1663-4, renewed after the treaty of Westminster in 1674. But this Charter will not I believe reach any territory claimed by Virga.
p. 177: "Much stress will also be laid on the Treaty of Fort Stanwix particularly as a bar to any corroboration of the Claim of Virga. from the Treatys of Lancaster and Loggstown. It is under this Treaty that the companies of Ind[ian]a. and Vandalia shelter their pretensions against the claims of Virga. &c. &c. see the pamphlets entitle "Public good" and "plain facts." As these pretensions can be of no avail unless the Jurisdiction of Congress or N. York at least can be established, they no otherwise deserve notice than as sources of calumny and influence in public councils. In both which respects it is the interest of Virga. that an antidote should be applied."
p. 177: "Mr. Randolph during his stay here was very industrious and successful in his researches into the territorial claims of all the States, and will be able to
furnish you with many valuable hints. Your visit to Richmond in May will give him an opportunity."
30 May 1782 Appointment by the General Assembly of a Committee to Investigate and Publish Findings concerning Virginia's Western Claim, p. 189.
"In the House of Delegates . . . Resolved that a Committee of five to wit George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, Arthur Lee, Edmund Randolph and Thomas Walker
Esquires be appointed and vested with full Powers to collect all Documents and Proofs necessary for establishing the Right of this State to it's Western Territory
as stated by the Act of Government in 1776. To state such a Right and apply the Proofs in Support thereof. That the said Committee or a Major Part of those
who undertake the Business aforesaid be authorized to publish from time to time in part, or in the whole such of their Proceedings as they shall think proper."
26 November 1782 To James Madison, pp. 206-207.
pp. 206-207: "I am honoured with your's of the 14th inst."
p. 207: "I suppose I cannot be in Philadelphia before the 20th. of December, and that possibly it may be the last of that month."
[It may be that TJ and JM discussed the matter of Virginia's claims to western lands so thoroughly when they were together in Philadelphia that they felt no need
to write about it again, because I fond no mention of the subject in the next few letters that passed between them.]
22 April 1783 From James Madison (in Philadelphia), pp. 262-264.
p. Your favor of the 14. inst: written in the Susquehanna with the several letters inclosed were safely delivered to me."
pp. 262-263: "The report on funds &c. passed Congress on Saturday last with the dissent of R. Island and the division of N. York only. The latter vote was lost by the rigid adherence of Mr. Hamilton to a plan which he supposed more perfect. The clause providing for unauthorized expenditures, could not be reinstated, and consequently no attempt was made to link all the parts of the act inseparably together. As it now stands it has I fear no bait for Virga. which is not particularly interested in either the object or mode of the revenues recommended, nor in the territorial cessions, nor in the change of the constitutional rule of dividing the public burdens. A respect for justice, good faith and national honor is the only consideration which can obtain her compliance."
[The editor included no notes with this letter about the cessions.]
6 May 1783 From James Madison (in Philadelphia), pp. 264-265.
p. 264: "Your favor of the 21. Ult. writen at Col: Pendleton's was brought to hand by the post of last week."
p. 265: "Letters from the Marquis de la Fayette and Mr. Carmichael shew that the Court of Spain has become pretty tractable since the acknowledgment of our
Independence by G.B. The latter has been treated with due respect. And the Court has agreed to acceded to the territorial limit fixed for W. Florida in the
provisional Articles. The navigation of the Mississippi remains to be settled."
7 May 1783 To James Madison (from Tuckahoe), pp. 265-267.
pp. 265-266: "I received your favor of Apr. 22. and am not a little concerned at the alterations which took place in the Report on the impost &c. after I left you.
The article which bound the whole together I fear was essential to get the whole passed; as that which proposed the conversion of state into federal debts was
one palatable ingredient at least in the pill we were to swallow. This proposition being then hopeful, I never consulted you whether the paiment of our Western
expenditures, annexed as a condition to our passing the articles recommended, would not be acceded to by Congress, more especially when one of those articles
is the cession of that very territory for the acquisition and defence of which these expenditures have been incurred. If I recollect rightly, Congress offered this in
their first proposition for a cession. I beg your sentiments however on this subject by return of the first post."
17 June 1783 To James Madison, pp. 277-278.
p. 277: "Your favours of the 13th. and 20th. Ult. came to hand about a week ago. . . . My hopes of the success of the Congressional propositions here have lessened exceedingly. Mr. Henry had declared in favor of the impost: but when the question came on he was utterly silent. I understand it will certainly be lost if it be not already. Instead of ceding more lands to the U.S. a proposition is made to revoke the former cession. Mr. Henry is for bounding our state reasonably enough, but instead of ceding the parts lopped off he is for laying them off into small republics. What further his plan is I do not hear."
p. 277: "A Convention for the amendment of our Constitution having been much the topic of conversation for some time, I have turned my thoughts to the
amendments necessary. The result I inclose to you."
May-June, 1783 Jefferson's Proposed Revision of the Virginia Constitution, pp. 278-317.
p. 278: Ed. Note: When Jefferson stopped off in Richmond in May on his way back to Monticello, his discussions with various political figures led him to the conclusion that a convention to revise the Virginia Constitution was imminent. . . . He arrived at Monticello on 15 May 1783 and in the next four weeks had completed the text of [his draft] which he enclosed in his letter to Madison of 17 June. . . . His effort of 1783 produced even less concrete results than had that of 1776. The agitation for revision continued for years, but the Virginia Constitution was not replaced until 1830. Nevertheless, Jefferson's draft of 1783 is a significant document.
pp. 282-283: Madison acknowledged receipt of Jefferson's draft in his letter of 17 July 1783, but without comment. On 15 May 1784 he wrote that he expected to make use of Jefferson's ideas in what he hoped was an imminent revision of the Constitution of 1776. This hope grew out of an agitation that continued from 1783 through 1785 and manifested itself in June 1784 in a petition from Augusta county that "touched on a Reform of Government" (Madison to TJ, 3 July 1784). The members of the House of Delegates favoring revision seized this opportunity to bring the matter up for debate, but Patrick Henry opposed the move and nothing came of it (JHD, May 1784, 1828 edn., p. 55; Madison, Writings, ed. Hunt, II, p. 54, 57-8, 65; Rives, Madison, I, 557-9). Several "Petitions from the Western side of the Blue ridge" later in 1784 called for revision of the Constitution, and Madison thought that the "friends of the undertaking seem to be multiplying rather than decreasing (Madison to TJ, 9. Jan. 1785). Madison, however, did not make active use of Jefferson's draft until 1788 [in connection with the writing of Kentucky's constitution].
p. 298: "The General assembly shall have power to sever from this state all or any part of it's territory Westward of the Ohio or of the meridian of the mouth of
the Great Kanhaway, and to cede to Congress 100 square miles in any other part of this state, exempted from the jurisdiction and government of this state so
long as Congress shall hold their sessions therein or in any territory adjacent thereto which may be ceded to them by any other state."
17 July 1783 From James Madison (in Philadelphia), pp. 318-319.
p. 318: "Your two favors of the 1 and 17 of June, with the debates of Congress . . . in the former, and your amendments to the Constitution inclosed in the latter, have been duly received."
p. 319: "What effect . . . the scanty accomodations of Princeton will have on Congress is uncertain. The prevailing disposition seemed to be that a return to their
former residence as soon as the way should be decently opened would be prudent in order to prevent any inferences abroad of disaffection in the mass of so
important a state to the revolution or the fœderal Government. Others suppose that a freer choice among the seats offered to Congress could be made here than
in a place where the necessity of a speedy removal would give an undue advantage to the seat happening to be in greatest readiness to receive them. The
advocates for Anapolis appear to be sensible of the force of this consideration, and probably will if they can, detain Congress in Princeton until a final choice be
made. N. Jersey will probably be tempted to concur in the plan by the advantage expected from actual possession. Other Members are extremely averse to a
return to Philada. for various reasons."
20 September 1783 From James Madison (in Princeton), pp. 336-339.
p. 336-337: "Your favor of the 31 ult: came to hand yesterday. . . . I have been led to protract my attendance on Congress by the interest I felt in some measures on foot, and the particular interest which my Constituents have in them. Two of these were the territorial cession and the permanent seat of Congress. The former was a few days ago put in a form which I hope will meet the ultimatum of Virginia. The first Monday in next month is fixed for a decision of the latter; after which it may be necessary to choose a temporary residence until the permanent one can be made ready. I am utterly unable to foretell how either of these points will be determined."
[See my note following TJ's 11 November 1783 letter to Benjamin Harrison for the reason why I think the matter of a permanent seat for Congress relates to our
Potomac issue.]
October 1783 James Madison's Notes on a Permanent Seat of Congress, pp. 362-364.
p. 362: "Permanent seat of Congress. . . . Falls of Potowmac-By 1. geographical centrality-2. proximity to western Country already ceded-3. inducement to further cessions from N.C. S.C. and Georgia. 4. remoteness from the influence of any overgrown commercial city."
pp. 363-364: ["Temporary Seat of Congress"] "Annapolis-in favor of it, 1st. its capacity for accomodating Congress and its conveniences for the public business. 2. the soothing tendency of so Southern a position on the temper of the S. States.-Against it, 1st. the preposterousness of taking a temporary station so distant from the permanent seat fixed on, especially as better accomodations were to be passed by at Philada. . . . Besides these considerations it was the opinion of some that a removal of Congress to Annapolis would inspire Maryland with hopes that would prevent a cooperation in favor of George town, and favor the commerce of the State at the expense of Virginia."
p. 361: Ed. Note: Madison's notes, now first printed as his [they were once thought to have been TJ's], summarize the sentiment in Congress reflected in the
votes of 6-8 and 17-21 Oct. before Jefferson took his seat (see JCC, XXV, 647-60, 711-14). Madison himself left Congress soon afterward (his last recorded
vote was on 22 Oct.), and he probably set down this information for the guidance of Jefferson.
25 October 1783 Benjamin Harrison to the Virginia Delegates in Congress, pp. 345-347.
p. 345: "I am much disappointed in not receiving a letter from you by the last post, as we are all anxious to know where Congress means to fix its permanent residence, reports say it is to be in the woods near Princeton or on the delaware a little below Trenton. I think it impossible that either can be true. If I should be mistaken it will fix this state in an opinion that there is a decided majority against the southern states, and that they are not to expect that justice they are entitled to when the interest of the other states shall induce a deviation from it. Tho' great offers were made Congress to remove to us yet I never expected a compliance nor would I have voted for it if not Commended so to do, as the common principles of honor would have forbidden it. Maryland is the central state and there it ought to have been fixed, no great matter in what part of it tho' George town was certainly the most proper."
pp. 345-346, Ed. Note: "Great offers were made Congress to remove to us": On 28 June 1783, the last day of the session, the General Assembly unanimously adopted resolutions offering a "fixed place of residence for Congress" in the following terms: (1) that if Williamsburg should prove "A fit Place," the General Assembly would present "the Palace the Capitol and all the public buildings and three hundred acres of land adjoining the . . . city together with a Sum of money not exceeding one hundred thousand pounds this States Currency to be paid at five annual Installments and to be expended in erecting thirteen Hotels for the Use of the Delegates in Congress"; (2) that the General Assembly would cede a district adjoining Williamsburg not over "five mile square with such exempt Jurisdiction . . . as the inhabitants residing therein shall consent to yield to Congress"; (3) that if Congress preferred "any place on the River Patowmack within this Commonwealth," the General Assembly would offer similar terms governing any place that should be selected, plus the additional purchase of 100 acres of land for erecting such public buildings as Congress might direct to be built; and (4) that if the legislature of Maryland should be willing to join in a cession of territory on the Patomac, the General Assembly would make a cession opposite to that ceded by Maryland, "freely leaving it with Congress to fix their residence on either Side of the said River as they may see proper," but if Congress decided in this event to locate on the north side of the river, then Virginia would "contribute forty thousand pounds for the aforesaid Purposes in full confidence that the State of Maryland will supply the Deficiency" (attested copy of joint resolution in DLC: PCC No. 46, f. 55; . . . see JCC, XXIV, 438, note; JHD, May 1783, 1828 edn., p. 97, 98).
p. 346, Ed. Note: These resolutions also required that the "Governor with Advice of Council . . . make application to the . . . Citizens [of the district five miles square adjoining Williamsburg] and report their assent" to the Virginia delegates in Congress. This Harrison promptly did, apparently without consulting the Council (no reference to this matter appears in MS Va. Council Jour., Vi), by writing to the mayor of Williamsburg to "fall on some mode for obtaining" the sentiments of the inhabitants on the matter of yielding jurisdiction." He added that "the sooner it is done the better as I am convinced from a late Circumstance Congress will not remain long where they now are. The Advantages that will derive to the Inhabitants of the City are so great that I doubt not their giving as ample Jurisdiction as Congress could wish" (Harrison to the mayor of Williamsburg, 4 July 1783, Executive Letter Book, Vi). On the same day Harrison sent the resolutions forward to the delegates in Congress, and exhibited evidence that the offer of Williamsburg was not expected to be accepted, but was apparently made to place Virginia and the Southern states in an advantageous bargaining position: he thought the legislature's "offers are liberal, and I should think if consider'd impartially the latter [i.e., the last] would be accepted, as it will certainly be more central on either side of the Patowmack than at any of the other places proposed" (Harrison to Virginia delegates, 4 July 1783, Executive Letter Book, Vi). [TJ was no longer a delegate, so this letter is not in this collection.] [There follows a long section discussing Williamsburg's rejection of the offer to settle Congress there.]
p. 347: Ed. Note: Two days before the present letter was written [October 23, 1783] Elias Boudinot expressed the fear that "the late maneuvres relating to our erratic residence . . . [would lay] a solid Foundation for future divisions. It [the decision of Congress to have two residences, one at or near Trenton of the Delaware and the other at or near Georgetown on the Potomac; JCC, XXV, 697-715] was not obtained in the most candid and generous way, and was finally accomplished by the most heterogenous Coalition that was in the power of Congress to Form" (Boudinot to Robert Morris, 23 Oct. 1783, Letters of Members, VII, No. 410).
Ed. Note: On the offers of Maryland, New Jersey, and New York, see same, VII, No. 215, note 2; these offers, along with that from Virginia, were transmitted
to the governors of the various states on 22 July 1783 (same, VII, No. 272).
November?, 1783 Notes and Calculations by Jefferson, pp. 364-365.
p. 361: Ed. Note: The further inquiries that Jefferson himself made were no doubt inspired in part at least by Governor Harrison's inquiry of 25 Oct., to which Jefferson replied on 11 Nov. 1783 presenting some of the observations gained from Madison.
p. 365: "[Advantages of Georgetown] Common to Virga. and Maryland[:] 1. Attracting foreigners manufacturers and settlers to the two states of Virga. and Maryland. 2. Attracting commerce to them. 3. Throwing a very large sum of money annually into circulation which will be divided between them. 4. Preferment of their citizens to the federal administration. 5. The advantages of a favourable biass in the Executive officers."
"[Advantages] Peculiar to Virga.[:] 1. The establishment of Alexandria on a par with Baltimore as a secondary place of commerce. 2. Leaving Norfolk in
possession of all the advantages of aprimary emporium."
10 November 1783 To Francis Eppes (from Philadelphia), pp. 349-350.
p. 349: "You will have seen the votes for dividing the residence of Congress between Trenton and Annapolis till accomodations can be provided at Georgetown
which is then to be substituted for Annapolis. This however is not to be considered as an ultimate determination. Trenton alone had been fixed on. The Southern
delegates, extremely dissatisfied with this, contrived after an interval of many days to get a vote for Germantown in the terms you have seen. I rather view this as
unsettling the point which had been previously determined [-torn-] whole matter open for discussi[on -torn-]"
11 November 1783 To Benjamin Harrison (from Philadelphia), pp. 351-353.
pp. 351-352: "Your excellency's letter of the 25th. Ult. on the determination of Congress as to their future residence has been duly received. You would doubtless soon after have heard of their subsequent determination on the same subject. As all this had taken place before my arrival I can give you an account only from thee information of others. Congress, it seems, thought it best to generalize their first determination by putting questions on the several rivers on which it had been proposed that they should fix their residence. Hudson's river, the Delaware and Patowmac were accordingly offered to the vote. The first obtained scarcely any voices; the Delaware obtained seven. This of course put Patowmac out of the way: and the Delaware being once determined on there was scarcely any difference of opinion as to the particular spot. The falls met the approbation of all the states present except Pennsylvania, which was for Germantown [now part of Philadelphia, on the Schuylkill], and Delaware which was for Wilmington. As to the latter it appeared that she had been induced to vote for the Delaware on the single idea of getting Congress to Wilmington, and that being disappointed in this, they would not wish them on that river at all, but would prefer Georgetown or any other place. This being discovered, the southern delegates at a subsequent day brought on a reconsideration of the question, and obtained a determination that Congress should set one half their time at Georgetown and that till accomodations should be pro vided there, Annapolis should be substituted in it's place. This was considered by some as a compromise; by others as only unhinging the first determination and leaving the whole matter open for discussion at some future day. It was in fact a rally, and making a drawn battle of what had first appeared to be decided against us. What will be it's final decision can only be conjectured. I take the following to be the disposition of the several states."
pp. 352-353: [TJ then listed the preferences of the several states about where a permanent site for Congress should be located:] "Maryland is for Annapolis, and to the smallest hope for this will sacrifice a certainty for Georgetown. Virginia. Every place Southward of Patowmac being disregarded by the states as every place North of the Delaware was it would be useless to consider her interests as to more Southern positions. The falls of the Patowmac [Georgetown] will probably therefore unite the wishes of the whole state. If this fails, Annapolis and the falls of Delaware [Trenton] are then the candidates. Were the convenience of the Delegates alone to be considered, or the general convenience to government in their transaction of business with Congress, Annapolis would be preferred without hesitation. But those who respect commercial advantages more than the convenience of individuals will probably think that every position on the bay of Chesapeak or any of it's waters is to be dreaded by Virginia as it mat attract the trade of that bay and make us with respect to Maryland what Delaware state is to Pennsylvania. Considering the residence of Congress therefore as it may influence trade, if we cannot obtain it on the Patowmac it seems to be our interest to bring it past all waters of the Chesapeak bay."
[Jefferson was saying that having the Capitol in Annapolis would tend to draw trade right past Virginia and into Maryland's (probably he was thinking Baltimore's, not Annapolis's) hands, just as trade already flowed right past Delaware to Philadelphia. Therefore, if Georgetown wasn't to be picked for the Capitol, then Virginia should back northern desires to have it located in Trenton, where it wouldn't help rival Maryland. Because this discussion took place before Virginia and Maryland had decided on the meeting that produced the Mount Vernon Compact, we should factor in the decision about the capitol's location with the issues concerning the jurisdiction of the Potomac. The permanent site for the capitol wasn't selected until March 4, 1791, so it remained a factor in Virginia's concerns throughout the period we're dealing with. Note, too, that the capitol would be located at or below the fall line, wherever it ended up, so to the degree that its location was a factor in Virginia and Maryland's thinking during the Mount Vernon Conference it provides another hint that the conference was concerned with the tidewater portion of the Potomac.]
p. 353: "I had the happiness of seeing Genl. Washington the other day after an interval of 7. years. He has more health in his countenance than I ever saw in it
before. Among other political conversations he entered earnestly into one respecting the Western cession of Virginia, and the late vote of Congress accepting it.
He thinks the conditions annexed by Virginia and not acceded to by Congress altogether unimportant, at least much less important than the consequences which
would result from the state's adhering to these conditions. He thinks that a friendly and immediate settling of the matter can alone give us that political happiness
and quiet which we must all wish for."
21 November 1783 From Benjamin Harrison, pp. 357-358.
p. 357: "I am much obliged to you for your favor of the 11th. instant. It very fully explains the views and interests of the several states as to the future residence of Congress, tho' it is to be lamented that either should have any weight against the justice due to the whole confederation, which calls on them to fix on the most central place that can be made convenient which is certainly at or near the falls of Potowmac."
pp. 357-358: "I cannot agree in opinion with those gentlemen who think it impolitic to fix on any other waters of the Chesepeak; if we cannot be gratified in all
our wishes let us come as near them as we can. The fears entertained of Annapolis's drawing to it the trade of this state I think are groundless. Nature never
intended it for a great town and it is in vain to attempt altering what she has determined against. It has no back trade to support it but what must come by
Alexandria or Baltimore where it will certainly stop. A little of our trade has been carried to the latter and it will be the case till we have more opulent merchants
settled amongst us, but I think it will never increase so much as to be detrimental to us in any great degree, yet if I should be mistaken in this I am certain that
tho' Congress should fix at Annapolis both towns will not take more of it than would go to Baltimore alone. Let us now take a short view of the advantages that
would arise to this country by Congress's fixing there rather than on the Delaware. Every part of the lower country would be benefited by it as from it they might
supply all kinds of provisions and grain. Lumber for building and even hay might be furnished from the low lands of Gloster and the shores of the bay. Our back
country would supply horses black cattle sheep and hogs nearly on the same terms they could sell them at, at the falls of the Potowmac, and what is as much to
be considered as any thing else our merchants and the public would have as quick intelligence from thence as they could have in Philadelphia and might avail
themselves of it from their vicinity to the sea much quicker than they could from thence or perhaps from Baltimore. Experience has proved to us that every one
of these advantages would be lost to us by fixing on the Delaware. Philadelphia has been a continual drain to us and will continue to be so if the residence of
Congress is either in it or its neighborhood. It is a vortex that swallows up our wealth and leaves us no prospect of recovering a single shilling."
Nov.-Dec.? 1783 Jefferson's Draft Resolution to Congress, pp. 367-368.
p. 362: Jefferson's belief that nothing would come of [Virginia's] offer [of $100,000 for a place for Congress] led him to make a bold proposal that Virginia join with Maryland in what was nothing more nor less than a gamble-to erect public buildings in the hope that, once available, Congress might decide to use them. This he put in the form of a draft resolution which he intended to have introduced in the General Assembly. If he had matured such a plan by 11 Nov. 1783, he doubtless would have mentioned it to Harrison in his letter of that date. Since he did not do so, it is safe to assume that the proposed resolution was drawn up later. It is possible that he enclosed a copy of it in his letter to Archibald Cary, Speaker of the Senate, 19 Dec. 1783, and that it was the basis of the "proposition on G. town to Delegates of Maryld" mentioned in the SJL [Jefferson's Summary journal of letters] entry which constitutes the only available information about the contents of that letter. It is also possible, of course, that [this document] was drawn up considerably later . . .and that it may belong to the period of the votes of Congress of 14 and 26Apr. 1784 which showed that sentiment in Congress was running strongly against a site on the Potomac (see JCC, XXVI, 223-4). But it is most probable that TJ drew up his bold proposal around Nov.-Dec. 1783.
p. 367: "Resolved that the Governor be desired to propose to the state of Maryland to concur with this Commonwealth in erecting buildings for the immediate accomodation of the Congress of the United states on the lands on Patowmac offered to be ceded to them by these two states, and particularly on such parts of them as they shall have reason to believe will be most agreeable to the Congress. . . ."
"Resolved that three Commissioners be appointed by joint balot of both houses of assembly to act with Commissioners or other persons appointed or to be
appointed on the part of the state of Maryland, who shall have powers to purchase sufficient ground, to agree on the buildings necessary to be erected, to have
them erected without delay, to call for and to apply monies by way of paiment or of advance of the same, to tender the said buildings to Congress for the sole
purpose of their general and of their personal accomodation."
4 December 1783 To George Rogers Clark (from Annapolis), p. 371.
"The cession of the territory West of Ohio to the United states has been at length accepted by Congress with some small alterations of the conditions. We are in
daily expectation of receiving it with the final approbation of Virginia. Congress have been lately agitated by questions where they should fix their residence.
They first resolved on Trentown. The Southern states however contrived to get a vote that they would give half their time to Georgetown at the Falls of
Patowmac. Still we consider the matter as undecided between the Delaware and Patowmac. We urge the latter as the only point of union which can cement us to
our Western friends when they shall be formed into separate states."
10 December 1783 From James Madison, pp. 377-379.
p. 377: "My journey from Annapolis was so much retarded by rains and their effect on the water courses that I did not complete it till the ninth day after I left
you. I took Col. Mason in my way and had an evening's conversation with him. I found him much less opposed to the general impost than I had expected. . . . He
seemed upon the whole to acquiesce in the territorial cession but dwelt much on the expediency of the guaranty. On the article of a convention for revising our
form of government he was sound and ripe and I think would not decline a participation in the work. His heterodoxy lay chiefly in being too little impressed with
either the necessity or the proper means of preserving the confederacy. [Madison and Mason were talking about the federal government, not Virginia's.]
11 December 1783 To James Madison (from Annapolis), pp. 381-382.
p. 381: "You have seen G.M. [George Mason] I hope and had much conversation with him. What are his sentiments as to the amendment of our [federal, not
Virginia,] constitution?"
19 December 1783 To the Speaker of the Senate, pp. 391-392.
Ed. Note: Letter and enclosure not found, but see TJ's letter to Benjamin Harrison, 17 Dec. 1783, and note. The phrase "proposition on G. town" (i.e.,
Georgetown) clearly refers to a proposal TJ, presumably with other members of the Virginia delegation, must have made to the Maryland delegates in Congress;
nothing further is known of this, but it probably involved TJ's resolution for joint action by Virginia and Maryland to fix the seat of Congress on the Potomac
(see Document V in Notes and Memoranda by Madison and TJ, printed above at end of Nov. 1783).]
26 December 1783 Benjamin Harrison to the Virginia Delegates in Congress (incl. TJ), pp. 420-421.
p. 420: "You have enclosed . . . the acts empowering Congress to levy an impost, and empowering the delegates to convey to Congress the claim of this State to the country north westward of the river Ohio, which several acts you will please to lay before Congress."
p. 421: Ed. Note: The Acts on the impost, the cession of northwestern territory, and the admission of immigrants are found in Hening, XI, 322-4, 326-8, and 350-2.
20 February 1784 To James Madison (from Annapolis), pp. 544-551.
p. 546: "I have no doubt from some conversations with him [one Lee: but which one?] that there is a design agitating to sever the Northern Neck [of Virginia] and add it to this state [Maryland]. He supported in conversation with me the propriety and necessity of such a general measure, to wit of enlarging the small states to interest them in the union. He deserves to be well watched in our state [Virginia]. He is extremely soured with it and is not cautious in betraying his hostility against it."
pp. 546-547: "Georgetown languishes. The smile is hardly covered now when the federal towns are spoken of. I fear that our chance is at this time desperate. Our object therefore must be if we fail in an effort to remove to Georgetown, to endeavor then to get some place off the waters of the Chesapeak where we may be ensured against Congress considering themselves as fixed. My present expectations are, that as soon as we get a Congress to do business, we shall attend to nothing but the most pressing matters, get through them and adjourn, not to meet again till November, leaving a Committee of the states. That Committee will be obliged to go immediately to Philadelphia to examine the offices and of course they will set there till the meeting in November. Whether that meeting will be in Philad. or Trenton will be the question and will in my opinion depend on the vote of New York. Did not you once suppose in conversation with me that Congress had no authority to decide any cases between two different states, except those of disputed territory? I think you did. If I am not mistaken in this I should wish to know your sense of the words which describe those cases which may be submitted to a federal court. They seem to me to comprehend every cause of difference."
p. 547: "We have received the act of our assembly ceding the lands North of Ohio and are about executing a deed for it. I think the territory will be laid out by passing a meridian through the Western cape of the Mouth of the Gr. Kanhaway from the Ohio to L. Erie [and so on]. . . . We hope N. Carola. will cede all beyond the same meridian of Kanhaway, and Virginia also. For god's sake push this at the next session of assembly. We have transmitted a copy of a petition from the people of Kentucky to Congress praying to be separated from Virginia. Congress took no notice of it. We sent the copy to the Governor desiring it to be laid before the assembly. Our view was to bring on the question. It is for the interest of Virginia to cede so far immediately; because the people beyond that will separate themselves, because they will be joined by all our settlements beyond the Alleghaney if they are the first movers. Whereas if we draw the line those at Kentucky having their end will not interest themselves for the people of Indiana, Greenbriar &c. who will of course be left to our management, and I can with certainty almost say that Congress would approve of the meridian of the mouth of the Kanhaway and consider it as the ultimate point to be desired from Virginia. . . . Should we not be the first movers, and the Indianians and Kentuckians take themselves off and claim to the Alleghaney I am afraid Congress would secretly wish them well.
[Jefferson is saying that Virginia should immediately cede their claims to land west of the Kanhaway River's confluence with the Ohio (in present-day West Virginia) or else the Kentuckians will petition for statehood, and draw in all those settlers east of the Kanhaway but west of the Allegheny River (in present-day Pennsylvania), taking from Virginia a much larger chunk of land than it would lose if it were to cede what Jefferson recommends. Jefferson then enumerates seven other reasons why Virginia should claim to the Kanhaway meridian, including these final three:]
p. 548: "5. Because the Kanhaway is capable of being made navigable, and therefore gives entrance into the Western waters to every part of our latitude. 6.
Because it is not now navigable and can only be made so by expensive works, which require that we should own the soil on both sides. 7. Because the Ohio, and
it's branches which head up against the Patowmac affords the shortest water communication by 500 miles of any which can ever be got between the Western
waters and Atlantic, and of course promises us almost a monopoly of the Western and Indian trade. I think the opening this navigation is an object on which no
time is to be lost. Pennsylva. is attending to the Western commerce. She has had surveys made of the river Susquehanna and of the grounds thro' which a canal
must pass to go directly to Philadelphia. It is reported practicable at an expence of £200,000 and they have determined to open it. What an example this is! If we
do not push this matter immediately they will be beforehand with us and get possession of the commerce. And it is difficult to turn from a channel in which it is
once established. Could not our assembly be induced to lay a particular tax which should bring in 5. or 10,000£ a year to be applied till the navigation of the Ohio
and Patowmac is opened, then James river and so on through the whole successively. Genl. Washington has that of the Patowmac much at heart. The
superintendance of it would be a noble amusement in his retirement and leave a monument of him as long as the waters should flow. I am of opinion he would
accept of the direction as long as the money should be to be emploied on the Patowmac, and the popularity of his name would carry it thro' the assembly."
20 February 1784 Benjamin Harrison to the Virginia Delegates (incl. TJ), p. 551.
"The act of cession of the back country to Congress was sent to the post office the 26th. day of December with a long letter from me since which I have
forwarded all the acts of the last cession, but lest neither of them should reach You I send duplicates of them both."
[1 March 1784] The Virginia Cession of Territory Northwest of the Ohio, pp. 571-580.
[I mention this section because of the extensive editorial notes that precede the documents. I don't think there is anything very germane to the Potomac, though.]
Appendix III: Virginia's Claim to Western Territory, pp. 647-668.
[This appendix consists of three possible Jeffersonian documents, the "Vindication of Virginia's Claim Against the Proposed Colony of Vandalia,"written ca. 1773-1774, the "Outline and Preamble of Argument on Virginia's Claim," [1782], and the very brief "Preamble to a State of the Case," [1782-1783], along with 9 pages of editorial notes. If we get involved with a discussion of Virginia's western claims, this section might prove useful. I saw no references to Virginia's claim along the Potomac, although there is some discussion of Virginia's early grants.]