Excerpts from The Papers of Thomas Jefferson

Julian P. Boyd, ed. (Princeton, N.J., 1950-1953)

Volume 1: 1760 to 1776

[Bef. 13 June 1776]	First Draft of the Virginia Constitution by Jefferson, pp. 337-347.

[There was no mention in this draft of ceding to any other colonies the lands they had been granted in conflict with Virginia's grant.]

[Bef. 13 June 1776]	Second Draft of the Virginia Constitution by Jefferson, pp. 347-355.

pp. 352-353: "The territories <describe> contained within the charters erecting the colonies of Maryland Pennsylvania, North & South Carolina are hereby <f> ceded <&> released and for ever confirmed to the people of those <pro> colonies respectively with all the rights of <jurisdiction and> property, jurisdiction <&> and government, and all other rights whatsoever <claimed . . .> which might at any time heretofore have been claimed by this colony. The Western and Northern extent of this country shall in all other respects stand as <described> fixed by the Charter of [left blank] until by act of the Legislature <any new> <a territory or> one or more territories shall be laid off westward of the Alleganey mountains for <any> <the establishment of> new <colony or> colonies, which <colony or> colonies <when established shall be free & independent of this & shall> shall be established on the same fundamental laws contained in this instrument & shall be free & independent of this colony and of all the world."

[Bef. 13 June 1776]	Third Draft of the Virginia Constitution by Jefferson, pp. 356-365.

pp. 362-363: "The territories contained within the charters erecting the colonies of Maryland Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina, are hereby ceded, released, & for ever confirmed to the people of those colonies respectively, with all the rights of property, jurisdiction and government and all other rights whatsoever which might at any time heretofore have been claimed by this colony. the Western and Northern extent of this country shall in all other respects stand as fixed by the Charter of [left blank] until by act of the Legislature one or more territories shall be laid off Westward of the Alleghaney mountains for new colonies, which colonies shall be established on the same fundamental laws contained in this instrument, and shall be free and independent of this colony and of all the world."

[29 June 1776]	The Virginia Constitution as Adopted by the Convention, pp. 377-
386.

p. 383: "The territories contained within the Charters erecting the Colonies of Maryland, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina, are hereby ceded, released, and forever confirmed to the People of those Colonies respectively, with all rights of property, jurisdiction, and Government, and all other rights whatsoever which might at any time heretofore have been claimed by Virginia, except the free Navigation and use of the Rivers Potowmack and Pohomoke, with the property of the Virginia Shores or strands bordering on either of the said Rivers, and all improvements which have or shall be made thereon. The western and northern extent of Virginia shall in all other respects stand as fixed by the Charter of King James the first, in the Year one thousand six hundred and nine, and by the publick Treaty of Peace between the Courts of Great Britain and France in the year one thousand seven hundred and sixty three; Unless by act of this legislature, one or more Territories shall be laid off, and Governments established Westward of the Allegheny Mountains."

p. 385, Ed. Note: This paragraph was copied from TJ's Draft, almost literally, except for the following major differences: (1) the addition of the reservation of free navigation of the Potomac and Pohomoke; and (2) the elimination of the requirement that western territories should be established on "the same fundamental laws contained in this instrument, and . . . be free and independent of this colony and of all the world." This, stated T. P. Abernathy, who does not identify it as TJ's contribution to the Constitution, "was the first sweeping assertion by Virginia of her right to jurisdiction over all the land remaining within the boundaries fixed by the charter of 1609" (Abernathy, Western Lands, p. 148, where its effect on the strategy of the Inidiana Company and the Articles of Confederation are also indicated).

[Note that, although Jefferson originated the idea of Virginia's cession of contested territory, he probably was not the one who thought to reserve the navigation of the Potomac and Pokomoke, because he owned no western lands and did not live along the Potomac.]

[5 Nov 1776]	Memoranda on the Va., Pa., and Md. Boundaries, pp. 594-597.

pp. 595-596: "Maryland charter dated 8 Car. 1, June 20. . . . 'passing from the aforesaid bay called Delaware bay . . . unto the true meridian of the first fountain of the river Puttowmack, and from thence tending toward the South unto the further bank of the aforesaid river and following the West and South side thereof unto a certain place called Cinquack, situate near the mouth of the said river. . . .'"

p. 596, Ed. Note: These memoranda were set down at several different times, doubtless over a period of years.

Volume 2: 1777 to 18 June 1779

25 Aug 1777	Richard Henry Lee (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 29-32.

p. 31: "The Confederation goes on but slowly, occasioned by the immensity of business created by the war. But I find our right to our Charter bounds, as stated by our Act of Government will be strongly contested. The Charter of 1609 it is said has been vacated, and that no transfer of that Charter can be shewn from the Company to the people of Virginia. That therefore the ungranted lands were the property of the Crown, and being taken from it by common exertions, must become common Stock. Will you be so kind as [to] favor me with your reasons and authorities in support of our right?"

[19 Nov 1777]	Notes and Documents relating to the Transylvania and Other Claims, pp. 64-66.

p. 65, Ed. Note: "On 4 July 1776 the Virginia Convention appointed William Russell, Arthur Campbell, Thomas Madison, Edmund Winston, John Bowyer, John May, Samuel McDowel, John Harvie, Abraham Hite, Charles Simms, James Wood, Hugh Innes, Paul Carrington, Bennett Goode, and Joseph Speed as commissioners to collect evidence in behalf of the government "against the several persons pretending to Claim Lands within the Territory and limits of Virginia, under Deeds and purchases from the Indians. . . ." (Conv. Jour., May 1776, 1816 edn., p. 83-4).

1776-1786	The Revisal of the Laws, pp. 303-665.

p. 305, Ed. Note: It is an extremely difficult task to bring into proper focus, to say nothing of fully encompassing, the far-reaching revision of the laws that Jefferson and other leading Virginians embarked upon in the autumn of 1776. This is chiefly because the revision of the laws itself never came into focus. It was a long-drawn-out movement, ending in something of an anti-climax, and never became embodied in a single enactment as in the case of earlier or later revisions in Virginia and other states. . . . [The purpose of the revisal] was not that of forming a collection of laws then in force but of reforming the entire structure of law so as to strip it of all vestiges of its earlier monarchical aspects and to bring it into conformity with republican principles. . . . Jefferson, Pendleton, Wythe, Mason and others apparently never entertained the idea of making a mere collection of laws. Certainly Jefferson never did. The failure of the Virginia Convention of 1776 to adopt his proposed Constitution undoubtedly emphasized the need he felt for reform of the laws.

p. 313, Ed. Note: There can be no doubt that Jefferson was nominally and actually the leading figure in the revisal. [The commissioners were Jefferson, Edmund Pendleton, George Wythe, George Mason, and Thomas Ludwell Lee, Esquires. Mason resigned in short order, as did Lee, who soon died. (p. 314-315).]

pp. 454-463: "47. A Bill for Establishing Public Ferries"

p. 454: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that ferries be constantly kept, at the places hereafter mentioned at the rates annexed to each ferry; that is to say."

"Over the BAY of CHESAPEAK."

[There follows a list of 32 ferries, 17 of which cross over to Maryland. Although the list mentions the Potomac River only once ("From the land of Abraham Shepherd, in the county of Berkely, over Potowmack, to the land of Thomas Swearingen in Maryland), it is clear from the descriptions (e. g., "From Mason's, opposite to Rock creek, over to Maryland") that many, if not most, of the ferries listed in this section cross the Potomac, and not the bay itself. Later sections of the bill describe about 130 other ferries that cross Virginia's internal rivers.]

p. 461: "And that ferries be kept, opposite to all the places hereby appointed, across the rivers Rappahannock, Piankatank, York, James and Nottoway below the falls thereof; and the several county courts are impowered to appoint opposite ferries, where they shall judge it necessary, at all other places herein appointed, above the falls of the said rivers, or across any branches thereof; also on such parts of the rivers Potowmack and Roanoake, or their branches, as have places hereby established for ferries, where both sides are within this commonwealth. . . . And for the transportation of wheel carriages, tobacco, or live stocks, at either of the ferries hereby, or hereafter established; the ferry keepers may respectively demand the rates following, to wit: [list].

p. 463: Ed. Note: Bill presented by Madison 31Oct. 1785; it was read the first and second times the same day. No further action was taken on it. This Bill was a modification and restatement of the Act of 1748 for the settlement and regulation of ferries and for dispatch of public expresses (Hening, VI, 13-23). It apparently included all of the public ferries established by the General Assembly up to the time the Committee of Revisors reported, together with general regulations concerning ferries and ferry-keepers as based on the Act of 1748. But, instead of acting on this Bill, the House passed another which was limited merely to the authorization of new ferries not already established; most of these were on the Kentucky and Ohio rivers and other "western waters" (JHD, Oct. 1785, 1828 edn., p. 12-15, 116, 119, 122, 125, 128, 144; the Act for establishing several new ferries is in Hening, XII, 83-4).

pp. 464-467: "48. A Bill concerning Mill dams and Other Obstructions of Water Courses"

p. 464: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that when any person owning lands on one side of any watercourse the bed whereof belongeth to himself, or to the commonwealth, and desiring to build a water grist mill on such lands, and to erect a dam across the same, for working the said mill, shall not himself have the fee simple property in the lands on the opposite side thereof, against which he would abutt his said dam, he shall make application for a writ of ad quom damnum to the court of the county wherein the lands proposed for the abuttment are, having given ten days notice to the proprietor thereof . . ."

p. 466: "Where the owner of any mill, now standing or licensed to be built, hath by any act of Assembly been compelled to make locks, slopes, or openings for navigation or the passage of fish, the same shall be continued under the conditions imposed by such an act, and shall be deemed sufficient in law as long as the dam now standing or building shall remain: But it shall not be lawful to rebuild such a dam in future but on enquiry by jury into obstructions of fish and navigation and the means of preventing the same, and the final order of the court, to be applied for and conducted in the manner before directed in other cases."

"It shall not be lawful for any person to erect, or fix, in any watercourse, any dam, hedge, weir, seine, drag, or other stoppage whereby navigation, or the passage of fish, may be obstructed, save only for the purpose of working some machine or engine useful to the public, in which cases the same proceedings shall be had, as are before directed, in the case of a water grist mill, or for the purpose of a water grist mill before provided for. . . ."

pp. 466-467: "The bed of all tide waters within the low water mark shall be vested in the commonwealth, and shall not be granted to any, except such part thereof as shall be capable of being reclaimed from the water, and shall actually be reclaimed by the grantee within three years after the passing of this act; in all cases of grants heretofore made. and in all cases of future grants within three years after the date thereof. And the channel of all other watercourses, capable of being navigated by any loaded craft, great or small, shall be open to the citizens of this commonwealth, for the purpose of navigation, notwithstanding the bed thereof shall have been granted to any." [Ed. Note: This paragraph is not in the Act as adopted.]

p. 467, Ed. Note: Bill presented by Madison 31 Oct. 1785, amended and passed by House 29 Nov. and 1 Dec., approved by Senate 5 Dec. (JHD, Oct. 1785, 1828 edn., p. 12-15, 54, 64, 68, 71, 132). Text of Act as adopted agrees with Bill as proposed except for the difference indicated . . . and for the addition of a final clause putting the Act into effect 1 Jan. 1787. See the 1748 Act concerning water mills (Hening, VI, 55-60).

pp. 467-468: "49. A Bill for Unlading Ballast and Burial of dead Bodies from on Board Ships"

p. 467: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that the court of every county, adjacent to any navigable river or creek, shall from time to time, as vacancies happen, appoint one or more ballast masters, residing near to the places where vessels usually ride in such a river or creek, to be overseers and directors of the delivery and unloading of ballast from on board any ship or vessel within a certain district, to be by them ascertained. . . . That ballast is to be . . . brought on shore and laid at some convenient place near the vessel, where it may not obstruct navigation nor be washed into the channel; . . ."

p. 468, Ed. Note: Bill was presented by Madison 31 Oct. 1785, amended 29 Nov., and passed by House 1 Dec.; amended by Senate 16 Dec.; Senate amendment agreed by House 19 Dec. (JHD, Oct. 1785, 1828 edn., p. 12-15, 54, 64, 68, 95, 98, 133).

pp. 468-470: "50. A Bill concerning Public Store-Houses"

p. 468: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that the courts of the respective counties, situate upon any navigable river or creek, may appoint any place or places within the county, which to them shall appear convenient or necessary, for the lading and unlading of goods or merchandise, which, together with such as have been heretofore so appointed shall be deemed public landings: . . ."

p. 469: "The proprietor shall constantly keep and maintain such store-house in repair, for the reception of all goods and merchandise brought to the same, and shall be entitled to the following rates and prices of storage, . . . that is to say; for every hogshead of tobacco brought to a store-
house, above the falls of any river, eight pence; [etc.]

[I quote this passage, because it suggests that storehouses would not be built below the fall lines.]

Volume 3: 18 June 1779 to 30 September 1780

25 Nov 1779	Joseph Reed (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, 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 Nov 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 Jan 1780	James Mercer (in Fredericksburg) to Thomas Jefferson, 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 Jan 1780	Thomas Jefferson (in Williamsburg) to David Shepherd, 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 Feb 1780	Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Huntington (in Philadelphia), pp. 286-
289.

[More on the Pa.-Va. boundary dispute.]

30 June 1780	Joseph Jones (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, 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 Sep 1780	Samuel Huntington (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, 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.]

Volume 4: 1 October 1780 to 24 February 1781

22 Nov 1780	Theodorick Bland (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 136-138.

p. 137: "We think it a duty we owe to our Constituents to call their attention to a revision of our former instructions relative to the Navigation of the Missisipi that, Should any overtures from Spain be offerd which are advantageous to the United States, and which might contribute not only to releive our present necessities, but promise us peace and a firm establishment of our Independence, it might not be considerd as an object that would counterbalance the distant prospect of a free Navigation of that River, with Stipulated ports, which may perhaps under another form or at some more convenient opportunity be obtaind from that Nation in behalf of our Citizens settled on its Bankes and Waters. Having Shewn the above to my Colleague Mr. Madison, he has thought it unnecessary to Join in that Part of it relating to our Instructions on the Subject of the Navigation of the Missisipi. I am sorry to say that notwithstanding the high Idea I entertain of that Gentlemans good sense, Judgment and Candor; I feel myself, irrisistably impelld by a Sense of my duty, to State a Matter and to communicate it through the Proper Channel which may eventually affect so greatly the Prosperity and mere existence of the United States at large. . . ."

13 Dec 1780	The Virginia Delegates in Congress (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 203-4.

p. 203: "The complexion of the intelligence received of late from Spain, with the manner of thinking which begins to prevail in Congress with regard to the claims to the navigation of the Mississippi, makes it our duty to apply to our constituents for their precise full and ultimate sense on this point. If Spain should make a relinquishment of the navigation of that river on the part of the United States an indispensable condition of an alliance with them, and the State of Virginia should adhere to their former determination to insist on the right of navigation, their delegates ought to be so instructed mot only for their own satisfaction, but that they may the more effectually obviate arguments drawn from a supposition that the change of circumstances which has taken place since the former instructions were given may have changed the opinion of Virginia with regard to the object of them. If on the other side any such change of opinion should have happened, and it is now the sense of the State that an Alliance with Spain ought to be purchased even at the price of such a cession if it cannot be obtained on better terms it is evidently necessary that we should be authorized to concur in it. It will also be expedient for the Legislature to instruct us in the most explicit terms whether any and what extent of the territory on the East side of the Mississippi and within the limits of Virginia, is in any event to be yielded to Spain as the price of an Alliance with her. Lastly it is our earnest wish to know what steps it is the pleasure of our Constituents we should take in case we should be instructed in no event to concede the claims of Virginia either to territory or to the navigation of the abovementioned river and Congress should without their concurrence agree to such concession. . . . [signed] James Madison Junr., Theok: Bland"

18 Jan 1781	Thomas Jefferson (in Richmond) to the Virginia Delegates in Congress, pp. 398-400.

p. 398: "I inclose you a resolution of Assembly directing your Conduct as to the navigation of the Missisippi."

p. 400, Ed. Note: For the delegates' request for instructions respecting the navigation of the Mississippi, see Virginia Delegates to TJ, 13Dec. and TJ to Benjamin Harrison, 25 Dec. 1780; see also JHD, Oct. 1780, 1827 edn., p.68, 79, 80-1.

Volume 5: 25 February 1781 to 20 May 1781

[There is nothing in this volume of interest to our case, except several letters concerning the boundary with Pennsylvania.]

Volume 6: 21 May 1781 to 1 March 1784

18 Nov 1781	James Madison (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, 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 Jan 1782	James Madison (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, 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 Mar 1782	Arthur Lee (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, 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 Mar 1782	Thomas Jefferson 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 Apr 1782	James Madison (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, 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 Nov 1782	Thomas Jefferson 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 Apr 1783	James Madison (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 262-264.

p. 262: 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	James Madison (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, 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	Thomas Jefferson (in Tuckahoe) to James Madison, 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	Thomas Jefferson 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	James Madison (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, 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 Sept 1783	James Madison (in Princeton) to Thomas Jefferson, 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 Oct 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 Nov 1783	Thomas Jefferson (in Philadelphia) to Francis Eppes, 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 Nov 1783	Thomas Jefferson (in Philadelphia) to Benjamin Harrison, 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 Nov 1783	Benjamin Harrison to Thomas Jefferson, 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 Dec 1783	Thomas Jefferson (in Annapolis) to George Rogers Clark, 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 Dec 1783	James Madisonto Thomas Jefferson, 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 Dec 1783	Thomas Jefferson (in Annapolis) to James Madison, 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 Dec 1783	Thomas Jefferson 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 Dec 1783	Benjamin Harrison to the Virginia Delegates in Congress (including Thomas Jefferson), 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 Feb 1784	Thomas Jefferson 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 Feb 1784	Benjamin Harrison to the Virginia Delegates (including Thomas Jefferson), 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 Mar 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.]

Volume 7: 2 March 1784 to 25 February 1785

3 Mar 1784	Thomas Jefferson (in Annapolis) to Benjamin Harrison, pp. 4-7.

p. 6: "The movements of the K. of Prussia to emancipate the navigation of the Vistula, and of the emperor to free that of the Scheld do not I beleive threaten the peace of Europe. . . . This assertion then of the natural right of the inhabitants of the upper part of a river to innocent oassage through the country below is rather pleasing to us. It tends to establish a principle favourable to our right of navigating the Missisipi."

6 Mar 1784	Thomas Jefferson (in Annapolis) to George Washington, pp. 15-16.

p. 15: "Your favor of the 3d. is this moment put into my hands. . . ."

p. 16: "The present hurry forbids me to write you on a subject I have much at heart, the approaching and opening the navigation of the Ohio and Patowmac. I will trouble you by the next post."

15 March 1784	Thomas Jefferson (in Annapolis) to George Washington, pp. 25-28.

pp. 25-27: "The deed for the cession of Western territory by Virginia was executed and accepted on the 1st. instant. I hope our country [i.e., Virginia] will of herself determine to cede still further to the meridian of the mouth of the Great Kanhaway. Further she cannot govern; so far is necessary for her own well being. The reasons which call for this boundary (which will retain all the waters of the Kanhaway) are [six reasons follow, then] 7. It will preserve to us all the upper parts of Yohogany and Cheat rivers within which much will be done to open these which are the true doors to the Western commerce. The union of this navigation with that of the Patowmac is a subject on which I mentioned that I would take the liberty of writing to you. I am sure it's value and practicability are both well known to you. This is the moment however for seizing it if we ever mean to have it. All the world is becoming commercial. . . . We must then in our own defence endeavor to share as large a portion as we can of this modern source of wealth and power. That offered to us from the Western country is under a competition between the Hudson, the Patomac and the Missisipi itself. Down the last will pass all heavy commodities. But the navigation through the Gulf of Mexico is so dangerous, and that up the Missisipi so difficult and tedious, that it is not probable that European merchandize will return through that channel. . . . There will therefore be a rivalship between the Hudson and Patowmac for the residue of the commerce of all the country Westward of L. Erie, on the waters of the lakes, of the Ohio and upper parts of the Missisipi. . . . to proceed on to N. York will be 970 miles from thence [the Cayahoga] and five portages, whereas it is but 430. miles to Alexandria, if it turns into the Cayahoga [etc.] . . . Nature then has declared in favour of the Patowmac, and through that channel offers to pour into our lap the whole commerce of the Western world. But unfortunately the channel by the Hudson is already opened. . . . I have lately pressed this subject on my friends in the General assembly, proposing to them to endeavor to have a tax laid . . . to be employed first in opening the upper waters of the Ohio and Patowmac, where a little money and time will do a great deal, leaving the great falls for the last part of the work. . . . But a most powerful objection always arises to propositions of this kind. It is that public undertakings are carelessly managed and much money is spent to little purpose. To obviate this objection is the purpose of my giving you the trouble of this discussion. You have retired from public life. . . . I am confident that would you either alone or jointly with any persons you think proper be willing to direct this business, it would remove the only objection the weight of which I apprehend. . . . When you view me as not owning, nor ever having a prospect of owning one inch of land on any water either of the Patowmac or Ohio, it will tend to apologize for the trouble I have given you of this long letter, by shewing that my zeal in this business is public and pure."

16 Mar 1784	James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 32-40.

p. 32: "Your favour of the 20. Ult. [Feb.] came duly to hand a few days ago."

pp. 35: "I am not sure that I comprehend your idea of a cession of the territory beyond the Kanhaway and on this side [of] the Ohio. As all the soil of value has been granted out to individuals a cession in that view would be improper, and a cession of the jurisdiction to Congress can be proper only where the country is vacant of settlers. I presume your meaning therefore to be no more than a separation of that country from this, and an incorporation of it into the Union; a work to which all three must be parties. I have no reason to believe there will be any repugnance on the part of Virga. The effort of Pena. for the western commerce does credit to her public Councils. The commercial genius of this State is too much in its infancy I fear to rival the example. Were this less the case, the confusion in its affairs must stifle all enterprize. I shall be better able however to judge of the practicability of your hint when I know more of them. The declension of George Town does not surprize me tho' it gives me great regret. If the competition should lie between Trenton and Philada. and depend on the vote of New York it is not difficult to foresee into which scale it will be thrown, nor the probable effect of such decision on our Southern hopes."

pp. 36-37: "The Charter granted in 1732 [1632] to Lord Baltimore makes, if I mistake not, the Southern Shore of the Potowmac the boundary of Maryland on that side. The constitution of Virginia cedes to that State 'all the territories contained within its charter with all the rights of property, jurisdiction and Government and all other rights whatsoever, which might at any time have been claimed by Virginia, excepting only the free navigation and use of the Rivers Potowmac and Pokomaque &c.' Is it not to be apprehended that this language will be constructed into an entire relinquishment of the Jurisdiction of these rivers, and will not such a construction be fatal to our port regulations on that side and otherwise highly inconvenient? I was told on my journey along the Potowmac of several flagrant evasions which had been practised with impunity and success, by foreign vessels which had loaded at Alexandria. The jurisdiction of half the rivers ought to have been expressly reserved. The terms of surrender are the more extraordinary, as the patents of the N. Neck place the whole river potowmac within the Government of Virginia; so that we were armed with a title both of prior and posterior date, to that of Maryland. What will be the best course to repair the error?–to extend our laws upon the River, making Maryland the plaintiff if she chooses to contest their authority–to state the case to her at once and propose a settlement by negociation–or to propose a mutual appointment of Commissioners for the general purpose of preserving a harmony and efficacy in the regulations of both sides. The last mode squares best with my present ideas. It can give no irritation to Maryld. It can weaken no plea of Virga. It will give Maryland an opportunity of stirring the question if she chooses, and will not be fruitless if Maryland should admit our jurisdiction. If I see the subject in its true light no time should be lost in fixing the interest of Virginia. The good humour into which the cession of the back lands must have put Maryland forms an apt crisis for any negociation which may be necessary. You will be able probably to look into her charter and her laws, and to collect the leading sentiments relative to the matter."

p. 39, Ed. Note: Madison probably did not know that TJ himself was the author of the provisions in the Virginia Constitution of 1776 which confirmed the territories and jurisdiction granted by charter to Maryland, Pennsylvania, and North and South Carolina, except for the reservation of navigation rights (see Vol. 1: 383, 385, note 19). These terms of the surrender (an "error" as Madison regarded them) were ultimately confirmed by arbitration and approved by Congress a century later when the Maryland-Virginia boundary in the Potomac was fixed at the south or right bank at low water; the grant to Baltimore included the Potomac river to high water on the south shore, but the United States Supreme Court in Maryland v. West Virginia, 217 U.S. 577-80, found that "the evidence is sufficient to show that Virginia, from the earliest period of her history, used the South bank of the Potomac as if the soil to the low water mark had been her own." See TJ to Madison, 25 Apr. 1784, and also Paullin, Atlas of the Historical Geography of the United States, Plate 100D. An immediate result of Madison's concern was a Virginia-Maryland conference at Mount Vernon in 1785 which, in turn, led to the Annapolis Convention of 1786 (Washington, Writings, ed. Fitzpatrick, XXVII, 375; Brant, Madison, II, 375ff.).

29 Mar 1784	George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 49-53.

p. 49: "It was not in my power to answer your favor of the 15th. by the last post for the reason then assigned. I wish I may be able to do it to your satisfaction now."

p. 49: "My opinion coincides perfectly with yours respecting the practicability of an easy and short communication between the waters of the Ohio and the Potomack, of the advantages of that communication and the preference it has over all others, and of the policy there would be in this state, and Maryland, to adopt and render it facile. But I confess to you freely, I have no expectation that the public will adopt the measure; for besides the jealousies which prevail, and the difficulty of proportioning such funds as may be allotted for the purposes you have mentioned, there are two others, which in my opinion, will be yet harder to surmount. These are (if I have not imbibed too unfavourable an opinion of my Countrymen) the impracticability of bringing the great and truly wise policy of this measure to their view, and the difficulty of drawing money from them for such a purpose if you could do it. . . ."

"I am not so disinterested in this matter as you are; but I am made very happy to find a man of discernment and liberality (who has no particular interest in the plan) thinks as I do, who have Lands in that Country the value of which would be enhanced by the adoption of such a scheme."

p. 50: "More than ten years ago I was struck with the importance of it [this scheme] , and dispairing of any aid from the public, I became a principal mover of a bill to empower a number of subscribers to undertake, at their own expense, . . . the extension of the Navigation from tide water to Will's Creek (about 150 Miles) . . . To get this business in motion, I was obliged, even upon that ground, to comprehend James River, in order to remove the jealousies which arose from the attempt to extend the Navigation of the Potowmack. The plan, however, was in a tolerable train when I set out for Cambridge in 1775, and would have been in an excellent way had it not been for the difficulties which were met with in the Maryland Assembly, from the opposition which was given (according to report) by the Baltimore Merchants, who were alarmed, and perhaps not without cause, at the consequence of water transportation to George Town of the produce which usually came to their market."

"The local interest of that place (Baltimore) joined with the short sighted politics, or contracted views of another part of that Assembly, gave Mr. Thomas Johnson who was a warm promoter of the Scheme on the No. side of the River a great deal of trouble. In this situation things were when I took commend of the Army. The War afterwards called Mens attention to different objects, and all the money they could or would raise, were applied to other purposes; but with you, I am satisfied not a moment ought to be lost in recommencing this business; for I know the Yorkers will delay no time to remove every obstacle in the way of the other communication, so soon as the Posts at Oswego and Niagara are surrendered; and I shall be mistaken if they do not build Vessels for the Navigation of the Lakes, which will supercede the necessity of coasting on either side."

"It appears to me that the Interest and policy of Maryland is proportionably concerned with that of Virginia to remove obstructions and to envite the trade of the Western territory into the channel you have mentioned. You will have frequent opportunities of learning the sentiments of the principal characters of that State, respecting this matter, and if you should see Mr. Johnson (formerly Governor of the State) great information may be derived from him."

pp. 50-51: "How far upon more mature consideration I may depart from the resolution I had formed of living perfectly at my ease, exempt from all kinds of responsibility, is more than I can, at present, absolutely determine. The Sums granted, the manner of granting them, the powers, and objects, would merit consideration. The trouble, if my situation at the tie would permit me to engage in a work of this sort would be set at naught; and the immense advantages which this Country would derive from the measure would be no small stimulus to the undertaking; if that undertaking could be made to comport with those ideas, and that line of conduct with which I meant to glide gently down the stream of life; and it did not interfere with any other plan I might have in contemplation."

25 Apr 1784	Thomas Jefferson (in Annapolis) to James Madison, pp. 118-121.

p. 118: "My last to you was of the 16th. of March, as was the latest I received from you. By the proposition to bound our country to the Westward I meant no more than passing an act declaring that that should be our boundary from the moment the people of the Western country and Congress should agree to it. The act of Congress now enclosed to you will shew you that they have agreed to it, because it extends not only to the territory ceded, but to be ceded; and shews how and when they shall be taken into the union."

pp. 118-119: "The place at which Congress should meet in Nov. has been the subject of discussion lately. Alexandria, Philada. and Trenton were proposed. The first was negatived easily. Trenton had the 4. East. states, N.Y., N.J., and Pennsylva. We expect Georgia and Delaware shortly, in which case it will become possible that Philada. may be determined on. The question is put off to be considered with the establishment of a committee of the states, which to myastonishment would have been negatived when first proposed had not the question been staved off. Some of the states who were against the measure, I beleive because they had never reflected on the consequences of leaving a government without a head, seem to be come over."

p. 119: "I like the method you propose of settling at once with Maryland all matters relative to the Potowmac. To introduce this the more easily I have conversed with Mr. Stone (one of their delegates) on the subject and finding him of the same opinion have told him I would by letters bring the subject forward on our part. They will consider it therefore as originated by this conversation."

25 Apr 1784	James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 121-124.

p. 121: "Your favor of the 16th. of March came to hand a few days before Mazzei called on me."

pp. 122-123: "On the 16 of March I wrote you fully on sundry points. Among others I suggested to your attention the case of the Potowmac, having in my eye the river below the head of navigation. It will be well I think to sound the ideas of Maryland also as to the upper parts of the N. branch of it. The policy of Baltimore will probably thwart as far as possible the opening of it; and without a very favorable construction of the right of Virginia and even the privilege of using the Maryland Bank it would seem that the necessary works could not be accomplished."

p. 123: "Has Maryland foreborne to take any step in favor of George Town?"

30 Apr 1784	Thomas Jefferson (in Annapolis) to Benjamin Harrison, pp. 138-139.

"I do myself the honor of inclosing you an act of Congress on the subject of Western territory as was passed a few days ago. The Ordinance for opening the land office so soon as our purchases are made from the Indians is not yet passed. . . . . Congress have determnined that they will adjourn on the 3d. of June to meet at Trenton in November."

30 Apr 1784	Samuel Hardy (in Annapolis) to Benjamin Harrison, p. 140.

"Mr. Jeffersons letter of this date will give your Excellency every Communication that is worth transmitting."

"The Cession of our Western territory seems to have removed that jealousy which many of the states indulged against Virginia. And I think nothing remains to prevent her forming an interest which will give her the respectable influence in the Councils of America to which she is entitled; but an amicable termination of the dispute with Pennsylvania."

8 May 1784	Thomas Jefferson (in Annapolis) to James Madison, pp. 231-235.

"I will now take up the several enquiries contained in your letter of Apr. 25. which came to hand yesterday."

p. 232: "'Has ________ forborne to take any step in favor of _________?'<1> Their object was certainly not the same with ours. Yet they have not openly set their faces against us. They have one delegate, honest and disinterested, who certainly will in no case do it?"<2>

p. 235, Ed. Note: <1> The first and second blanks should be filled with the words "Maryland" and "Georgetown" respectively.

Ed. Note: TJ unintentionally ended this sentence with a question mark. The "one delegate" referred to was either Jeremiah Townley Chase, James McHenry, or Thomas Stone, and was probably the last-named. [If so, Thomas Stone was hardly disinterested in having the capitol on the Potomac, since he was also a backer of the canal company.]

13 May 1784	Virginia Delegates (in Annapolis) to Benjamin Harrison, pp. 248-250.

p. 248: "From these [Journals of Congress] it will appear that Congress has resolv'd . . . to meet at Trenton in Jersey, on the 30th. of October next, and the different Questions which this measure gave rise to, we referr your Excellency, as they will give you a just idea of the progress of this business."

"It may be well however here to observe that the Votes in Congress as they stand at present, are unfavorable to a Southern situation and untill the admission of Western States into the Union, we apprehend it will be found impracticable to retain that Body, any length of time, southward of the middle State. And it may be proper also to suggest, that shoud Congress continue in their present unsettled state, and the Southern and Middle States remain dependant on the Eastern States, for the removal of Congress alternately to Jersey and Maryland, it may at times be productive of concessions in favor of the northern members of this Confœderacy on other very important points and indeed give them an unequal weight in the scale. Add to this, that it will have one most pernicious influence, the rendering of Members of Congress much more sollicitous about where they sit, than what they do." [Arthur Lee excepted this paragraph.]

p. 250: [signed:] S: Hardy[,] John F. Mercer[,] Arthur Lee

16 May 1784	Charles Thomson (in Annapolis) to Thomas Jefferson, with Instructions and Commissions, pp. 261-271.

p. 261: "I have sent you a copy of the report respecting the Navigation of the Mississippi."

[Not included.]

20 May 1784	James Monroe (in Annapolis) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 275-277.

p. 275: "The committee, of which I am a member, appointed to view the country around Georgetown under the Princeton engagement set out this morning upon that business. I think with you that it will be proper to effect this business before the adjournment and no time may better be spar'd than the present."

21 May 1784	Samuel Hardy (in Annapolis)to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 278-279.

p. 278: "Enclosed you will receive a Cypher which Colo. Monroe requested me to transmit you. He together with Mr. Lee and Mr. Gerry sat [set] out yesterday to Georgetown. We thought it expedient that the Committee should proceed in order to turn the view of the Continent to that place as the spot where Congress may perhaps ultimately fix."

21 May 1784	Thomas Jefferson (in Philadelphia) to James Monroe, pp. 279-281.

p. 279: "Your favor of the 14th. came duly to hand."

p. 280: "The mouth of the Illinois is the interesting post for Virginia, because it will open a trade up the Missouri and Missisipi. . . . Michillimacinac is very important for the United States in general. It is interesting to Virginia on the expectation that she may open the navigation from Lake Erie to Potowmac. . . . Mr. Thomson's counsel on this subject [of posts in the Northwest] will probably be useful, the interests of Pennsylva. and Virginia being united as to all these posts. We shall not begin to scramble for the trade till we have brought it to F. Pitt."

25 May 1784	Thomas Jefferson (in Philadelphia) to James Madison, pp. 288-290.

p. 288: Your favors of the 8th. and 15th. came to hand yesterday."

p. 289: "Did I ever inform you that Genl. Washington would accept the superintendance of the clearing the Patowm' and Ohio, if put on a hopeful footing?"

25 May 1784	James Monroe (in Annapolis) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 290-292.

p. 290: "I received this moment yours of the 21st. My letter by the last post will inform you of the occasion which pointed that as a favorable moment for a trip to Georgetown and of our availing ourselves of it. Yesterday evening we return'd. Our report will be in favor of the Maryland side and of a position near the town."

18 June 1784	Charles Thomson (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 305-308.

p. 305: "I flattered myself with the hopes of seeing you on my return to Philadelphia, but found you had set out for Boston with a view to embark at that place."

p. 306: "On the 3d. of June Congress was adjourned agreeably to the act of 26 April to meet at Trenton on the 30th. October. . . . I wish Congress were settled. This mode of rambling is neither consistent with dignity nor convenience. But I find we must go the common round of Nations before us and learn wisdom from our own experience."

18 June 1784	Charles Thomson to the American Commissioners, pp. 308-309.

pp. 308-309: Ed. Note: Congress "Resolved that the Ministers plenipotentiary . . . be and they are hereby instructed, in any negotiation they may enter into with the Court of Spain, not to relinquish or cede in any event whatsoever the right of the Citizens of these United States to the free Navigation of the River Mississippi from its source to the Ocean" (Tr in DNA: PCC, No. 116, p. 17, dated 3 June 1784; JCC, XXVII, 529-30).

3 July 1784	James Madison (in Richmond) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 359-362.

p. 360: "We made a warm struggle for the establishment of Norfolk and Alexandria as our only ports; but were obliged to add York, Tappahannock and Bermuda hundred, in order to gain any thing and to restrain to these ports foreigners only."

p. 361: "Col: Mason, the Attorney [Edmund Randolph], Mr. Henderson and myself are to negociate with Maryland if she will appoint Commissioners to establish regulations for the Potowmac."

p. 362: "I found no opportunity of broaching a scheme for opening the Navigation of the Potowmac under the auspices of Genl. Washington. . . ."

20 Aug 1784	James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 401-410.

p. 401: "Your favor of the 1st. July written on the eve of your embarkation from Boston was safely delivered by your Servant Bob about the 20th. of the same month."

pp. 401-402: "The act which produces most agitation and discussion is that which restrains foreign trade to enumerated ports. Those who meditate a revival of it on the old plan of British monopoly and diffusive credit, or those whose mercantile arrangements might be disturbed by the innovation, with those whose local situations give them, or are thought to give them an advantage in large vessels coming up the rivers to their usual stations, are busy in decoying the people into a belief that trade ought in all cases be left to regulate itself, that to confine it to particular ports is to renounce the boon with which Nature has favoured our country, and that if one sett of men are to be importers and exporters, another set to be carryers between the mouths and heads of the rivers and a third retailers, trade, as it must pass through so many hands all taking a profit, must in the end come dearer to the people than if the simple plan should be continued which unites these several branches in the same hands. These and other objections, tho' unsound, are not altogether unplausible, and being propagated with more zeal and pains by those who have a particular interest to serve than proper answers are by those who regard the general interest only, make it very possible that the measure may be rescinded before it is to take effect. Should it escape such a fate, it will be owing to a few striking and undeniable facts, namely, that goods are much dearer in Virginia, than in the States where trade is drawn to a general mart."

p. 403: "I think for the people here to push the culture of this article [tobacco] whilst the price keeps up, it becoming more apparent every day that the richness of soil and fitness of climate on the western waters will in a few years, both reduce the price and engross the culture of it. This event begins to be generally foreseen and increases the demand greatly for land on the Ohio. . . .Nothing can delay such a revolution with regard to our staple, but an impolitic and perverse attempt in Spain to shut the mouth of the Mississippi against the inhabitants above. I say delay because she can no more finally stop the current of trade down the river than she can that of the river itself. The importance of this matter is in almost every mouth. I am frequently asked what progress has been made towards a treaty with Spain and what may be expected from her liberality on this point. . . . My answers have both from ignorance and prudence been evasive. I have not fit however to cherish unfavorable impressions, being more and more led . . . to conclude that Spain will never be so mad as to persist in her present ideas. For want of better matter for correspondence, I will state the grounds on which I build my expectations."

[Madison then gives five reasons, which I summarize as: 1) It's morally right; 2) It's consistent with Spain's earlier doctrine; 3) It's in Spain's interests; 4) Similar cases around the world show that the owner of the mouth of a river cannot deny rights to those upstream; and 5) It's in the general interest of Europe to allow the U. S. to develop its western lands. Although this section discusses riparian rights in a general way, there isn't anything directly applicable to the Potomac case.]

11 Nov 1784	Thomas Jefferson (in Paris) to James Madison, pp. 503-508.

p. 503: "Your letters of Aug. 20. Sep. 7. and 15. I received by the last packet."

"I was pleased to find by the public papers (for as yet I have no other information of it) that the assembly had restrained their foreign trade to four places. I should have been more pleased had it been to one. However I trust that York and Hobbs' hole will do so little that Norfolk and Alexandria will get possession of the whole. Your letter first informs me of the exception in favor of citizens, an exception which by the contrivance of merchants will I fear undo the whole."

"I am also very much indebted for your very full observations on the navigation of the Missisipi. I had thought on the subject, and sketched the anatomy of a memorial on it, which will be much aided by your communications."

11 Nov 1784	Thomas Jefferson (in Paris) to James Monroe, pp. 508-514.

p. 509: "I am to acknolege the receipt of your letter of Aug. 9. from New-york, but not of the previous one. . . ."

p. 510: "I have had a hint [from Madison] that [Spain] may agree to make New Orleans a free port for our vessels coming down the Missisipi. but without permission for us to export our produce thence. All the inadequacies of this to our purpose strike me strongly. Yet I would wish you to sound your acquaintances on the subject and to let me know what they think of it; and whether if nothing more can be obtained, this or no treaty, that is to say, this or war would be preferred."

12 Nov 1784	Benjamin Harrison (in Richmond) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 519-520.

p. 519: "Our assembly is now sitting. . . . They have the Subject of opening the navigation of the Western Waters before them, and I am hopeful will set the work on foot, as they seem fully impressed with the Utility of the measure. . . ."

18 Nov 1784	Francis Hopkinson (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 534-
538.

p. 535: "Congress have not yet been able to make a House at Trenton. It is uncertain where they will finally settle. New York has made offers. It is manifest however that they cannot be accommodated in Trenton. . . . If Congress should not be able to make a Majority sufficient by their Constitution to determine on any one place of fixed Residence (a Case very likely to happen) will they not be in [a] Situation" like that of Mahomet's Tomb–suspended between Heaven and Earth and belonging to neither!"

8 Dec 1784	Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (from Paris), pp. 557-560.

p. 557: "In mine of Nov. 11. I acknoleged the receipt of yours of Aug. 20. Sep. 7. and 15. Since that, the one of Oct. 11. by the packet has come to hand as also that of July 3. . . ."

p. 558: "I look anxiously to the approaching and improving the navigation of the Patowmac and Ohio, the usual junction of that of the Big-beaver and Cayahoga by a Canal; as also that of Albemarle sound and Elizabeth through the dismal [swamp]. These works will spread the feild of our commerce Westwardly and Southwardly beyond any thing ever yet done by man."

11 Dec 1784	Marbois (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 568-569.

p. 568: "Le Congrès est enfin assemblé et il est très nombreux. On n'a rien déterminé touchant le lieu de la résidence: mais il y a de l'harmonie entre les differentes delegations et on espere que tout sera pour le mieux."

["The Congress is finally assembled and it is very numerous. It has determined nothing concerning the place of residence: but there is harmony between the different delegations and one hopes all will be for best."]

11 Dec 1784	Hugh Williamson (in Trenton) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 569-570.

p. 569: "A valuable Improvement is said to have been made in Mecanicks by a Citizen of Virga. [James Rumsey] on Potowmack. He says he has found a method of working a Boat carrying from 5 to 10 Tons 70 or 80 miles a day by three men up such a River as the Ohio. He says she will go @ 3 miles the Hour up a River where the Stream runs @ 6 miles. Do you believe this? Genl. Washington has seen the Boat in miniature and certifies that it has exceeded his belief and he thinks it a useful discovery."

pp. 569-570: "You will soon hear many Complaints concerning our Western Country. The Spaniards have not only interdicted the Navigation of the Mississipi but they seem to be making Incroachments and are doubtless taking Pains to exasperate the indians, to the great Terror of our frontier Inhabitants and to the loss of some Lives."

p. 570: "Should the Navigation of the Mississipi continue open vast Bodies of People would migrate thither whose mercantile Connections could be of no Use to the old States. In Taxation their assistance would be very inefficient. On the contrary let the Navigation of the Mississipi be shut up and the Country joining our present Settlements will be first improved and a durable commercial and civil intercourse established."

9 Jan 1785	James Madison (in Richmond) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 588-599.

p. 588: "I reached this place [Richmond] the 14th. day after that fixed for the meeting of the Assembly and was in time for the commencement of business. . . . According to my promise I subjoin a brief review of its most material proceedings."

pp. 589-590: "An act for opening and extending the navigation of the Potowmac river. An act for do. do. of James river. The subject of clearing these great rivers was brought forward early in the Session under the auspices of General Washington, who had written an interesting private letter on it to Govr. Harrison, which the latter communicated to the General Assembly. The conversation of the General during a visit paid to Richmond in the course of the Session, still further impressed the magnitude of the object on sundry members. Shortly after his departure, a joint memorial from a number of Citizens of Va. and Maryland, interested in the Potowmac, was presented to the Assembly, stating the practicability and importance of the work, and praying for an act of incorporation, and grant of perpetual toll to the undertakers of it. A bill had been prepared at the same meeting which produced the memorial, and was transmitted to Richmond at the same time. A like memorial and bill went to Annapolis where the legislature of Maryland were sitting. The Assembly here lent a ready ear to the project, but a difficulty arose from the height of the tolls proposed, the danger of destroying the uniformity essential in the proceedings of the two States, by altering them, and the scarcity of time for negociating with Maryland a bill satisfactory to both States. Short as the time was however, the attempt was decided on, and the negociation committed to Genl. Washington himself. Genl. Gates who happened to be in the way and Col: Blackband were associated with him. The latter did not act, the two former pushed immediately to Annapolis, where the sickness of Genl. Gates threw the whole agency on Genl. Washington. By his exertions in concert with Committees of the two branches of the Legislature, an amendment of the plan was digested in a few days, passed thro' both houses in one day with nine dissenting votes only, and despatched for Richmond, where it arrived just in time for the Session. A corresponding act was immediately introduced and passed without opposition. The scheme declares that the subscribers shall be an incorporated body, that there shall be 500 Shares amounting to about 220,000 dollars, of which the States of Va. and Maryd. are each to take 50 shares, that the tolls shall be collected in three portions at the three principal falls, and with the works rest as real estate in the members of the Company, and that the works shall be begun within one year, and finished within ten years under the penalty of entire forfeiture."

p. 590: "Previous to the receipt of the act from Annapolis a bill on a different plan had been brought in and proceeded on for clearing James River. [Some details of the plan followed.] In the case of the Potowmac which depended on another authority as well as our own, we were less at liberty to consider what would be best in itself. Exuberant however as the [financial] harvest appeared, it was pronounced by good judges an inadequate bait for subscriptions even from those otherwise interested in the work, and on the arrival and acceptance of the Potowmac plan, it was found advisable to pass a similar one in favor of James River." [More details of the James River plan followed.]

p. 598, Ed. Note: Washington's private letter . . . to Govr. Harrison was private only in the sense that it was written by a private individual. It is a remarkable document and was addressed to Harrison in the expectation and hope that it would lead to public action and, in Washington's words, it concerned a matter "which would (if I am not too shortsighted a politician) mark your administration as an important era in the Annals of this Country, if it should be recommended by you, & adopted by the Assembly" (Washington to Harrison, 10 Oct. 1784, Writings, ed. Fitzpatrick, XXVII, 471-480). This letter, like Washington's energetic actions which brought the Potomac Navigation Company into being, sustains Madison's view that he possessed "a mind . . . capable of great views." These particular views had also been urged upon Washington by TJ in the spring of 1784. The Acts for Improving the navigation of the Potomac and James are to be found in Hening, XI, 450-62, 510-25.

pp. 590-591: "In addition to these acts joint resolutions have passed the Legislatures of Maryd. and Va. for clearing a road from the head of the Potowmac navigation to Cheat-river or if necessary to Monongalia . . . Pennsylva. is also to be applied to by the Governors of the two States for leave to clear a road thro' her jurisdiction if it should be found necessary, from Potowmac to Yohogania; to which the Assembly here have added a proposition to unite with Maryland in representing to Pena. the advantages which will accrue to a part of her citizens from opening the proposed communication with the sea, and the reasonableness of her securing to those who are to be at the expense, the use of her waters, as a thorough fare to and from the Country beyond her limits, free from all imposts than may be levied on any other channel of importation. This Resolution did not pass till it was too late to refer it to Genl. Washington's negociations with Maryland. It now makes a part of the task allotted to the Commissioners who are to settle with Maryd. the jurisdiction and navigation of Potowmac below tide water."

[This last sentence proves that the inclusion of the communique to Pennsylvania with the Compact of 1785 (see Mason Papers) should not be taken as evidence that the Compact itself referred to any part of the Potomac above the tide water. The communique was only included with the Compact because it was a convenient forum for Maryland and Virginia to address Pennsylvania jointly, the previous chance for doing so having been missed.]

p. 591: "By another Resolution of this State, persons are to be forthwith appointed by the Executive to survey the upper parts of Jas. river, the country thro' which a road must pass to the navigable waters of New River, and these waters down to the Ohio. I am told by member of the Assembly who seems to be well acquainted both with the intermediate ground and with the Western waters in question, that a road of 25 to 30 miles in length will link these waters with Js. river and will strike a branch of the former which yields a fine navigation, and falls into the main stream of the Kenhawha below the only obstructions lying in this river down to the Ohio. If these be facts James River will have great superiority over Potowmac, the road from which to Cheat river is indeed computed by Genl. Washington at 20 miles only: but he thinks the expence of making the latter navigable will require a continuation of the road to Monongalia, which will lengthen it to 40 miles. The road to Yohogania is computed by the General at 30 miles."

pp. 591-592: "An act vesting in G. Washington a certain interest in the Companies for opening James and Potowmac rivers. The Treasurer is by this act directed to subscribe 50 Shares in the Potowmac and 100 shares in the james river Companies which shall vest in Genl. Washington and his heirs. This mode of adding some substantial to the many honorary rewards bestowed on him was termed least injurious to his delicacy, as well as least dangerous as a precedent."

pp. 592-593: "An act giving James Rumsey the exclusive privilege of constructing and navigating certain boats for a limited time. J. Rumsey by a memorial to the last Session represented that he had invented a mechanism, by which a boat might be worked with little labour at the rate of from 25 to 40 miles a day, against a stream running at the rate of 10 miles an hour, and prayed that the disclosure of his invention might be purchased by the public. The apparent extravagance of his pretensions brought a ridicule upon them, and nothing was done. In the recess of the Assembly, he exemplified his machinery to General Washington and a few other gentlemen, who gave a certificate of the reality and importance of the invention, which opened the ears of the Assembly to a second memorial. The act gives a monopoly for ten years, reserving the right to abolish it at any time on paying £10,000. The inventor is soliciting similar acts from other States, and will not I suppose publish the secret till he either obtains or despairs of them."

[Note the act's use of the word "boat" (not "vessel" or "ship") for a craft used in inland navigation.]

p. 597:"Mr. Henry was elected successor to Mr. Harrison without competition or opposition."

25 Feb 1785	Elbridge Gerry (in New York) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 651-652.

p. 651: "I am this Day favoured with yours of the 11th. of Novr. . . ."

"Having given Mr. Adams Information of the proceedings of Congress since their meeting at Trenton, and desired it may be communicated to Yourself, I can only add on this Head that Mr. R. Morris, General Dickinson and General Schuyler are elected Commissioners to erect the fœderal Buildings on the Delewar, and that the two former have accepted the appointment."

Volume 8: 25 February to 31 October 1785

25 Feb 1785	George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 3-6.

p. 3: "I have the honor to inclose you the copy of an Act which passed the assemblies of Virginia and Maryland at the close of their respective sessions . . . for the purpose of opening a road of communication between the highest navigation of the Potomac, and the River Cheat; and have concurred in an application to the State of Pennsylvania for leave to open another road from Fort Cumberland, or Wills Creek to the Yohiogany, at the three forks or Turkey foot."

pp. 4-5: "I foresee such extensive political consequences depending on the navigation of these two rivers [The Potomac and the James] and communicating them by short and easy roads with the waters of the Western Territory, that I am pained by every doubt of obtaining the means for their accomplishment. For this reason, I also wish you would be so obliging as to direct your enqueries after one or more characters who have skill in this kind of work; that if Companies should be incorporated under the present acts, and should incline to send to France, or England for an Engineer, or Man of practical knowledge in these kind of works, there may be a clue to the application."

12 Apr 1785	James Monroe (in New York) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 75-80.

p. 75: "Since my last I have received yours of the 11th. of Novr. and 10th. of Decr."

p. 78""I shall transmit you the journals of Congress as far as they are printed. They will give you at least the resolutions which determine the erection of buildings at the falls of the Delaware and our intermediate residence here. Our dependence for their erection at Georgetown had been on the southern States and as soon as Congress conven'd we found they had given it up. All further opposition we therefore considered as useless. One hundred thousand dolrs. are appropriated to it. Between Phila. and this place we were indifferent as a temporary residence; we consider'd our State as no otherwise interested than as it might respect the delegates attending in Congress; upon fœderal principles that this should have been the preference. It must have a good appearance for the fœderal government to pay attention to the part which hath suffer'd most, from the depredations of the war; add to this the province of Canada in possession at present of the fur-
trade. The first exertion of the States must be to draw it thence and afterwards it may take its direction thro' the Potowmk. or whatever channel is open'd to it. But the 100,000 dolrs are upon no fund. Whether they are to be requir'd from the States or not will become the question. It would be fortunate if a delay could take place."

20 Apr 1785	Francis Hopkinson (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 98-101.

p. 98: "Your Favour of the 13. Jany. last did not get to hand before the 16. Instt."

p. 99: "They [Congress] are settled at New York and according to Report are as little satisfied with their Situation there as they were in this City. They have resolved to build a fœderal City for themselves on the banks of the Delaware either near or opposite to Trenton. Mr. Rt. Morris, Genl. Dickinson and a Mr. Brown of Rhode Island are appointed commissioners to carry this Resolution into Effect. Mr. Morris sets off for New York Tomorrow on that Business."

27 Apr 1785	James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 110-116.

p. 110:"I have received your two favors of Novr. 11 and Decr. 8."

pp. 112-113: "I have not learnt with certainty whether Genl. Washington will accept or decline the shares voted him by the assembly in the Companies for opening our rivers. If he does not chuse to take to himself any benefit from the donation, he has I think a fine opportunity at once of testifying his disinterested purposes, of shewing his respect for the assembly, and of rendering a service to his country. He may accept the gift so far as to apply it to the scheme of opening the rivers, and may then appropriate the revenue which it is hereafter to produce, to some patriotic establishment. I lately dropped a hint of this sort to one of his friends and was told that such an idea had been suggested to him. The private subscriptions for Potowmac I hear amount to £10,000 Sterling. I can not discover that those for James River deserve mention, or that the undertaking is pushed with any spirit. If those who are most interested in it let slip the present opportunity, their folly will probably be severely punished by the want of such another. It is said the undertaking on the Susquehannah by Maryland goes on with great spirit and expectations."

p. 113: "I understand that Chase and Jennifer on the part of Maryland, Mason and Henderson on the part of Virginia have had a meeting on the proposition of Virga. for settling the navigation and jurisdiction of Potowmac below the falls, and have agreed to report to the two assemblies, the establishment of a concurrent jurisdiction on that river and Chesapeak. The most amicable spirit is said to have governed the negociation."

p. 114: "I received a letter from the Marquis Fayette dated on the eve of his embarcation which has the following paragraph. 'I have much confered with the general upon the Potowmac system. Many people think the navigation of the Mississippi is not an advantage but it may be the excess of a very good thing viz. the opening of your rivers. I fancy it has not changed your opinion but beg you will write me on the subject. In the meanwhile I hope Congress will act cooly and prudently by Spain who is such a fool that allowance must be made.' It is unlucky that he should have left America with such an idea as to the Mississippi. It may be of the worse consequence as it is not wholly imaginary, the prospect of extending the commerce of the Atlantic states to the western waters having given birth to it. I can not believe that many minds are tainted with so illiberal and short sighted a policy. I have thought it was not amiss to write the marquis according to the request of his letter and have stated to him the motives and obligations which must render the United States inflexible on the subject of the Mississippi, the folly of Spain in contesting it and our expectation from the known influence of France over Spain and her friendly dispositions toward us. It is but justice to the marquis to observe that in all our conversations on the Mississippi he expressed with every mark of sincerity a zeal for our claims and a pointed dislike to the national character and policy of Spain and that if his zeal should be found to abate I should construe it to be the effect of a supposed revolution in the sentiments of America."

p. 116, Ed. Note: "I can not believe that many minds are tainted with so illiberal and short sighted a policy." Madison evidently did not know that Washington supported such a policy. Lafayette's letter which so alarmed its recipient was probably a mere reflection of this fact.

30 Apr 1785	Mémoire de Jacques le Maire (in Richmond), pp. 123-132.

p. 130: [Le Maire discussed Spain and the Mississippi, but I have not tried to translate the section, because it doesn't seem to say much new or discuss riparian rights in general.]

p. 131: "Le General Wasington . . . s'est rendu sur les lieux en 7bre. 1784., a examiné avec des gens de l'Art jusqu'à quel poient [point] les divers rivieres etoient nevigables, qu'els etoient les endroits où il seroit le plus convenable d'ouvrir ou de perfectioner les routes à travers les Montagnes, qu'elles etoient les branches navigables des rivieres qui tombent dans L'Atlantique qui s'approchassent le plus des branches Navigables de L'Ohyo. Et comme ce projet a été examiné avec attention, et d'après ces resultats et L'opinion des Commissaires nommés par les Etats de Virginie et de Mariland pour examiner murement ce projet, on a été convaincu que de touttes les rivieres de L'Atlantique celle qui s'approche le plus des branches Navigables de L'Ohyo etoit le poutoumack, n'y ayant que 30 à 40. miles au plus depuis L'og'stown où [c]ette riviere cesse d'etre navigable jusqu'à Jeesferry sur la riviere Cheat dont j'ai parlé cy dessus. Il est vray que la navigation du poutoumack est interompüe par quelques chûtes ou endroits rapides, dont la plus considerables est à 12. miles au dessus d'Alexandrie et à cinq au dessus de Gearge town où les Vaisseaux peuvent remonter. Les chûtes ont été Examinées avec le plus grand Soin et l'on a vu qu'il etoit non seulement practicable, mais même peu difficile à les rendre Navigables. En consequence une Compagnie par Action s'est formée sous la protection des gouvernements de Virginie et du Mariland et on luy a accordé le privilege de lever de certains droits (qu'on a irrevocablement fixés d'avance) sur les bateaux qui passeroient dans la Suitte sur le poutoumack à condition qu'ils enleveroient les obstacles qui en obstruent la navigation."

[My very rough translation from le Maire's idiomatic French follows:]

In September 1784, General Washington consulted with experts about how far the various rivers are navigable, where it would be most suitable to open or perfect roads through the mountains, and which branches of the Atlantic rivers approach the navigable branches of the Ohio. This project was examined attentively, and according to these results and the opinion of the commissioners named by Virginia and Maryland to carefully examine this project, one was convinced that of all the rivers of the Atlantic that which approaches more of the navigable branches of the Ohio, it is the Potomac, by having but 30 to 40 miles beyond Logstown[?], where this river ceases being navigable, until Jees[?] Ferry on the Cheat river about which I spoke above. It is true that the navigation of the Potomac is interrupted by some falls or rapids, of which the most considerable is 12 miles above Alexandria and five miles above Georgetown, [the limit of] where vessels can go up. The falls were examined with the greatest care and one saw that it is not only practicable, but not even very difficult to make them navigable. Consequently a stock company was formed under the protection of the governments of Virginia and Maryland and granted the privilege to raise certain tolls (which they irrevocably fixed in advance) on the boats which pass in series on the Potomac provided that they can surmount the obstacles which block its navigation. [details of the shares followed.]

16 May 1785	Richard Henry Lee (in New York) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 153-155.

p. 154: "Effectual measures are taking by the Assemblies of Virginia and Maryland and by the former alone for opening the navigation between the Potomac and James Rivers with the western waters."

17 June 1785	Thomas Jefferson (in Paris) to James Monroe, pp. 227-234.

p. 227: "I received three days ago your favor of Apr. 12. You therein speak of a former letter to me, but it has not come to hand, nor any other of later date than the 14th. of December. My last to you was of the 11th. of May. . . . These conveiances are now becoming deranged."

pp. 228-229: "I like your removal to N. York, and hope Congress will continue there and never execute the idea of building their federal town. Before it could be finished a change of members in Congress, or the admission of new states would remove them somewhere else. It is evident that when a sufficient number of the Western states come in, they will remove it to George town. In the mean time it is our interest that it should remain where it is, and give no new pretensions to any other place."

10 July 1785	Thomas Jefferson (in Paris) to George Washington, pp. 279-281.

p. 280: "On receiving the favour of your letter of Feb. 25. I communicated the plan for clearing the Patowmac, with the act of assembly, and an explanation of it's probable advantages, to [banker] Mr. [Ferdinand] Grand, whose acquaintance and connection with the monied men here enabled him best to try it's success. He has done so, but to no end. . . . I place an immense importance to my own country on this channel of connection with the new Western states. I shall continue uneasy till I know that Virginia has assumed her ultimate boundary to the Westward. The late example of the state of Franklin separated from N. Carolina increases my anxieties for Virginia."

26 Sept 1785	George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 555-558.

p. 555-556: "I have the pleasure to inform you, that the subscriptions to the inland Navigations of the Rivers Potomack and James require no aid from Foreigners. . . . I am very happy to find that your sentiments respecting the interest [i.e., shares] the Assembly was pleased to give me in the two navigations of Potomack and James Rivers, coincide so well with my own. I never for a moment, entertained any idea of accepting. The difficulty which laboured in my Mind was how to refuse without giving offence."

17 Oct 1785	Archibald Stuart (in Richmond) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 644-647.

p. 644: "I shall with pleasure now inform you that the companies under the "Acts for improveing and extending the navigation of James and Potowmack Rivers" have more than compleated the Subscriptions for that purpose. They were not authorized to exceed the sum of one hundred thousand dollars for each River. The Potowmack Company had their subscriptions first compleated and have at present upwards of one hundred hands employed in blowing Rocks &c. . . . Commissioners have been appointed to survey these Rivers and make Report how far they may be made navigable, at what expence, and how near this navigation will approach to the navigation of the Western Waters."

22 Oct 1785	David Ross (in Richmond) in Thomas Jefferson, pp. 659-661.

pp. 659-660: "The long talkt of and much wisht for improvement of the Navigation of James River and Powtmk. is actually begun under the Auspices of Genl. Washington. . . . Commissioners are appointed to make a similar survey of Powtmk. River but they have not yet proceeded on the business."

Volume 9: 1 November 1785 to 22 June 1786

22 Jan 1786	James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, with Enclosure, pp. 194-209.

p. 201: "On Potowmack they have been at work for some time. On this river they have about eighty hands ready to break ground, and have engaged a man to plan for them."

pp. 208-209, Ed. Note: [Madison] added a statement that seems to offer the best explanation for the origin of the alternative proposed by Tyler: "It seems naturally to grow out of the proposed appointment of Commissioners for Virga. and Mayd. concerted at Mount Vernon, for keeping up harmony in the commercial regulations of the two States (Madison to Washington, 9 Dec. 1785; Writings, ed. Hunt, II, 198; see also Madison to Monroe, same date, II, 201-2). This was written four days after the Maryland resolutions were laid before the Virginia legislature, resolutions which suggested that Delaware and Pennsylvania also be brought into the uniform commercial system proposed for the two states (JHD, Oct. 1785, 1828 edn., p. 72). An extension of the Mount Vernon idea to two other states may have provided for John Tyler, as it certainly did for the committee of commerce to whom the Maryland resolutions were referred, the natural suggestion that it would be logical to enlarge such a plan so as to include all the states.

Volume 10: 22 June 1786 to 31 December 1786

16 July 1786	James Monroe (in New York) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 142-144.

p. 143: "In my last I advis'd you of an intrigue on foot under the management of Jay to occlude the Missisipi supported by the delegation of Massachusetts. Since my last no further measures have been openly taken in the business, yet it is not relinquish'd. As yet there hath not been a fair tryal of the sense of Congress on the subject. I have a conviction in my own mind that Jay has manag'd this negociation dishonestly. On the other hand I am persuaded that the minister here has no power on the subject."

11 Aug 1786	Thomas Jefferson (in Paris) to James Monroe, pp. 223-225.

p. 223: "I was entirely in the dark as to the progress of that negociation [with Spain], and concur entirely in the views you have of it. The difficulty on which it hangs is a sine qua non with us. It would be to deceive them and ourselves to suppose that an amity can be preserved while this right [of navigation on the Mississippi] is withheld."

12 Aug 1786	James Madison (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 229-236.

p. 230: "I had the additional pleasure here of seeing the progress of the works on the Potowmac. About 50 hands were employed at these falls or rather rapids, who seemed to have overcome the greatest difficulties. Their plan is to slope the fall by opening the bed of the river, in such a manner as to render a lock unnecessary, and by means of ropes fastened to the rocks, to pull up and ease down the boats where the current is most rapid. At the principal falls 150 hands I was told were at work, and that the length of the canal will be reduced to less than a mile, and carried through a vale which does not require it to be deep. Locks here will be unavoidable. The undertakers are very sanguine. Some of them, who are most so, talk of having the entire work finished in three years.

p. 231: I am told that Pena. has complied with the joint request of Virga. and Maryland for a Road between the head of Potowmac and the waters of the Ohio and the secure and free use of the latter through her jurisdiction.

p. 233: "You will find the cause [of Madison's despair of amending the Confederation] in a measure now before Congress of which you will receive the details from Col. Monroe. I content myself with hinting that it is a proposed treaty with Spain, [in] one article of which she shuts the Mississippi for twenty five or thirty years." [Madison goes on to discuss how this matter will foment sectional distrust.]

19 Aug 1786	James Monroe (in New York) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 274-279.

pp. 274-276: [Monroe gives Jefferson the details of the negotiations with Spain of which Madison spoke in the letter immediately above. Nothing is particularly relevant to the Potomac case.]

17 Sept 1786	James Maury (in Liverpool) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 387-389.

p. 388: "At Alexandria they say the Potomack Navigation will not prove so tedious nor so expensive as the Company reckoned on."

23 Sept 1786	John Bondfield (in Bordeuax) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 399-400.

pp. 399-400: "By arrivals from New Orleans the Inhabitants of Louisiana appear apprehensive of troubles taking place in that neighbourhood from the great increase of the Settlement at Kentucey and the inflexible opposition in the Spaniards to the free Navigation of the Mississipi."

12 Oct 1786	James Monroe (in New York) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 456-458.

pp. 456-457: "Since this project [Jay's negotiations with Spain] was presented, the negociation has been more with Congress to repeal the ultimata than with Spain to carry the instructions into effect. I inform'd you of the proposition from Massachusetts for the repeal in Committee of the Whole. This was carried by Pennsylvania inclusive eastward, Maryland inclusive southward being against it. Delaware was absent."

[That is, both Maryland and Virginia were in favor of free navigation on the Mississippi.]

8 Nov 1786	Francis Hopkinson (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 511-
513.

p. 512: "Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland have appointed Commissioners for carrying into Effect a Scheme which has been long in Contemplation, that of running a Canal between Chesapeak and Delaware and improving the Navigation of the Susquehannah. I am one of the Commissioners for this State [Pennsylvania], Mr. Rittenhouse another. There are five Commissioners from each State and we are all to meet at Wilmington on the 27th. of this Month to hold a Conference on this Important Affair."

4 Dec 1786	James Madison (in Richmond) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 574-578.

p. 575: "The project for bartering the Mississipi to Spain was brought before the Assembly. . . . The report of it having reached the ears of the Western [Virginia] Representatives, as many of them were on the spot, backed by a number of the late officers, presented a Memorial, full of consternation and complaint, in consequence of which some very pointed resolutions by way of instruction to the Delegates in Congress were unanimously entered into the House of Delegates. They are now before the Senate who will no doubt be also unanimous in their Concurrence."

16 Dec 1786	Thomas Jefferson (in Paris) to James Madison, pp. 602-606.

p. 603: This measure [of the Congress, deciding to make the western states fewer, but larger], with the disposition to shut up the Missisipi give me serious apprehensions of the severance of the Eastern and Western parts of our confederacy. It might have been made the interests of the Western states to remain united with us, by managing their interests honestly and for their own good. But the moment we sacrifice their interests to our own, they will see it better to goveren themselves."

p. 605: "With respect to the proposition about the purchase of lands, I had just before made the experiment desired. It was to borrow money for aiding the opening of the Patowmac, which was proposed to me by Genl. Washington. I had the benefit of his name, and the foundation of a special act of the assembly. I lodged the papers in the hands of Mr. [Ferdinand] Grand [in Paris] to try to obtain money on loan at 6. per cent. assuring him that the securities should be made completely satisfactory to the lenders. After long trial he told me it could not be done. . . ."

Volume 11: 1 January to 6 August 1787

30 Jan 1787	Thomas Jefferson (in Paris) to James Madison, pp. 92-97.

p. 93: "I feel very differently at another peice of intelligence, to wit, the possibility that the navigation of the Missisipi may be abandoned to Spain. . . . I will venture to say that the act which abandons the navigation of the Missisipi is an act of separation between the Eastern and Western country."

p. 94: "They [Westerners] are able already to rescue the navigation of the Missisipi out of the hands of Spain, and to add New Orleans to their own territory. They will be joined by inhabitants of Louisiana. This will bring on a war between them and Spain; and that will produce the question with us whether it will not be worth our while to become parties with them in the war, in order to reunite them with us, and thus correct our error?"

15 Feb 1787	James Madison (in New York) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 152-155.

p. 152: "My last was from Richmond of the 4th. of December, and contained a sketch of our legislative proceedings prior to that date. The principal proceedings of subsequent date [were] . . . "

p. 154: "7th. The Mississippi. At the date of my last the House of Delegates only had entered into Resolutions against a surrender of the right of navigating it. The Senate shortly after concurred."

8 Mar 1787	Benjamin Hawkins (in New York) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 201-203.

p. 202: "Spain . . . has seized some of our boats on the Mississipi and refuses us absolutely the navigation thereof. Our citizens view this as an infraction of their rights. . . . Seven states only counting from the east have repealed the article in favor of the Missisipi in the instructions to Mr. Jay and he is now at full liberty to shut up or not the Missisipi and he appears to me to approve of it for the period of twenty years. Should this take place, I know not what consequences may ensue. Our Western citizens will feel much alarmed for their situation."

19 Mar 1787	James Madison (in New York) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 219-225.

p. 221: "The Spanish project sleeps. . . . But although it appears that the intended sacrifice of the Missisipi will not be made, the consequences of the intention and the attempt are likely to be very serious. I have already made known to you the light in which the subject was taken up by Virginia. Mr. Henry's disgust exceeded all measure and I am not singular in ascribing his refusal to attend the Convention of the policy of keeping himself free to combat or espouse the result of it according to the result of the Missisipi business among other circumstances."

23 Apr 1787	James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 307-310.

p. 309: "The Spanish negociation is in a very ticklish situation. . . . Maryland and S. Carolina have heretofore been on the right side."

30 May 1787	George Washington (in Philadelphia) to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 385-
391.

p. 385: "It has so happened, that the letter which you did me the honor of writing to me the 14th. of November last, did not come to my hands till the first of the present month; . . . Consequently, it has not been in my power, at an earlier period, to reply to the important matters which are the subjects thereof. This, possibly, may be to be regretted if the house of de Coulteaux should, in the meantime, have directed its enquires to Philadelphia, Baltimore, or New York without having had the advantages which are to be derived from the extension of the inland navigations of the Rivers Potomack and James, delineated to them."

p. 386: "The progress already made in this great national work ["the extension of the Navigation of the Potomack"], not only justifies this opinion, but the most sanguine expectations which have been formed of its success. . . . The Act for opening a road from the highest point to which the Navigation of Potomack can be extended, to the Cheat river, must also be considered as an important circumstance in favour of Alexandria; and in the same light the act of the last Session for opening a road to the mouth of the Little Kanhawa, from the road last mentioned, must be considered.–Besides these, leave has been obtained from Pensylvania by the States of Virginia and Maryld., to open another road from Wills Creek to the Yohiogani, by the nearest and best rout."

9 June 1787	Richard Claiborne (in London) to Thomas Jefferson, with Enclosure, pp. 411-413.

[His letter to Jefferson dealt with western lands Claiborne had bought that turned out to be along the route of the new road from the "Potomack River to the Monongalia."]

p. 411: "The opening of the Potomack is a very leading consideration to their cultivation, and I have determined to spare no pains in promoting the business with all the means I can raise."

20 June 1787	Thomas Jefferson (in Paris) to James Madison, pp. 480-484.

p. 481: "But this affair of the Missisipi by shewing that Congress is capable of hesitating on a question which proposes a clear sacrifice of the western to the maritime states will with difficulty be obliterated."

Volume 12: 7 August 1787 to 31 March 1788

14 Aug 1787	Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Jones, pp. 33-35.

pp. 33-34: "I have never yet thanked you, but with the heart, for the act of assembly confirming the agreement with Maryland, the pamphlet and papers I received from you a twelvemonth ago."

[According to the index for Volumes 7-12, the only letter Jefferson received from Joseph Jones is contained in Volume 9, pp. 296-298. I have returned this volume to UMBC's library, but according to the index there was nothing in that letter dealing with Maryland. There are no editor's notes attached to the letter in this volume, and so no further information beyond what may be contained in the Volume 9 letter.]

20 Dec 1787	James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 443-445.

pp. 444-445: "I subjoin an extract from a letter from Genl. Washington dated Decr. 7th. which contains the best information I can give you as to the progress of the works on the Potowmack."

'The survey [writes Washington] of the Country between the Eastern and Western waters is not yet reported by the Commissioners, though promised to be made very shortly, the survey being compleated. No draught that can convey an adequate idea of the work on this river has been yet taken. Much of the labour, except at the great falls, has been bestowed in the bed of the river, in a removal of rocks, and deepening the water. At the great falls the labour has indeed been great. The water there (a sufficiency I mean) is taken into a Canal about two hundred yards above the Cateract, and conveyed by a level cut (through a solid rock in some places, and much stone every where) more than a mile to the lock Seats, five in number by means of which when compleated, the craft will be let into the River below the falls (which together amounts to seventy six feet). At the Seneca falls, six miles above the great falls, a channel which has been formed by the river when inundated is under improvement for navigation. The same, in part, at Shannandoah. At the lower falls, where nothing has yet been done, a level cut and locks are proposed. These constitute the principal difficulties and will be the great expence of this undertaking. The parts of the river between requiring loose stones only to be removed in order to deepen the water where it is too shallow in dry seasons.'

1 Jan 1788	George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, pp. 488-491.

p. 489: "The States of Virginia and Maryland have opened (for I believe it is compleated) a road from the No. branch of Potomack, commencing at, or near the mouth of Savage River, to the Cheat River, from whence the former are continuing it to the navigable Water of the little Kanhawa."