Title: Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785
From: Madison, James
To:

Editorial Note
The most striking element in JM’s authorship of the Memorial and Remonstrance was the pains he took to keep the public ignorant of his heavy involvement in this battle over state-subsidized religion. So successful was he in maintaining anonymity that a few libraries still have a printed version with speculative attributions of the work to other public men. Although in 1786 printer Isaiah Thomas used JM’s name in the title when he issued A Memorial and Remonstrance … by his Excellency James Madison (SabinJoseph Sabin et al., eds., Bibliotheca
          Americana … (29 vols.; New York and Portland, Me., 1868–1936). 43719), JM himself waited until 1826 to make an explicit acknowledgment of his authorship. In reply to a query from George Mason’s grandson, JM recalled that Mason and George Nicholas “and some others, thought it adviseable, that a Remonstrance against the Bill should be prepared for general circulation & signature, and imposed on me the task of drawing up such a paper” (JM to George Mason [of Green Spring], 14 July 1826 [ViHi]). After forty years, the legislative undercurrents moving the General Assessment bill toward passage in 1785 had been forgotten, and the surviving documents standing alone did not tell the whole story.
The importance of formal religion in the 1780s is a concept difficult for a secularistic society to grasp. JM had a decent respect for the opinions of his peers and must have been aware of the intensity with which his Baptist and Presbyterian neighbors approached religious worship. He was also conscious of loyalties held by such patriots as Edmund Pendleton and Patrick Henry for the former established church, and of their conviction that taxes should be offered to all churches through a general assessment lest public morality languish.
Nonetheless, disestablishment was an accomplished fact, a social symptom of declining interest in organized Christianity. Church-going in Virginia had long been on the decline as communicants found more reasons for attending Sunday horse races or cock fights than for being in pews. In 1784 a foreign traveler in Richmond noted that the village had only “one small church, but [it was] spacious enough for all the pious souls of the place and the region. If the Virginians themselves did not freely and openly admit that zeal for religion, and religion generally, is now very faint among them, the fact might easily be divined from other circumstances” (Schoepf, Travels in the Confederation, II, 62). In the face of such realities there were still many members of the General Assembly disposed to aid the Protestant Episcopal church, and they seemed determined to carry the General Assessment bill despite widespread but inarticulate opposition from their constituents. In this confused situation the Presbyterians occupied an ambiguous position. Convinced that a religious subsidy would pass, the Hanover Presbytery first declared that “Religion as a spiritual System is not to be considered an object of human Legislation,” and in the next breath made a bid to share in the proceeds of a general assessment for teachers of Christianity (ViHi: Records of the Proceedings of Hanover Presbytery from the year 1755 to the year 1786 [typed copy by George S. Wallace, 1930], pp. 326–27).
Such a compromise was anathema to JM, who had no intention of retreating from the high ground he occupied when helping fashion Article XVI of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He had seen conservative forces in the General Assembly come within an eyelash of passing the “Bill establishing a provision for the teachers of the Christian religion” at the October 1784 session—with some sly maneuvering needed by its opponents to postpone final action on the bill and publicize its provisions in the interim. George Nicholas in neighboring Albemarle County had entreated JM to bestir himself so that apathy would not allow the bill to become law (letter to JM, 22 Apr. 1785). Surely JM discussed the matter with his neighbors, including the obstreperous Elder John Leland, a Baptist minister who loathed all forms of church-state alliances. A host of Episcopalians as well as dissenters were eager to cut all church-state ties. However, a focal point for the opposition was needed, and the usual way to protest pending legislation in the 1780s was by a petition.
Partly from pressure then, and partly from personal conviction, JM took pen in hand and wrote a cogently reasoned attack on the measure, which was popularly called a General Assessment bill. By the end of June it was ready for distribution, most likely through Nicholas and other young men in the Piedmont whom Madison could trust to keep his secret—Archibald Stuart, John Breckinridge—and the tidelands patriarch at Gunston Hall who was eager to knock the tax-subsidy props from beneath the church he attended and loved, George Mason. The Library of Congress copy of the protest is in JM’s hand. No doubt he sent a copy to Mason, who was eager to see it in print. From an Alexandria press Mason broadcast copies of the Memorial and Remonstrance to friends and neighbors. Mason sent with it a covering letter which honored JM’s request for anonymity. The petition, Mason explained, was “confided to me by a particular Freind, whose Name I am not at Liberty to mention” (Mason to Washington, 2 Oct. 1785, Rutland, Papers of George Mason, II, 830). So active was Mason in supporting JM’s remonstrance that there was speculation that he was its real author (Rowland, Life of George Mason, II, 87).
JM’s motive in seeking a cloud of anonymity over his attack on the General Assessment bill is uncertain. JM told Jefferson copies had been dispatched “thro’ the medium of confidential persons” (italicized words in code, JM to Jefferson, 20 Aug. 1785). Eckenrode speculated that most Virginians were inclined to support the bill until the protest movement began to swell (Eckenrode, Separation of Church and State in Virginia, p. 95). The phalanx committed to its passage was imposing. A fortuitous circumstance was the fact that Patrick Henry was still governor and thus unable to use his oratory in the House of Delegates to overwhelm the opposition. Carter Henry Harrison, Charles Mynn Thruston, Wilson Miles Cary, John Page, and lesser lights also were convinced that religion needed bolstering. Richard Henry Lee and Edmund Pendleton were not legislators, but in Richmond their support of the General Assessment bill was certainly no secret (Mays, Papers of Edmund Pendleton, II, 474).

In these circumstances JM may have thought it prudent to eschew the role of rabble-rouser. There was much to be done at the October 1785 session of the legislature and JM was too good a politician to go out of his way to alienate those men whose votes or support he would need if the reforms of the court system and the whole legal code were to pass a House of Delegates fairly balanced in terms of conservative-progressive members. So it may have been prudence and expediency that caused JM to mantle his authorship of what has been called “one of the truly epoch-making documents in the history of American Church-State separation” (Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States [3 vols.; New York, 1950], I, 391).
A comparison between the Memorial and Remonstrance and John Locke’s “Letter on Toleration” (1685) leads to the speculation that JM had occasion to use Locke’s treatise in preparing his own. Assertions of intellectual dependence are often based on slender textual coincidences, but there are a number of similarities between the views of JM and Locke toward religious ties between church and state. For example, JM speaks of the “metes and bounds” between the temporal and spiritual establishments while Locke marked “the true bounds between the church and the commonwealth” (John Locke, Epistolia de Tolerantia: A Letter on Toleration, Raymond Klibansky and J. W. Gough, eds. [Oxford, 1968], p. 65). JM denies to “the Civil Magistrate” any power over religion because “Religious truth” and “the means of salvation” are beyond the concerns of the state. With Locke, the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate is concerned only with “civil goods” such as life, liberty, and property and ought not “in any way to be extended to the salvation of souls” (ibid., p. 67). Indeed, Locke held that “the magistrate ought not to forbid the holding or teaching of any speculative opinions in any church, because they have no bearing on the civil rights of his subjects” (ibid., p. 121).
If this comparison of Locke and JM is strained, there is one indisputable similarity between the “Letter on Toleration” and the Memorial and Remonstrance. Neither Locke nor JM wanted their authorship revealed. A modern scholar has noted that “Locke’s timid anxiety to conceal his identity was excessive”; JM sent his petition to a close circle of friends who were enjoined to secrecy (Locke, Letter on Toleration, p. 45; Rutland, Papers of George Mason, II, 830, 832). “My choice is that my name may not be associated with it,” JM wrote Randolph (26 July 1785).
Whether JM gleaned his arguments from a growing number of volumes in his personal library or drew upon experience and practical politics as his guides, the result is beyond doubt. Because of his labors the campaign against the General Assessment bill had all the aspects of a well-organized endeavor. What is not generally known is that JM was not only seeking anonymity but was so circumspect that another opponent of the General Assessment bill actually had a more active following. While at least thirteen of JM’s petitions were circulated (and in time bore 1,552 signatures), another (and still anonymous) petition writer found that his attack on the “Teachers of Christian Religion” measure gained more widespread support. Twenty-nine petitions, signed by 4,899 Virginians, came from the pen of this unknown opponent of a church-state tie. These petitions were based on an argument that carries beyond JM’s—the General Assessment bill was not only contrary to the Virginia Declaration of Rights and to the enlightened republicanism pronounced there, but the proposed act was in conflict with “the Spirit of the Gospel.” Whoever wrote this petition, which was easily the most popular of the several circulating protests, was clearly an active Christian who believed the General Assessment bill would do nothing to check “that Deism with its banefull Influence [which] is spreading itself over the state” (Vi: Westmoreland County petition).
Obviously, more Virginians were made aware of this zealous protest than JM’s calmer one, and it is also notable that in Westmoreland County at least eleven women signed the remonstrance based on “the Spirit of the Gospel.” Thus, while JM’s role in shaping opposition to the bill is noteworthy, his protest was signed by less than one-fifth of all the protesting Virginians who were recorded as opponents of the General Assessment bill (since some 10,929 signed some kind of anti-assessment petition). About eighty petitions opposed to the General Assessment bill flowed into the legislative hopper after 27 October 1785. Some were printed, and some came in longhand, but less than one-fifth of them were based entirely on JM’s work. Only eleven counties mustered enough support for the bill to send favorable petitions to Richmond. Faced with such odds, the conservatives retreated. The bill which seemed so certain of passage in November 1784 was, just a year later, allowed to die in the pigeonhole.
With the passing of time, history tended to forget the other protests of 1785–1786 and focused upon Madison’s. JM himself was no longer shy about his role, and in his seventy-fifth year he remembered that chiefly because of the Memorial and Remonstrance the churchmen in the General Assembly were “entirely frustrated, and under the influence of the public sentiment thus manifested the celebrated Bill ‘Establishing Religious freedom’ [was] enacted into a permanent Barrier agst. future attempts on the Rights of Conscience as declared in the great Charter affixed to the Constitution of the State” (JM to George Mason [of Green Spring], 14 July 1826 [ViHi]). His latter allusion was to the benchmark Article XVI of the Virginia Declaration of Rights which had opened the door for the winds of change, toppled the established church, and left men “equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.” JM remembered that entering wedge with some satisfaction for (with Mason’s help) he had written that, too.

[ca. 20 June 1785]

To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia A Memorial and Remonstrance
We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
1.   Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
2.   Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
3.   Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
4.   Because the Bill violates that equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If “all men are by nature equally free and independent,” all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an “equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience.” Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? Can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.
5.   Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
6.   Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.
7.   Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
8.   Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.
9.   Because the proposed establishment is a departure from that generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain repose from his Troubles.
10.   Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.
11.   Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed “that Christian forbearance, love and charity,” which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?
12.   Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.
13.   Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?
14.   Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. “The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly.” But the representation must be made equal, before the voice either of the Representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.
15.   Because finally, “the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience” is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the “Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government,” it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into law the Bill under consideration. We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing, may re]dound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.


Title: To James Madison from Joseph Jones, 23 June 1785
From: Jones, Joseph
To: Madison, James

Dr Sir.
Richmond 23d. June 1785.
Mr. Beckley has at length furnished me with a copy of the resolution you lately requested might be sent to you. I confide it to the care of Mr. Maury of Fredericksburg in hopes it will get safe and soon to your hands. Mr. Blair tells me a Copy of this resolution has been transmitted to the State of Maryland but knows nothing further of the matter—perhaps the Clerk or Speaker sent one to Mr. Mason. It wod. seem necessary something shod. be done in it previous to the meeting of the Assembly. My determination is to be in King George by the 8th. or 10th. next month where I shall stay a few days before I set out on my trip to Berkeley. I shod. be glad to hear from you and if you mean to leave orange wch. way you bend your course. Yr. friend & Servt
Jos: Jones.


Title: To James Madison from William Grayson, 27 June 1785
From: Grayson, William
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir.
New York June 27th. 1785.
I have recieved your favor of the 29. May acknowledging the receipt of my first letter, though making no mention of the last, which I presume has not yet come to hand. Since the date thereof the affair of the treaty with the Western Indians which was decided on the 18th. March last, has been opened again & very much canvassed; the result however is that the treaty is to be held; & for the double purpose of procuring peace and for extinguishing the rights of the Indians to the territory lying between the Great Miami & the Missisippi.
Accounts from Col. Harmer Commandr. at fort Mcintosh, mention that the emigration to the Country already purchased from the Indians is very considerable; that at the mouth of the Scioto there are about 500 Settlers, & at the mouth of the Miami & other parts about 1500. That he has agreable to orders dispossess’d all those who were convenient to him. Congress have directed him to move his garrison to such a point as shall be most convenient for removing all the intruders. Should his force be inadequate to the business, it is expected the troops which go down with the Commer. will be sufficient to make a general sweep.
The requisition for the current year is still before Congress, and there are considerable disagreemen[t]s respecting it; it is very certain public credit ought to be supported by every nation who wishes to exist; but it is also as certain that requisitions will not support credit unless there are payments consequential thereon.
The requisition for 1784 has been illy complied with. Some of the States have not done anything & the remittances of most of them to the Continental treasury (except Virginia) has been inconsiderable.
It is therefore no mystery why those who pay least should be most anxious for new requisitions. The delegation of our State are desirous of a requisition on terms not ruinous to [i]t and despairing for the present to accomplish an exaction of past delinquencies wish only to have it so modified as that the Interest on such portions of the £750,000 (as are Continental) which our Assembly has liquidated shall be considered among the facilities as fast as they are audited & past by the Continental Commes. They also wish the expenditures of Cash or certain parts thereof annually may be admitted in the hard money portion of Virginia as paymt. pro tento.
Congress after several unsuccessful efforts have at length elected Governor Livingston for the Hague.
Mr. Gardoqui chargè des affaires Plenipotentiary from the Court of Spain is at length arrived at this place; but I believe very few have seen him I understand he has been bred to the business of a Mercht. & is an agreable man; he has resided some short time in Philada. & the people from thence represent him in a favorable light.
The Commrs. appointed to make commercial treaties, have made no great progress therein; which is rather agreable to Congress than otherwise, as they begin to dislike the idea of granting the right of the most favored nation to powers whose commerce is of so little importance as not to promise any essential advantage to the U. S. The Pope without a treaty has opened Civita Vecchia, & Ancona for the commerce of America. In the same manner Leghorn & Messina are made free for us by the respective sovereigns. The treaties with the Barbary States are in train, & I hope will be completed in the course of the summer, though the expence will be considerable. The birth of the Duke of Normandy has been announced in due form. There is no certain intelligence respecting the Emperor & the Dutch. I remain with great sincerity Yr. Affect. frd. & Most Obed sert.
Willm. Grayson


Title: Copy of a Protestant Episcopal Church Petition to the General Assembly of Virginia, [July?] 1785
From: Madison, James
To:

Editorial Note
Whether JM wrote the petition calling for repeal of the act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal church in Virginia or merely copied the work of another for his own personal use is a matter of speculation, with the latter circumstance appearing the most likely one. Hunt and Brant assumed that JM wrote the petition, although the former assigned a 1786 date to the document despite the internal evidence that it was produced in the fall of 1785 (Madison, Writings [Hunt ed.]Gaillard Hunt, ed., The Writings of James
          Madison (9 vols.; New York, 1900–1910)., II, 212–14). Brant attributed the petition to JM but commented upon the fact it was “couched in more violent language than he [JM] was accustomed to use” (Madison, II, 349, 457 n. 14). The use of “Because” as a heading for each grievance is in keeping with JM’s style in his Memorial and Remonstrance, ca. 20 June 1785. However, no petition bearing the same wording is among the preserved petitions of the October 1785 session of the General Assembly (Vi), and JM’s own notation of “(Copy)” makes it probable the petition was filed away, for possible use if needed. JM was not anxious to become notorious for his hostility toward subsidized religion, and in such circumstances he could have written the petition for the use of less articulate opponents of the act of incorporation which had passed at the October 1784 session—a measure which JM had voted for in a tactical move that in no way represented his true feelings toward the bill (JM to Jefferson, 9 Jan. 1785). Petitions from the Presbyterian and Baptist assemblies and from Chesterfield County had sought repeal of the incorporation act, but an effort to amend the law was aborted at the October 1785 session (JHDVJournal of the House of Delegates of the
          Commonwealth of Virginia; Begun and Held at the Capitol, in the City of Williamsburg.
        Beginning in 1780, the portion after the semicolon reads, Begun and
          Held in the Town of Richmond. In the County of Henrico. The journal for each session
        has its own title page and is individually paginated. The edition used is the one in which
        the journals for 1777–1786 are brought together in two volumes, with each journal published
        in Richmond in either 1827 or 1828 and often called the “Thomas W. White reprint.”, Oct. 1785, pp. 18, 42, 81, 85, 118, 141, 143). However, repeal of the incorporating act was delayed until the next session of the General Assembly (Thom, Struggle for Religious Freedom in Virginia, p. 82; Hening, StatutesWilliam Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at
          Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the
          Legislature, in the Year 1619 (13 vols.; Richmond and Philadelphia, 1819–23)., XII, 266).

[July? 1785]

(Copy) To the honble. the Speaker & gentlemen the General Assembly of Virginia
We the subscribers members of the protestant Episcopal Church claim the attention of your honourable Body to our objections to the law passed at the last Session of Assembly for incorporating the protestant Episcopal Church; and we remonstrate against the said law—
Because the law admits the power of the Legislative Body to interfere in matters of Religion which we think is not included in their jurisdiction.
Because the law was passed on the petition of some of the Clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church without any application from the other members of that Church in whom the law is to operate, and we conceive it to be highly improper that the Legislature should regard as the sense of the whole Church the opinion of a few interested members who were in most instances originally imposed on the people without their consent & who were not authorised by even the smallest part of this community to make such a proposition.
Because the law constitutes the Clergy members of a Convention who are to legislate for the laity contrary to their fundamental right of Chusing their own Legislators.
Because by that law the most obnoxious & unworthy Clergyman cannot be removed from a parish except by the determination of a body, one half of whom the people have no confidence in & who will always have the same interest with the minister whose conduct they are to judge of.
Because by that law power is given to the Convention to regulate matters of faith, & the obsequious Vestries are to engage to change their opinions as often as the Convention shall alter theirs.
Because a System so absurd & servile, will drive the members of the Episcopal Church over to other Sects, where there will be more consistency & liberty.
We therefore hope that the wisdom & impartiality of the present Assembly will incline them to repeal a law so pregnant with mischief & injustice.


Title: From James Madison to Richard Henry Lee, 7 July 1785
From: Madison, James
To: Lee, Richard Henry

Dear Sir
Orange July 7th. 1785.
Your favor of the 30th. of May came to hand yesterday only, having lain some time in Fredg. and finally reached Orange via Albemarle. I agree with you perfectly in thinking it the interest of this Country to embrace the first decent opportunity of parting with Kentucky, and to refuse firmly to part with any more of our Western settlements. It seems necessary however that this first instance of a voluntary dismemberment of a State should be conducted in such a manner as to form a salutary precedent. As it will indirectly affect the whole Confederacy, Congress ought clearly to be made a party to it, either immediately, or by a proviso that the Partition-act shall not be enforced untill the actual admission of the new State into the Union. No interval whatever should be suffered between the release of our hold on that Country, and its taking on itself the obligations of a member of the federal Body. Should it be made a separate State without this precaution, it might be tempted to remain so as well with respect to the U. S. as to Virginia, by two considerations; 1. the evasion of its share of the Common debt, 2 the allurement which an exemption from taxes would prove to Citizens of States groaning under them. It is very possible that such a Course might in the end be found disadvantageous, but the charms of ambition & present interest, too often prevail against the remonstrances of sound policy. May we not also with justice insist that a reasonable Portion of the particular debt of Virginia sd. be assumed by the district which is to set up for itself?
The arrival of Mr. Guardoque will turn out I hope an auspicious step towards conciliating explanations & overtures on the subject of the Mississippi. Besides the general motives for accelerating an adjustment of this affair, the prodigious effect it would have on the sale of the back lands, renders it of peculiar importance. The same consideration presses for such arrangements with Great Britain as will give us speedy possession of the Western posts. As to the commercial arrangements which we wish from her, I see no room for sanguine expectations. What could she get from us by yielding to our demands which she does not now enjoy? I can not speak with certainty as to other States, but it is apparent that the trade of this was never more compleatly monopolized when it was under the direction of her own laws than it is at this moment. Our present situation therefore verifies the doctrine held out in Deane’s intercepted letters. We have lost by the Revolution our trade with the West Indies, the only one which yielded us a favorable balance, without having gained new channels to compensate it. What makes the British Monopoly too the more mortifying is the abuse they make of it. Not only the private planters who have resumed the practice of shipping their own Tobo. but many of our Merchants, particularly the natives of the Country who have no connections in Great Britain, have received accounts of sales which carry the most visible & shameful frauds in every article. In every point of view indeed the trade of this Country is in a deplorable Condition. A comparison of current prices here with those in the Northern States, either at this time or at any time since the peace, will shew that the loss direct on our produce & indirect on our imports, is not less than 50 Per Ct. Till very lately the price of our staple has been down at 32/ & 33/ on James River and 28/. on Rappahannock. During the same period the former was selling in Philada. and probably in other Northern ports at 44/. of our Currency & the latter in proportion; though it is clear that Tobo. in the Northern ports is intrinsically worth less than in ours; being burdened with the expence of freight from the latter to the former, & remaining at the same distance from its ultimate market. The price of Merchandize here is at least as much above as Tobo. is below the Northern Standard.
We have had from the beginning of June to the present time, very hot and very wet weather. The effect of it on upland Corn has been favorable, but much the reverse on that in the flats. It has given full opportunity to the planters to pitch their crops of Tobo. but tho’ many of them have repeated this operation several times, the noxious insects still threaten to abridge the prospect. Should their depredations subside, the extraordinary efforts of the Country for a crop must produce a great one. Our Wheat in this part of the Country is very indifferent. How it may be in others I cannot say, but believe the complaints are pretty general. With the highest esteem & regard I remain Dear Sir, Your Obedient & very Hble. Servt.
J. Madison Jr.


Title: To James Madison from George Nicholas, 7 July 1785
From: Nicholas, George
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir,
July 7th. 1785.

I expected to have done myself the pleasure of calling on you from the last Orange court but was disappointed in going there. I received the remonstrance and had it copied for I found that any change in it must be for the worse. One hundred and fifty of our most respectable freeholders signed it in a day. I have sent copies to the counties that I mentioned in my last. I am with regard and esteem Dr. Sir Yr. Obdt.
G. Nicholas


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 12 July 1785
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
New York July 12, 1785.
I enclose a copy of the journals so far as they are printed. They contain nothing you will find respecting the requisition nor the commercial interests of the Union. The former upon the report of a committee hath been frequently before Congress of late and as often recommitted, in which state it now lies. As the principal part of the debt which in other States forms a part of the present estimate, for the payment of whose interest the requisition is in that degree made, contracted by Qr. Masters, commissaries &c. with individuals in the liquidation whereof the commissrs. of the U S. with those of each State are now engag’d was contracted in ours by State impressments and of course consider’d and provided for as a State debt, we thought it our duty to propose “that in all cases wherein claims of individuals by payment of the principal or other satisfactory compensation have been transfer’d to the States of which they are citizens, the sd. States shall be consider’d as standing in the place of the individuals and entitled to all the benefits which wod. otherwise have belong’d to them.” Two thirds of the amt. requir’d will be necessary to discharge the interest upon the domestic debt, & this may be so modified in the collection as to admit certificates of interest in discount upon the liquidated debt. Our object therefore was to extend this facility to the State to obtain for her a discount of so much as she paid to her citizens of those debts due them by the U States, and thereby prevent the payment of double her proportion, for the discharge of similar debts within other states while she was exhausted by making it to her own citizens. To complete the facility to the States whose accts. were unliquidated, we also propos’d, “that for that reason and as each State suppos’d she had advancd her fœderal quota and requisitions upon a contrary principle, untill they shod. be liquidated, might be injurious to those with whom it shod. be the case, so far as they applied to the domestic debt that the requ[i]sitions might be so modified in their collection as that the States might pay in their quotas in either the principal or interest of such accts. as shod. be liquidated.” We presum’d the U States wod. be benefited by a State’s availing itself of this facility, as it must always be the interest of the debtor to diminish the principal in preference to the interest of a debt where the engagment is not to pay interest upon interest. Lastly we propos’d “that  dolrs. shod. be deducted out of the requisition in payment of that amt. of the advances of the State for the expedition to the Kaskaskias &ca.” These propositions were not recd. in the most favorable manner. As to the first they said “that the assumption on the part of the State & payment to its own citizens of the debts due by the U S. were voluntary acts, that such advances therefore must be consider’d as State-advances and to be taken into consideration upon the final liquidation of State accts. when the advances of all the States and their respective quotas were ascertain’d and apportion’d. That these advances also were in discharge of specific requisitions to which the State had given its assent in a motion by her delegates when the detachment of Wayne was marching southwds.” We answer’d that the failure in specific requisitions (and we would grant we had absolutely fail’d which however was not the case) was like failures in all other requisitions, that if we paid less in that than other States we had exceeded in equal degree in other instances, that these payments or failures under requisitions stood on the same ground & were to be settled on the same principles: that the resolution respecting Wayne was confin’d only to the troops under his command and untill he shod. reach the Marquis of Fayatte, or if extended to all the regular troops then in the State or during the campaign it had no connection with the Militia and State impressments for militia & regular troops; or if extended to the whole in either instance and untill the payment of the whole requisition, for the extra-advance there shod. be some consideration. In opposition to the 2d. proposition it was urg’d “that here is the estimate of the publick debt for the payment of whose interest a requisition is to be made; how can the interest be paid upon the estimate when the money necessary for it is to be applied to the discharge of the principal in some of the States.” Upon the 3d. proposition we had previously taken the sense of Congress but we thought proper to bring it again to their view that we might know what they intended doing in it. They were all three committed after several days debate & the opinion of the committee being agnst them after a few days obtaind a discharge. The report of the requisition will probably be brought in to day. All the States eastwd. of Pensyla. inclusive are interested in keeping up the present estimate and regulating the collection of the sums call’d for so as to pay the interest of it and of it alone. In vain it is argued that it is not founded on the true state of the domestic debt and therefore improper & oppressive. That untill the liquidation takes place it shod. be accomodated as much as possible to the convenience of the States. That it cannot be expected whilst some of the States fail altogether & present at the same time an assylum to those who fly from the duties of govt. that others will continue to harrass their citizens in making payments. I intended saying something upon the commercl. subject but have not time. Don Diego de Gardoqui hath arriv’d & been presented to Congress. He presented a letter of credence from the King & has full powers to treat upon the subject of the disputed boundary &ca yet he is stil’d Encargado de negotios, in consequence of the character of our mnstr. at Madrid. We take his stile from his letter of credence & call him Encargado de negotios—He is a polite & sensible man. I have inquir’d into the report of the commissrs. of Georgia to treat with those of Spn. & find it hath arose from the application of a vain old man to the Georgia Legislature who recd. for answer “they wod. attend to it in good time” returning home under an impression his affrs. were in a good way & gave those he conferr’d with reason to believe he was authoriz’d to treat. This the Delegates of that State suppose to be the case. Yr. several letters to Mr. Jefferson I have regularly fo[r]warded in the packets as I have recd them. I am dear Sir very respectfully yr. fnd. & servt.
Jas: Monroe
P. S. What say you to a trip to the Indian Treaty to be held on the Ohio—sometime in August or Sepr. I have thoughts of it & shod. be happy in your company. We might meet somewhere on the way—or perhaps you have thoughts of a trip this way—packets sail every week eastwd. to R. Islan[d] & Boston—a stage is also establish’d to lake George & the communication over lake Champlain to Montreal and Quebec easy & expeditious. Agreeable company may be found either way.


Title: To James Madison from Edmund Randolph, 17 July 1785
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Madison, James

My dear friend
Richmond July 17. 1785
By some inexplicable mystery, the inclosed letter from Mr. Jones, and my intended answer to your last epistolary favor, have still remained in my possession. Being engaged when the gentleman, who brought your friendly attention to me, I doubt whether I gave him an intelligible reply to his question, if my answer was ready.
Our apparent disobedience to the appointment of the assembly must be ascribed to the forgetfulness of our friend Henry. Genl. Washington having inquired from me the reason of our non-attendance at the time and place, marked for the conference by the government of Maryland, I immediately applied to the govr. for information, whether he had communicated the resolve of that state to the deputies. He could not recollect; but seemed anxious to avail himself of the probability of having inclosed it to you with several other public papers. Even Mason and Henderson knew nothing of the meeting; and would have been absent but for the activity and urgency of the general. But I am yet disposed to believe, that the communication with Pennsylvania has been forgotten: nor can I procure satisfaction on this head.
I dedicate to you, as the patron of the protestant Episcopal church, the inclosed journal. Between friends my experience in the last convention does not make me anxious to step forward in another. We have squeezed out a little liberality from them; but at a future day they will be harder than adament, and perhaps credulous, that they possess authority. Smith of P. Edward has waged war with the assembly, from which the act of incorporation sprang. He talks judiciously, but with a temper well-roused.
I have been preparing for my journey to Frederick for some time. But my aversion to leave home, where my choicest delights, one of which is at present incumbered, will remain, makes me doubt of the journey. Adieu my dear Madison and believe me to be yours mo. sincerely
E. R.


Title: To James Madison from John Dawson, 20 July 1785
From: Dawson, John
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Springhill July 20. 1785
Your goodness will excuse me, for addressing this letter to you, when you consider of what consequence it may be to me.
The General Assembly, at their Session in October last, I find, had it in contemplation to pass an Act respecting Naval Officers, by which Collectors are to be appointed to the several Districts; and altho it did not then pass for want of a sufficient number of members to make a house, I am informd that, in all probability, it will this fall.
I wish to have my Name mention’d for the Collectorship of this river, & therefore have wrote to you on the occasion, well knowing of what Assistance you can be to me on the occasion, if you think proper to advocate my interest; I scarce need add, that I shall ever retain a Grateful Sense of the favour. Receive the Compliments of Mr. Jones, and accept the same from, Dear Sir, Yr. Hm: Sert
J Dawson


Title: To James Madison from George Nicholas, 24 July 1785
From: Nicholas, George
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir,
Sweet Springs. July 24th. [1785]
I am very unhappy to find by your letter which has just now come to hand that two of mine to you have miscarried. I found that no alterations could be made to the remonstrance* without injury and immediately had it copied and sent to the counties I mentioned in a former letter.
One of my letters must certainly have reached you before this but for fear of accident shall desire my brother to send this on. I am with respect and esteem Dr. Sir, Yr. obdt. Servt.
G: Nicholas


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 26 July 1785
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
New York July 26. 1785.
Since my last a report proposing a change in the first paragraph of the 9th. of the articles of confideration hath been taken up & acted on two days in a committee of the whole. It proposes to invest Congress with power to regulate trade externally & internally. Those in favor of it were of opinion that the exercise of this power in the hands of each State, wod. be less advantageous to its particular interests, than in those of the union, because if in the regulation of trade it was sought 1. to encourage domestic industry in any line, by a tax upon foreign, which however remote at present may hereafter be the case. 2. if to obtain reciprocity in its commercial intercourse with foreign nations, either with or without treaties. 3. if to establish a commercial interest within, in contradistinction to a foreign one, and thereby keep its councils independent of foreign influence. 4. or to raise a naval strength for the publick Safety, all these ends might be obtain’d more effectually by the exercise of the power in the hands of the Union than of each State. For unless they act in concert in every instance instead of counteracting the regulations of other powers, they will become instrumental in their hands to impede & defeat those of each other: that there was but one alternative either to act together or against each other, that the latter plan establish’d deep-rooted jealousies & enmities between them, at the same time that it wod. be unsuccessfull; greater under its operation for any length of time than they wod. have against other powers, since being more convenient & better able to frustrate each others measures, their restrictions must be more severe and pointed agnst each other than agnst other powers. That such a course tended to throw them apart & weaken the present rights of the confideracy. That their interests were nearly similar being all exporting & importing States—that it was of little consequenc[e] whether they exported the same or different materials, since the restrictions which tended to restrain exportation, wod. injure the whole, & they were all equally interested in getting their admission upon the best terms into the ports of foreign powers. That they imported nearly the same materials & of course had the same interest in that line.
   That if there were different interests in every instance the restriction of every measure to 11. States the number propos’d, with the reven[ue] to each State wod. form a sufficient security.
 On the other side it was argued 1. That it was dangerous to concentrate power since it might be turn’d to mischievous purposes; that independent of the immediate danger of intoxication in those entrusted with it, & their attempts on the govrnment, it put us more in the power of other Nations. 2. that the interests of the different parts of the Union were different from each other, & that the regulations which suited the one would not the other part. That 8. States were of a particular interest whose business it wod. be to combine to shackle & fetter the others. 3. that all attacks upon the confideration were dangerous & calculated even if they did not succeed to weaken it. These I think were the principal arguments on either side, tho’ they were carried out into great extent. I think Colo. Grayson inform’d me sometime since he had transmitted to you the report otherwise I shod. now do it. I wish very much your sentiments on the subject.
By the packet we are inform’d that Mr. Adams had arriv’d in London, been presented to the King & well receiv’d. The ceremonial had only taken place when his dispatches were forwarded, so that he had not proceeded to business. Mr. Gardoqui is here; Congress have authoriz’d the Secretary of foreign affrs. to treat with him upon the subject of his mission. I am your friend & servant
Jas. Monroe

P S. I inclose you a treatise of Mr. Mazzai in favor of the port bill in Italian. I promis’d him to attempt a translation of it but really I distrust my knowledge of the language too much to attempt it provided I had leasure, which is not the case; he undertook it upon the desire of Colo. Innes for whom principally the translation is intended. By committing it to you I trust I promote his views more than I shall otherwise have it in my power to do.


Title: From James Madison to James Monroe, 28 July 1785
From: Madison, James
To: Monroe, James

Dear Sir
Orange July 28th. 1785
I received yesterday your favour of the 12th. inst. The date of the preceding one was early in May. From this interval and your not acknowledging some of my letters I suspect that our correspondence suffers from some fault in the post office. This has certainly been the case with letters between Col. Grayson and myself. The part of your letter which has engaged most of my attention is the postscript which invites me to a ramble this fall. I have long had it in contemplation, to seize occasions as they may arise, of traversing the Atlantic States as well as of taking a taste of the Western curiosities. A visit to the Eastern States which I have never seen formed the first article in my plan, and I had allotted to it the season which I otherwise employed last year. A trip in to Canada would also be agreeable. With these prepossessions, you may well suppose, I read your invitation with a sufficient disposition to accept it. There are several considerations however which oblige me to hesitate. My resources do not authorize me to disregard that of the expence, though this shall never be a decisive objection, but when it is an essential one: the possibility of my being called on to attend a public duty which has been imposed on me—the inconveniency of sparing so much time. To these general objections particular ones occur. The time at which the Western treaty will actually be held must be extremely uncertain; great delays ought to be presupposed as happened in the last one at Fort Stanwix, and a return might be obstructed by the lowness of the waters, by the want of boats at our command, or by the necessity of travelling back thro’ the Wilderness via Kentucky; these circumstances compared with the time at which my attendance will be due at Richmond, seem to forbid my acceding to your first proposition. The second, to wit, a ramble towards Montreal & Quebec, is objectionable also on account of the time it would require; not to mention that the present may not be the crisis at which a Citizen of the U. States would travel with most satisfaction through that country. The Eastern ramble which is the third you suggest, has also its difficulties, though they are the least insurmountable. In the first place, your expressions leave me in doubt whether it would be agreeable to yourself or not; in the next, I should consider it as indispensable to go by land, and not by water from New York. The latter mode would not answer the purpose of a traveller; and I am not sure that the former is attainable without carrying horses from Virginia: and in the last place, it is possible as observed above, that I may be called by matters of a public nature from such a project of pleasure. Notwithstanding these difficulties, I will make some eventual arrangements, suspending a positive determination till I hear again from you, which I hope will be as early as an answer can come by the post. At all events it is not unlikely that I may be obliged to ride as far as Philada. where I should be very happy if we could meet in case your final plans should make it convenient. Besides a public undertaking which may possibly require such a ride, I have in conjunction with a friend here a project on the anvil, which may furnish a motive of interest. I am Dear Sir Yr. affectionate friend
J. Madison Jr.
I thank you particularly for the Journals of Congress.


Title: From James Madison to James Monroe, 7 August 1785
From: Madison, James
To: Monroe, James

Dear Sir
Orange Aug: 7th. 1785
I received the day before yesterday your favour of the 26th July. I had previously recd. the Report on the proposed change of the 9th. art: of the Confederation, transmitted by Col: Grayson, and in my answer to him offered such ideas on the subject as then occurred. I still think the probability of success or failure ought to weigh much with Congress in every recommendation to the States; of which probability Congress, in whom information from every State centers, can alone properly judge. Viewing in the abstract the question whether the power of regulating trade, to a certain degree at least, ought to be vested in Congress, it appears to me not to admit of a doubt, but that it should be decided in the affirmative. If it be necessary to regulate trade at all, it surely is necessary to lodge the power, where trade can be regulated with effect, and experience has confirmed what reason foresaw, that it can never be so regulated by the States acting in their separate capacities. They can no more exercise this power separately, than they could separately carry on war, or separately form treaties of alliance or Commerce. The nature of the thing therefore proves the former power, no less than the latter, to be within the reason of the fœderal Constitution. Much indeed is it to be wished, as I conceive, that no regulations of trade, that is to say, no restrictions or imposts whatever, were necessary. A perfect freedom is the System which would be my choice. But before such a system will be eligible perhaps for the U. S. they must be out of debt; before it will be attainable, all other nations must concur in it. Whilst any one of these imposes on our Vessels seamen &c in their ports, clogs from which they exempt their own, we must either retort the distinction, or renounce not merely a just profit, but our only defence against the danger which may most easily beset us. Are we not at this moment under this very alternative? The policy of G. B. (to say nothing of other nations) has shut against us the channels without which our trade with her must be a losing one; and she has consequently the triumph, as we have the chagrin, of seeing accomplished her prophetic threats, that our independence, should forfeit commercial advantages for which it would not recompence us with any new channels of trade. What is to be done? Must we remain passive victims to foreign politics; or shall we exert the lawful means which our independence has put into our hands, of extorting redress? The very question would be an affront to every Citizen who loves his Country. What then are those means? Retaliating regulations of trade only. How are these to be effectuated? only by harmony in the measures of the States. How is this harmony to be obtained? only by an acquiescence of all the States in the opinion of a reasonable majority. If Congress as they are now constituted, can not be trusted with the power of digesting and enforcing this opinion, let them be otherwise constituted: let their numbers be encreased, let them be chosen oftener, and let their period of service be short[e]ned; or if any better medium than Congress can be proposed, by which the wills of the States may be concentered, let it be substituted; or lastly let no regulation of trade adopted by Congress be in force untill it shall have been ratified by a certain proportion of the States. But let us not sacrifice the end to the means: let us not rush on certain ruin in order to avoid a possible danger. I conceive it to be of great importance that the defects of the fœderal system should be amended, not only because such amendments will make it better answer the purpose for which it was instituted, but because I apprehend danger to its very existence from a continuance of defects which expose a part if not the whole of the empire to severe distress. The suffering part, even when the minor part, can not long respect a Government which is too feeble to protect their interest; But when the suffering part come to be the major part, and they despair of seeing a protecting energy given to the General Government, from what motives is their allegiance to be any longer expected. Should G. B. persist in the machinations which distress us; and seven or eight of the States be hindered by the others from obtaining relief by fœderal means, I own, I tremble at the anti-fœderal expedients into which the former may be tempted. As to the objection against intrusting Congress with a power over trade, drawn from the diversity of interests in the States, it may be answered. 1. that if this objection had been listened to, no confederation could have ever taken place among the States, 2. that if it ought now to be listened to, the power held by Congress of forming Commercial treaties by which 9 States may indirectly dispose of the Commerce of the residue, ought to be immediately revoked. 3 that the fact is that a case can scarcely be imagined in which it would be the interest of any 2/3ds of the States to oppress the remaining 1/3d. 4. that the true question is whether the commercial interests of the States do not meet in more points than they differ. To me it is clear that they do: and if they do there are so many more reasons for, than against, submitting the commercial interest of each State to the direction and care of the Majority. Put the West India trade alone, in which the interest of every State is involved, into the scale against all the inequalities which may result from any probable regulation by nine States, and who will say that the latter ought to preponderate? I have heard the different interest which the Eastern States have as Carriers pointed out as a ground of caution to the Southern States who have no bottoms of their own agst their concurring hastily in retaliations on G. B. But will the present system of G. B. ever give the Southern States bottoms: and if they are not their own Carriers I shod. suppose it no mark either of folly or incivility to give our custom to our brethren rather than to those who have not yet entitled themselves to the name of friends.
In detailing these sentiments I have nothing more in view than to prov[e] the readiness with which I obey your requests. As far as they are just they must have been often suggested in the discussions of Congress on the subject. I can not even give them weight by saying that I have reason to believe they would be relished in the public Councils of this State. From the trials of which I have been a witness I augur that great difficulties will be encountered in every attempt to prevail on the Legislature to part with power. The thing itself is not only unpalatable, but the arguments which plead for it have not their full force on minds unaccustomed to consider the interests of the State as they are interwoven with those of the Confederacy much less as they may be affected by foreign politics whilst those wch. plead agst. it, are not only specious, but in their nature popular: and for that reason, sure of finding patrons. Add to all this that the mercantile interest which has taken the lead in rousing the public attention of other States, is in this so exclusively occupied in British Commerce that what little weight they have will be most likely to fall into the opposite scale. The only circumstance which promises a favorable hearing to the meditated proposition of Congs. is that the power which it asks is to be exerted agst. G. B, and the proposition will consequently be seconded by the animosities which still prevail in a strong degree agst. her. I am My dear Sir very sincerely Yr friend & servt.
J. Madison Jr


Title: To James Madison from Richard Henry Lee, 11 August 1785
From: Lee, Richard Henry
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir,
N. Y. Augt. 11. 1785
Your favor of July the 7th was long coming to hand as I find my letter of the 20th May was in getting to you. This joined to the uncertainty of letters ever arriving safe is a very discouraging circumstance to full & free correspondence. I have the honor of according most perfectly and entirely with your ideas for regulating our severance from Kentucky. It is unquestionably just that this district should assume her fair & full proportion of the debt created by the War because the benefit being Common so should be the expence procuring it and that this country shall be a fundamental article in the Act of parting; as well as that they shall be a component part of the Federal Union. The Contract should be Tripartite; the parties, our State, Congress, & Kentucky. Mr. Jay is commissioned to treat with Mr. Gardoque, but as yet nothing has been done. The exclusive navn. of Miss’ipi will be earnestly contended for by Spain, who to quiet us on that head will probably grant large commercial benefits. But if we remain firm, I incline to think that the Navign. will be consented to. As yet we only know Officially that Mr. Adams has arrived in London, received his Audience & delivered his Credentials. The next packet will probably inform us of his feeling the B[ritish]. pulse & how it beats, at the subjects that he is to try them upon. I think with you that there is not great room for hope of Commercial advantages from a Nation whose appetite for Commerce has ever been ravenous, and its wishes always for Monopoly. And the more especially as we have no compensation to make. I believe that we may dispose them to be reasonable, by a very careful, and considerate restraining of their Trade, in all cases where we shall not injure ourselves more than them by the restraint. But it seems to me clearly beyond doubt, that the giving Congress a power to Legislate over the Trade of the Union would be dangerous in the extreme to the 5 Southern or Staple States, whose want of ships & Seamen would expose their freightage & their produce to a most pernicious and destructive Monopoly. With such a power 8 states in the Union would be stimulated by extensive interest to shut close the door of Monopoly, that by the exclusion of all Rivals whether for the purchasing our produce or freighting it, both these might be at the Mercy of our East & North. The Spirit of Commerce thro’out the world is a Spirit of Avarice and could not fail to act as above stated. What little difficulty there would be in drawing over one of the 5 to join the 8 interested States must be very discernable to those who have marked the progress of intrigues in Congres[s]. In truth it demands most careful circumspection that the Remedy be not worse than the disease, bad as the last may be. I could say much on this subject, but it is not necessary, for I am sure that your good sense reflecting calmly on the subject will sufficiently discern the danger of such an experiment. Nor do I believe it necessary, being perfectly satisfied that a well digested system of restraint being properly laid before the States by Congress would be universa[l]ly adopted by the different Assemblies. I think so, because it will be most evidently the interest of all to do so. It is true that the price of our Staple has been for some time greater at Phila. & here than in Virga. But it is as true the European price did not warrant the price at these two places as the great losses & bankruptcies of the Adventurers plainly prove. Indeed this excess of price at P. & N. Y. was occasioned by sinking Speculators, who to swim a while longer, would go any lengths to keep up appearances by making some remittance to their Creditors abroad. But this business is now chiefly over & here at present there is neither money nor inclination to purchase Tobo. The crowd of Bankrupts at P. has, I believe, nearly produced the same effect.


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 20 August 1785
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear Sir,
Orange Aug: 20th. 1785.
Yours of the 18th. of March never reached me till the 4 inst. It came by post from N. York, which it did not leave till the 21. of July. My last was dated in April, & went by Mr. Mazzei who picked it up at N. York and promised to deliver it with his own hand.
The machinations of G. B. with regard to Commerce have produced much distress and noise in the Northern States, particularly in Boston, from whence the alarm has spread to New York & Philada. Your correspondence with Congs. will no doubt have furnished you with full information on this head. I only know the General fact, and that the sufferers are every where calling for such augmentation of the power of Congress as may effect relief. How far the Southern States & Virginia in particular will join in this proposition cannot be foreseen. It is easy to foresee that the circumstances which in a confined view distinguish our situation from that of our brethren, will be laid hold of by the partizans of G. B. by those who are or affect to be jealous of Congress, and those who are interested in the present course of business, to give a wrong bias to our Councils. If any thing should reconcile Virga. to the idea of giving Congress a power over her trade, it will be that this power is likely to annoy G. B. against whom the animosities of our Citizens are still strong. They seem to have less sensibility to their commercial interests; which they very little understand, and which the mercantile class here have not the same motives if they had the same capacity to lay open to the public, as that class have in the States North of us. The price of our Staple since the peace is another cause of inattention in the planters to the dark side of our commercial affairs. Should these or any other causes prevail in frustrating the scheme of the Eastern & Middle States of a general retaliation on G. B. I tremble for the [event]. A majority of the states deprived of a regular remidy for their distresses by the want of a fœderal spirit in the minority must feel the strongest motives to some irregular experiments. The dan[ger] of such a crisis makes me surmise that the policy of Great Britain results as much from the hope of effecting a breach in our confederacy as of monopolising our trade.
Our internal trade is taking an arrangement from which I hope good consequences. Retail stores are spreadg all over the Country, many of them carried on by native adventurers, some of them branched out from the principal Stores at the heads of navigation. The distribution of the business however into the importing & the retail departments has not yet taken place. Should the port bill be established it will I think quickly add this amendment which indeed must in a little time follow of itself. It is the more to be wished for as it is the only radical cure for credit to the consumer which continues to be given to a degree which if not checked will turn the diffusive retail of merchandize into a nusance. When the Shop keeper buys his goods of the wholesale Merchant, he must buy at so short a credit, that he can venture to give none at all.
You ask me to unriddle the dissolution of the committee of the states at Annapolis. I am not sure that I am myself possessed fully of the causes, different members of Congress having differed in their accounts of the matter. My conception of it is that the abrupt departure of some of the Eastern delegates which destroyed the quorum & which Dana is said to have been at the bottom of proceeded partly from irritations among the committee partly from dislike to the place of their session and partly from an impatience to get home which prevailed over their regard for their private characters as well as for their public duty.
Subsequent to the date of mine in which I gave my idea of Fayette I had further opportunities of penetrating his character. Though his foibles did not disappear all the favorable traits presented themselves in a stronger light. On closer inspection he certainly possesses talents which might figure in any line. If he is ambitious it is rather of the praise which virtue dedicates to merit than of the homeage which fear renders to power. His disposetion is naturally warm and affectionate and his attachment to the United States unquestionable. Unless I am grossly deceived you will find his zeal sincere & useful whenever it can be employed in behalf of the United States without opposetion [to] the essential interests of France.
The opposition to the general assessment gains ground. At the instance of some of its adversaries I drew up the remonstrance herewith inclosed. It has been sent thro’ the medium of confidential persons in a number of the upper county[s] and I am told will be pretty extensively signed. The presbyterian clergy have at length espoused the side of the opposition, being moved either by a fear of their laity or a jealousy of the episcopalians. The mutual hatred of these sects has been much inflamed by the late act incorporating the latter. I am far from being sorry for it as a coalition between them could alone endanger our religious rights and a tendency to such an event had been suspected. The fate of the Circuit Courts is uncertain. They are threatened with no small danger from the diversity of opinions entertained among the friends of some reform in that department. But the greatest danger is to be feared from those who mask a secret aversion to any reform under a zeal for such a one as they know will be rejected. The Potowmack Company are going on with very flattering prospects. Their subscriptions sometime ago amounted to upwards of four fifths of the whole sum. I have the pleasure also to find by an advertisement from the managers for James River that more than half of the sum is subscribed for that undertaking, and that the subscribers are to meet shortly for the purpose of organizing themselves & going to work. I despair of seeing the Revisal taken up at the ensuing Session. The number of copies struck are so deficient (there being not above three for each County) and there has been such delay in distributing them (none of the Counties having recd. them till very lately & some probably not yet, tho’ they were ready long ago) that the principal end of their being printed has been frustrated. Our fields promise very short crops both of Corn & Tobo. The latter was much injured by the Grass hopper & other insects; the former somewhat by the bug in the Southern parts of the State, but both have suffered most from dry weather which prevails at present in this part of the Country, and has generally prevailed I understand in most other parts. It seems certain that no future weather can make a great crop of either, particularly of Tobo. so great a proportion of the hills being without plants in them, & so many more with plants which must come to nothing. Notwithstandg this prospect, its price has fallen from 36/. to 32 & 30/ on James River & 28/ on Rappahannock. The scarcity of cash is one cause. Harrison the late governor was elected in Surry whither he previously removed with his family. A contest for the chair will no doubt ensue. Should he fail it he will be for Congress.
I have not yet recd. any of the books which you have been so kind as to pick up for me; but expect their arrival daily, as you were probably soon after the date of your last apprized that I was withdrawn from the nomination which led you to suspend the forwarding them. I am invited by Col: Monroe to an option of rambles this fall, one of which is into the Eastern States. I wish much to accept so favorable an opportunity of executing the plan from which I was diverted last fall; but can not decide with certainty whether it will be practicable or not. I have in conjunction with a friend here a project of interest on the anvil which will carry me at least as far as Philada. or New York where I shall be able to take my final resolution. Adieu. Yrs. sincerely
J M Jr.


Title: To James Madison from William Grayson, 21 August 1785
From: Grayson, William
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
New York Augt. 21st. 1785.
Your favor of  has come to hand; I am sorry to hear the doctrine of paper money begins to rear up it’s head in our State. This subject has been so well investigated at different periods that I can hardly think any reasonable man can advocate it, unless for the purpose of advancing some object of interest; I remember in the old Government that our exchange rose to 65 P Ct. This alarmed the merchants so much that the King determined to give his assent to no more paper money bills. Agreable to your request I have made inquiry respecting the paper money of Pensylvany; I understand from Colo. Biddle that it is in a state of depreciation. It will however buy goods, under the inconvenience of an additional advance; almost every body says it is mighty good, yet nobody will part with ready money for it at an equal exchange. As I go through Philada. on my return to Virginia I will make the most minute investigation into the matters and furnish you with the result of my inquiries in time for the meeting of our Assembly.
We have done very little since I wrote you last; the States have been so irregularly represented, that it has been impracticable to act upon any matter of consequence; the requisition is still before Congress, and I expect will pass as soon as a sufficient number of States are upon the floor. It rests however at present on principles which are not intirely advantageous to our State; although from a disposition which has lately appeared I think the State will be able to get better terms. I agree with you intirely as to the necessity of a requisition at any rate. Otherwise the public Creditors might be so clamorous, as to render the Govermnt. in some degree odious.
The Mint is still before Congress, and it is uncertain whether anything will be done in it this year. The Post Office is also under consideration, and I am apt to believe the following alteration will take effect:
To transfer the transportation of the Mail to the Stages; & to oblige all Sea Captains to deliver in their letters to the Post Office before they are admitted to an entry. The first alteration will furnish three mails a week through our State, & with much more expedition.
A Post to Canada from New York is talk’d of, also one from Alexandria to fort Pitt. The change of the 9th. article of the confederation hath been the subject of debate for two days, & I expect will be taken up shortly again; there appears to be a variety of objections to the change, & I imagine the Members will not even consent to a recommendation witht. previous instructions from the legislatures.
A commission has pass’d Congress to negotiate with Mr. Gardoqui, under the direction of Congress; nothing has as yet transpired, neither can I find any idea of what will be the result. There has been no other information from Mr. Adams, except that he hath been received according to the established forms. Mr. Marbois has withdrawn the application for Lonchamp.
A nephew of mine has been here & giv’n me an account of the Convention at Kentucki: from which I conclude an application will be made to our legislature to grant them independance. This matter has been the subject of conversation here, & an opinion begins to prevail that a State has no right to dismember itself witht. the previous consent of the U. S. Indeed this doctrine appears to me to be founded on the nature of things, & to require no comment to support it. Should our legislature take up this opinion I presume the negotiation will be carried on through Congress, when an admission into the confederation may be stipulated at the same time the actual dismembrement takes effect. I do not know that it will be for the interest of our State to withhold independance from them although asked at an unreasonable time for themselves, yet it surely is a matter of consequence to her, that at the time they cease to be a part of Virginia, they become a part of the fœderal Union. The different States can have no other interest in this event than that of dismembering the State of Virga. of whose magnitude they are jealous. They are then gratified with a simple dismembrement witht. admitting the new State into the Confederation. Will it not therefore be proper to make the dismembrement & admission into the Union Co-existent acts & mutually dependant on each other. There seems to be another reason why this mode should be preferred; the conditions for the security of property & other matters will be more likely to be observed, if the pacta conventa are tripartite, & the U. S. as one of the dramatis personæ can be induced to guaranty them; indeed if the new State is to take upon itself the payment of any part of the public debt I should think it proper the U. S. should admit it to become debtor pro tanto & the old one exonerated in the same proportion. These are thoughts at first new, and I do not doubt but ideas on this subject much more proper have suggested themselves to your mind.
The fœderal buildings at Trenton seems rather to lose than to gain ground. A third Commissioner is wanting without whom the other two are useless & a sufficient number of States has not yet been found to appoint him. I believe the 30,000 dollars in the requisition for the construction of these buildings will not stand. Some of the Eastern States have kick’d up about the money. If it was not for fear of the imputation of instability I would as soon as No. Carolina is represented move to adjourn to Philada; perhaps this is at present the properest place at least till we can see our way clearer to the Westward.
Mr. Jay is directed to report the number of Consuls necessary & the places of destination. Some gentlemen are of opinion we may have Consuls witht. treaties. Our friend Colo. Monroe sets out in a day or two for the Indian Treaty at the mouth of the Great Miami: from thence he proceeds to Kentucki on some private business & so through the Wilderness to Virga. From yr. Affect. fd. & Most Obed. Servt:
Willm. Grayson
N B. I imagine you have heard the Consular Convention with France is arrived, but not yet confirmed.