Title: From James Madison to William Bradford, 19 June 1775
From: Madison, James
To: Bradford, William

My dear friend
June 19th. 1775.

I received another acceptable pledge of your friendship two days ago in a letter dated June 2d. and, as usual, must begin this by discharging a debt of Gratitude to which the further accounts I have of your friendly services and intentions intitle you. I hope I have an inexhaustible fund of that however destitute I may be of other virtues. But I assure you I am often grieved at reflecting that I have it not in my power to give you a better evidence of it than verbal declarations Yet I have that opinion of your goodness that I am persuaded you would be satisfied even without them.
Little did I ever expect to hear that Jeremiah’s Doctrine that “the heart of man is deceitful above all things & desperately wicked” was exemplified in the celebrated Dr Franklin, & if the suspicions against him be well founded it certainly is remarkably exemplified. Indeed it appears to me that the bare suspicion of his guilt amounts very nearly to a proof of its reality. If he were the man he formerly was, & has even of late pretended to be[,] his conduct in Philada. on this critical occasion could have left no room for surmise or distrust. He certainly would have been both a faithful informer & an active member of the Congress. His behaivour would have been explicit & his Zeal warm and conspicuous. We have a report he[re] that Bland one of our delegates has turned traitor & fled from Philada. I hope it is not true tho’ some unfavorabl[e] Hints have been thrown out of late to his prejudice. Virgil certainly gave a great proof of his knowlege of human nature when he exclaimed “Quid non mortalia pectora cogis auri sacra fama?[”] Tho’ appointed a member of Congress Bland is in needy circumstances & we all know age is no stranger to avarice. The conduct of these two delegates with many concurring circumstances I think suggest the apprehensions that some Golden prospects will be opened to the Congress by the ministry before they make their ultimate appeal to the Sword. A prospect that could captivate the heart of a franklin could almost make me shudder for the tempted. But when I consider the united virtue of that illustrious Body every apprehension of Danger vanishes. The signal proofs they have given of their Integrity & attachment to Liberty both in their private & Confederate capacities must triumph over Jealously itself. However should it come to the worst I am persuaded that the Union Virtue & Love of Liberty at present prevailing thro’out the Colonies is such that it would be as little in the power of our treacherous friends as of our avowed enemies, to put the yoke upon us. An attempt to sell us would infallibly purchase to the authors present Vengeance & eternal infamy.
A rumour is on the wing that the provincials have stormed Boston & with the Loss of 7,000 have cutt off or taken Gage & all his men. It is but little credited. Indeed the fact is extremely improbable: but the times are so remarkable for strange events; that improbability is almost become an argument for their truth.
Our friend Mr Wallace I hear is well & has entered into the Connubial state with one Miss McDowell, daughter of one of the representatives of Bottatourt County. Since I wrote last a Dysentry hath made an Irruption in my father’s family. It has carried off a little sister about seven & a brother about four years of age. It is still among us but principally among the blacks. I have escaped hitherto, & as it is now out of the house I live in, I hope the danger is over. It is a disorder pretty incident to this Country & from some symptoms I am afraid will rage more generally this year than common. Our Burgesses from the County are not yet returned from Willmsbg. where they hold their Assembly. So I cannot give you any particulars of their proceedings. The news papers will do that I expect: I understand Lord Dunmore by deserting his Palace & taking Sanctuary on board the Ship of War, under pretence of the fear of an Attack on his person, has surprized & incensed them much, As they thought it incredible he should be actuated on that occasion by the Motive he alledges. It is judged more likly to have proceeded from some intelligence or Instructions he has received from his friends or superiors to the North. It is said the Governor of N Caroliana has treated his Assembly nearly in the same manner. Some will have it that Lord Dunmore removed from Wmsbg. & pretended danger that he might with more force & consistency misrepresent us to the ministry. His unparralled malice to the people of this Colony since the detection of his false & wicked letters, sent home at the time he was professing an ardent friendship for us must lead us to suppose he will do us all the Injury in his power. But we defy his power as much as we detest his Villany. We have as great unanimity & as much of the Military Ardor as you can possibly have in your government; & the progress we make in discipline & hostile preparations is as great as the Zeal with which these things were undertaken. The strength of this Colony will lie chiefly in the rifle-men of the Upland Counties, of whom we shall have great numbers. You would be astonished at the perfection this art is brought to. The most inexpert hands rec[k]on it an indifferent shot to miss the bigness of a man’s face at the distance of 100 Yards. I am far from being among the best & should not often miss it on a fair trial at that distance. If we come into an engagement, I make no doubt but the officers of the enemy will fall at the distance before they get withing 150 or 200 Yards. Indeed I believe we have men that would very often hit such a mark 250 Yds. Our greatest apprehensions proceed from the scarcity of powder but a little will go a great way with such as use rifles. It is imagined our Governor has been tampering with the Slaves & that he has it in contemplation to make great Use of them in case of a civil war in this province. To say the truth, that is the only part in which this Colony is vulnerable; & if we should be subdued, we shall fall like Achilles by the hand of one that knows that secret. But we have a good cause & great Courage which are a great support. I shall just add that among other incouragement we have a prospect of immense crops of Grain.
Adieu
J M Jun


Title: To James Madison from William Bradford, 10 July 1775
From: Bradford, William
To: Madison, James

My dear friend
July 10th 1775

I did intend to have delayed writing to you till Mr Smith’s return to Virginia; but I believe that will not be early & I am not fond of delaying the discharge of an Epistolary debt. He was married last week to Miss Anna Witherspoon & proposes to spend some time at Princeton & at his fathers. He desired me to mention this to you lest you should suppose he had returned without calling upon you.
The Congress talk of removing in a week or two to Hartford in Connecticut that they may be nearer the seat of War & receive earlier and more authentic intelligence than at this distance it is possible to obtain. They have published a “Declaration of the Causes & necessity of taking up arms”, and another “Address to the inhabitants of G. Britain [.”] I have been seeking an opportunity of sending you these but cannot find one: however they will be immediately published in all the papers & probably will reach you nearly as soon as this. They are written (particularly the last) with a Spirit that will charm you. As I read them Pleasure vibrated thro’ every nerve & I thank my God that I was born in an age & country capable of producing such Gallant spirit. By the address I find they have prefered another petition to the King & to remove every imputation of obstinacy (say they) we have requested his majesty to direct some mode by which the united applications of his faithful colonists may be improved into a happy & permanent reconciliation. The declaration & address have gone to England in a vessel which saild yesterday: & I suppose the petition accompanies them.
Mr Kirkland (an Indian missionary at Onida) came to town a few days ago to engage the Congress to propose a treaty to the five nations which he thinks they would readily come into. He informed that those tribes are very favorable to our Cause notwithstanding the constant endeavors that have been used to excite them against us. Guy Johnston sometime ago sent them the War Belt but they returned him a belt of peace. The Congress is to take the matter under Consideration to day; & I hope will be able so to conduct matters that we shall either receive assistance from these nations or have nothing to fear from them[.] Mr Kirkland proposes on his return to send some of their Chiefs this way & hopes by seeing our military preparations they will banish that contemptable opinion of strength they have been industriously taught to entertain, & consequently [be] more willing to join us. He also informed me that the five nations lately resolved in a Conference meeting that they would not admit any White People to settle among them. They had observed that those tribes that did so, soon became extinct & they have wisely gaurded against the same fate. [“]The great God (said they to some white people) does not chuse we should live together: he hath Givin you a white skin & said live you on that side of the river: to us he hath given a Red skin & said live you on tother side the river—let us not disobey him.” They are however fond of treating with the white people & of being considered important by them.
I heartily wish your Riflemen & ours were at the Camp. There are about 200 collected in this province and are to set off soon. When the[y] arrive I am mistaken if the young officers complain of want of Promotion: there will be vacancies enough for them to rise in.
I am grieved to hear the dysentery prevails so much with you, & for the loss you have sustained. If the disorder should not abate I would recommend a Journey this way to you: & if you can find nothing to amuse you here you may prosecute your Journey to Cambrige. An Enthusiasm (almost equal to that which prevailed in Europe for the Crusades) has seized many in this city & carried them to the Camp; & yet they are not wanted. It is said the american lines a[re] 20 miles in length & that soldiers arrive so fast from all Quarters that it is difficult to find provision for them all. I received a letter from Mr Rees a few days ago in which he informs me of a Negro conspiracy having been discovered at Charlestown. I hope Virginia will have no disturbances of that Kind.
I am &c.
W B Jun


Title: To James Madison from William Bradford, [18] July 1775
From: Bradford, William
To: Madison, James

My dear Sir,
Philada. July [18, 1775]

I wrote to you last week by the post. Mr Smith gives me an opportunity of sending you a few more lines which friendship will not allow me to neglect.
I have seen the address to the six confederate indian Nations. It sets forth that our fathers left britain on the faith of Contracts which have been faithfully observed on our part, that the king’s ministers grew jealous of us, that they sent armies to rob & kill us, therefore requesting if any application be made to them by those wicked ministers to refuse them, that we only desire that peace may continue between us. “We do not ask you (says the address) to take up the hatchet against the soldiers of the great King. We ask that it may be buried deep & peace & harmony subsist between us[.]” They are desired to acquaint the tribes on the river St. Lawrence with this talk: & on the return of their messengers to pay a visit to the general congress: & in the conclusion “We have lighted up a small council fire at Albany that we may hear each other & more fully disclose our minds to one another.[”] This is to be translated into Indian by Mr Kirkland and Genl. Schuyler is to deliver the belts, which are to be larger than any ever sent to the five nations: & as the Indians judge of the importance of the business by the Largeness of the belt there is no doubt but this matter will excite universal attention among them.
It is said the Declaration is to be translated in several Languages and sent abroad. I am also privately informed that they are preparing an address to foreing states inviting them to trade with us. If this be true it may serve to explain what I heard Coll Hancock say the other day: “that he made no doubt but Boston would soon be in the peaceable possession of the original proprietors: nay continued he, I should not be surprized if Britain should court a reconciliation by offering to indemnify us for all our Losses.” As I knew not his Grounds for such a speech I must confess it appeared to me a very extradinary one. I believe the Congress have lay aside the design of removing from Philada. But they talk of adjourning next saturday for a few weeks.
I had the pleasure this morning of seeing Aaron Burr who is going to the Camp with one Mr Ogden. I hope I shall hear from you soon, but I had rather see you. If the Congress should not remove it may be an inducement to you, to pay us a visit after their adjournment.
With this you will recieve Priestly, a few pamphlets, & a small map of Boston harbour.
I am Dr Sir &c
W B Jun

P.S. The suspicions against Dr Franklin have died away: whatever was his design at coming over here, I believe he has now chosen his side, and favors our cause.


Title: From James Madison to William Bradford, 28 July 1775
From: Madison, James
To: Bradford, William

My obliging friend
Virginia Orange: July 28–1775.

I received your favor of the 10th. inst. and have since had a sight of the declaration and Address from the Congress. I must concur with you in every encomium that can be bestowed on them, particularly the last mentioned which for true Eloquence may vie with the most applauded Oration of Tully himself. These performances must be chiefly owing to a few illustrious writers of that body. Is it discoverable who are the original Authors of them? I think the traces of Livingstons pen are visible in the one we are now speaking of. You are a better Judge & better acquainted with his Genius & writings

Our convention is now sitting, and I believe intends to strike a considerable sum of money & to raise 3 or 4,000 men as an Army to be in immediate pay. The independants, who I suppose will be three times that number will also have their pay commence as soon as they are called to action. The Preparations for War are every where going on in a most vigorous manner. But the Scarcity of Ammunition is truly alarming. Can you tell how they are supplied in N England and what steps are taking to procure a sufficiency for the time to come. I was a little induced from the confident assertion of the Congress that foreign Assistance if necessary was [“]undoubtedly attainable,” to think & hope that some secret Overtures had been made to them. If so I imagine they are wrapped up in impenetrable secresy as yet. Hath any thing further been whispered relative to the conduct of Dr Franklin? I yesterday heard a report that the Indians on the back of us who are to be treated with the last of next month by Commissioners appointed by the Convention indicate a great indisposition to enter into friendly engagement with us at this Juncture. The report adds that there were some frenchmen with them and this determination was formed at their instigation. If there is any truth in this, it will probably be known at Philada. before this reaches you; As indeed every thing of importance is drawn there by the Congress before private intelligence can be conveyed.
I was much surprized to hear of the marriage of our friend Mr Smith. I had never heard of such a manuvre’s being in agitation, And if I forget not Allen (who ought to know) told me there were some engagement with Thompson from that Quarter which he could not in honor break & from which she was unwilling to release him. And if I did not mistake him (I speak with caution you observe) Thompson intended a trip to Princeton to settle affairs. However I intermeddle little with such matters; & something that might set the affair in a different Light may have escaped my attention or memory. A Letter to Mr Smith is in company with this. It is directed to him at Princeton to the care of Plum. If he should be in Philada. at the time you get this I should be glad you would give him notice of it. Or if by going to Princeton you think it will miss of him in that case you would oblige me by taking it out of the office and conveying it to him. I have requested him to bring me two pamphlets “An apology for the Church of England as by Law Established” &c by Josiah Tucker—and An Essay on Toleration with a particular view to the late Application of the Dissenting Ministers to Parliament &c. by Phil. Turneaux. If he should not be in Town after he recieves this & you could procure them and send them to him with Priestly before he sets off for Virginia you would lay me under another Obligation.
A Scotch Parson in an adjoining County refused to observe the fast or preach on that day. When called on he pleaded Conscience, alledging that it was his duty to pay no regard to any such appointments made by unconstitutional authority. The Committee it seems have their Consciences too: they have ordered his Church doors to be shut and his salary to be stopped, and have sent to the convention for their advice. If the Convention should connive at their proceedings I question, should his insolence not abate if he does not get ducked in a coat of Tar & surplice of feathers and then he may go in his new Canonicals and act under the lawful Authority of Gen. Gage if he pleases. We have one of the same Kidney in the parish I live in. He was sometime ago published in the Gazette for his insolence and had like to have met with sore treatment; but finding his protection to be not so much in the law as the favor of the people he is grown very supple & obsequious.
The Dysentery has been again in our family & is now among the slaves. I have hitherto Escaped and hope it has no commission to attack me. It is less severe [than] it was at first. I am obliged to finish in great haste to have an opportunity that Just offers for sending this Letter to the Post.
Adieu.
J M Jun


Title: Case of William Aylett, [8–22 May] 1776
From: Committee of Privileges and Elections of the Convention of Delegates
To:

[8–22 May 1776]
Editorial Note
When JM, a delegate from Orange County, took his seat in this Convention on 8 May 1776, he was at once appointed to the Committee of Privileges and Elections. This large group, ultimately numbering nearly half of the 130 delegates, concerned itself primarily with the validity of their election and with alleged instances of individual Virginians manifesting disloyalty to the patriot cause. As a young and inexperienced legislator, JM probably contributed little to the work of this committee. For this reason, a reproduction of its extensive minutes, which in no instance mention his name, will be limited to the first item of business after JM became a member. The Convention of 6 May to 5 July 1776, however, was an important chapter in his political education, and the disputed-election case of William Aylett of King William County will illustrate one type of problem necessarily engaging his attention. Other matters in which, as a member of other committees, he directly participated, were the settlement of claims against Virginia arising from “the late expedition against the Indians,” the counting of ballots cast in the elections of governor and members of the Privy Council, and, above all, the preparation of a declaration of rights and plan of government for the province (see Declaration of Rights, 16 May–29 June 1776). For the committees, see The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates Held at the Capitol, in the City of Williamsburg, in the Colony of Virginia, on Monday, the 6th of May, 1776 (Richmond, 1816), pp. 16, 17, 25, 78, 79, 81.

[18 May 1776]

The Committee of Privileges and Elections, have according to Order, inquired into the Information, touching the Election of Delegates for the County of King William, to them referred, And it appears to your Committee from the Poll taken at the said Election by Owen Gwathmey Gentn. Sherif of that said County, that at the close of the Poll the Number of Votes stood as follows

ForWilliam Aylett78
Richard Squire Taylor73
Carter Braxton39

It also appears to your Committee from the Testimony of the said Owen Gwathmey, that some time before the Poll was closed, Mr. Aylett, declined standing a Candidate, and made a Public declaration of it and at the same time desired that Mr. Braxton might be elected.
That after Mr. Aylett’s resignation, he made proclamation several times for the Freeholders to come in and Vote, before he closed the Poll.
It also appears to your Committee from the Testimony of Benjamin Temple, that he with many others who had voted at the Election, applied to Mr. Aylett during the Poll, and desired he would decline in favour of Mr. Braxton, which he accordingly did, and the people generally seemed well pleased, that Mr. Braxton should be returned a Delegate; but that there was not a sufficient Number, who had not voted to have elected Mr. Braxton and in case the Poll had been continued, most of them would have voted for Mr. Taylor. That Mr. Dandridge Claiborne had been proposed as a Sub-Delegate, but on hearing Mr. Taylor was a Candidate, he declined. That the Poll was kept open so long as any person would come in to Vote, and that the Sheriff, before he closed it, made Publication several times for the Freeholders to come and vote, And that in any event Mr. Taylor would have been elected.
It further appears to your Committee from the Testimony of Drury Ragsdale that after Mr. Aylett declined, there was a sufficient Number, in his Opinion, who had not voted to set Mr. Braxton before Mr. Aylett. That many, who did not vote after Mr. Aylett’s resignation, looked on it to be unnecessary, considering Mr. Braxton as elected of course: that the Poll was kept open a considerable time, after the People declined going in to Vote. That the Deponent informed many, while the Poll was taking, of the consequences of leaving Mr. Braxton out. That for some time after the Poll was begun, Mr. Braxton’s friends were backward in giving their Votes, but afterwards they exerted themselves to promote his Interest. That the Deponent with Mr. Fox, the day after the Election was making a Calculation how many persons were at the Election who did not Vote, and they made the Number about 42, which would have mostly voted for Mr. Braxton and Mr. Aylett; but that in any event Mr. Taylor would have been elected.
It also further appears to your Committee from the Testimony of James Quarles that he did not vote at the Election, on account of Mr. Ayletts resignation; that he thought, until the day of Election, that Mr. Taylor offered only as a Sub-Delegate, and many people in the lower Parish thought as he did.
And it further appears to your Committee from the Testimony of Archibald Govan, that he did not vote at the Election, thinking Mr. Braxton could not get a sufficient Number of Votes to elect him; but in case he had voted it would have been for Mr. Braxton; that on Mr. Aylett’s resignation in favour of Mr. Braxton, the People in General seem’d to be well pleased; that before Mr. Aylett resigned, Mr. Braxton had not friends enough to set him before Mr. Aylett or Mr. Taylor, but some were of a different Opinion; but that in any event Mr. Taylor would have been elected.
Upon the whole matter your Committee came to the following Resolution vizt.
Resolved as the Opinion of this Committee that the said William Aylett and Richard Squire Taylor are duly elected Delegates for the said County of King William.

[22 May 1776]
The Committee of Privileges and Elections have had under their Consideration, an Information (to them referred) that William Aylett Esqr., a Delegate for the County of King William had accepted a Military Post of Proffit in the Continental Army, by which his Seat in this Convention is become vacated: And it appears to your Committee that the said William Aylett, since his Election, hath accepted a Commission, appointing him Deputy Commissary General to the Continental Forces in Virginia. Whereupon your Committee came to the following Resolution, Vizt.
Resolved, as the Opinion of this Committee, that the said William Aylett hath vacated his Seat in this Convention.


Title: Editorial Note
From:
To:

When JM returned to Virginia in 1772, after three years at the College of New Jersey, the colony was in the throes of a religious revival. Baptist preachers, usually zealous but unlettered, itinerated through the province paying little heed to the statutes regulating the holding of religious services. This disregard of law was compounded by derogatory attacks on the Established Church. As might be expected, many of these clergymen were arrested and committed to jail, where they languished until they gave bond not to preach. JM sympathized with them. Though the Baptists were active in his own county of Orange, they had not been arrested there since 1768. As early as 1 December 1773, in a letter to William Bradford, JM questioned the need for ecclesiastical establishments and sought information about religious toleration in Pennsylvania. (Also see JM to Bradford, 24 January 1774, and n. 9.) Both observation and extensive reading convinced him that religious liberty was a sacred right. Virginians generally held a less liberal view. Those who wished to relieve the dissenters of their disabilities usually took as a model the English Toleration Act of 1689. This led to proposals which would exempt the dissenters from legal penalties without extending them complete religious freedom. The necessity for some revision of the statutes relating to the Established Church had been recognized by the House of Burgesses as early as 8 May 1769, when a Committee for Religion was first appointed and directed to prepare a bill exempting dissenters from the penalties of the law. For various reasons, action on such a measure was put off from session to session until the House of Burgesses expired on the eve of the Revolution. Meanwhile, the need for reform had become acute. JM was elected a delegate from Orange County to the Revolutionary Convention which met on 6 May 1776. Except for his appointment two days later to its Committee on Privileges and Elections (above, Case of William Aylett, 8–22 May 1776), he is not mentioned in the proceedings until 16 May, when he was added to the committee named the day before “to prepare a declaration of rights, and such a plan of government as will be most likely to maintain peace and order in this colony, and secure substantial and equal liberty to the people” (Proceedings of the Convention, May 1776, pp. 16–17). This committee was appointed after the Convention had faced up to the fact that a satisfactory accommodation with Great Britain was impossible and hence that independence was essential. JM, a junior member of the committee, was not expected to take an active part in writing the constitution. George Mason, whose great talents were acknowledged by all, was the chief architect of both the Declaration of Rights and the Form of Government. The only extant copy of his first draft of the Declaration, the one which he gave to Thomas Ludwell Lee about 25 May 1776, is now in the George Mason Papers in the Library of Congress. The committee amended Mason’s draft before reporting the Declaration to the Convention on 27 May. The report was referred to the committee of the whole and the Declaration was ordered “printed for the perusal of the members” (ibid., p. 25). Copies of this printed broadside were hurried north by the postrider. In Philadelphia, where the Second Continental Congress was sitting, the Pennsylvania Evening Post printed the committee’s draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in full on 6 June 1776, as did the Pennsylvania Gazette six days later. R. Carter Pittman has called attention to the fact that this draft became one of the most influential constitutional documents in American history. It was republished all over America, in England, and in Europe. Its provisions were copied by Franklin into the Pennsylvania, and by John Adams into the Massachusetts, declarations of rights of 1776 and 1780, respectively (Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXVIII [1960], 110). Although JM most probably was interested in all parts of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, only its last paragraph, that providing for religious toleration, stirred him to action. On his copy of the printed broadside of the Declaration, he prepared an amendment designed to establish absolute religious freedom in Virginia rather than the limited toleration which Mason envisioned. Since JM was a junior member of the Convention and always shrank from speaking in public, he sought an influential sponsor for his proposal. Patrick Henry, who had pleaded eloquently the cause of imprisoned Baptists on many occasions, was an obvious choice. But when Henry introduced the amendment in the Convention, he was at once asked whether he intended to disestablish the Church, for such was the apparent intent of the amendment. Henry “disclaimed such an object,” as Edmund Randolph tells us (ibid., XLIV [1936], 47). With the sponsor in retreat, the amendment was doomed. JM then drafted a second amendment providing for a degree of religious freedom without disestablishing the Church. The key words of this proposal were written into the last article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted in its entirety by the Convention on 12 June 1776. This final version of the Declaration was not published outside of Virginia for about a half-century. During this time, the committee’s draft, which contained none of JM’s handiwork, passed in the world at large as the official text. JM meanwhile continued to press for religious freedom in Virginia and achieved success with the passage of Thomas Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Freedom on 16 January 1786. Jefferson was then in France, and it was JM who pushed the bill through the General Assembly (Boyd, Papers of JeffersonJulian P. Boyd et al., eds., The
          Papers of Thomas Jefferson (16 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950——)., II, 545–53). The combination of circumstances set forth above contrived to deny JM the acclaim to which he was justly entitled. By his first important public act, he sought to assure complete religious freedom to all Virginians. Unable to gain the support of a majority in the Convention for so advanced a measure, he at least won a significant victory by replacing George Mason’s words, “fullest Toleration in the Exercise of Religion,” with his own, more liberal, “free exercise of Religion.” Continuing to strive for the goal he failed to reach in 1776, he attained it a decade later when the legislature of Virginia enacted the statute mentioned above. This memorable reform, however, became identified with Jefferson’s name, even though JM mainly deserved to be credited with its achievement. Printed below, in chronological sequence, are copies of (a) George Mason’s original draft of the article on religion in his proposed Declaration of Rights; (b) that article as revised by the committee; (c) JM’s rejected amendment and his accepted amendment of that article; and (d) the article on religion in the Declaration of Rights adopted by the Virginia Convention. Finally, there is an editorial note on “Independence and Constitution of Virginia,” written by JM in his old age. Most of this long manuscript comprises a careful copy of public documents or extracts from them. Since these were not a product of JM’s thought, they will not be reproduced in this volume. While he was transcribing them, however, he occasionally interpolated comments of his own or appended a footnote. These are all quoted at appropriate places in the editorial note.


Title: George Mason’s Proposed Declaration of Rights, [ca. 20–25 May 1776]
From: Mason, George,Lee, Thomas Ludwell
To:

    Editorial Note
    This document is probably the paper mentioned by Thomas L. Lee in his letter of 1 June 1776 to his brother, Richard Henry Lee, then in Philadelphia attending the Second Continental Congress: “I enclosed you by last post a copy of our declaration of rights nearly as it come through the committee” (Kate M. Rowland, Life of George Mason, I, 240). The articles in this copy are unnumbered. They total twelve only, and the one on religion is the ninth. Thomas L. Lee comments, near the end of the manuscript:
    Another [Article] is agreed to in committee condemning the use of general warrants; & one other to prevent the suspension of laws, or the execution of them.
    The above clauses, with some small alterations, & the addition of one, or two more, have already been agreed to in the Committee… .
    In other words, the following proposal by Mason was as he first wrote it, and before it was amended by the committee.

    [ca. 20–25 May 1776]

    [9] That as Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our divine and omnipotent Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be governed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence; and therefore that all Men shou’d enjoy the fullest Toleration in the Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the Magistrate, unless, under Colour of Religion, any Man disturb the Peace, the Happiness, or Safety of Society, or of Individuals. And that it is the mutual Duty of all, to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards Each other.


Title: Committee’s Proposed Article on Religion, [27–28 May 1776]
From: Mason, George,Madison, James
To:

    Editorial Note
    When the committee laid its amended draft of George Mason’s proposed Declaration of Rights before the Convention on 27 May, that body ordered it “to be committed to a committee of the whole Convention” and “Resolved, that this Convention will on Wednesday next [29 May], resolve itself into a committee on the said declaration; and that, in the mean time, the same be printed, for the perusal of the members” (Proceedings of the Convention, May 1776, p. 25). Judging from the size of the type used and certain characteristics of the type face, the printer of this broadside was Alexander Purdie of Williamsburg, publisher of a Virginia Gazette, but he did not reproduce this proposed Declaration of Rights in his paper. On the other hand, Dixon and Hunter printed it in their Virginia Gazette on 1 June 1776. The preamble of the Declaration, as it was furnished to the members of the Convention, reads, “A Declarationof Rightsmade by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free Convention; which rights do pertain to us, and our posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.” Omitting this preamble, Dixon and Hunter merely prefaced their copy of the Declaration in the Virginia Gazette of 1 June with these words, “A Declaration of Rightsreported from the committee who were appointed to draw them up, now under consideration of the Convention.” On the other hand, the Pennsylvania Gazette of 12 June 1776 reproduced the preamble as it was reported by the committee to the Convention.

    [27–28 May 1776]
    18. 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; and therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate unless, under colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity, towards each other.


Title: Madison’s Amendments to the Declaration of Rights, [29 May–12 June 1776]
From: Madison, James
To:

    Editorial Note
    There is no certain evidence known to the editors which fixes the time when either JM’s first or second amendment was laid before the Convention or its committee of the whole. The official journal of the Convention merely reveals that the drafting committee’s report, having been printed, was debated on 29 and 30 May and 3, 4, 5, and 11 June 1776. The session of 11 June seems to be the most likely occasion since the journal for that day records that “The Convention then proceeded to the consideration of the amendments reported to the declaration of rights, and having gone through the same, and agreed thereto, Ordered, That the said declaration of rights, with the amendments, be fairly transcribed, and read a third time.”
    Furthermore, it perhaps may be assumed that the Convention debated the articles in succession, from the first to the last. If so, the one on religion would have been the final one discussed. On 12 June the Convention unanimously adopted “A Declaration of Rights” (Proceedings of the Convention, May 1776, pp. 25–43, passim).

    [29 May–12 June 1776]
    A
    That Religion or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only, not of violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of it accordg to the dictates of Conscience; and therefore that no man or class of men ought, on account of religion to be invested with peculiar emoluments or privileges; nor subjected to any penalties or disabilities unless under &c
    B
    18. 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; and therefore, that all men are equally entitled to enjoy the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, Unless the preservation of equal liberty and the existence of the State are manifestly endangered; And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.


Title: Article on Religion Adopted by Convention, [12 June 1776]
From: Madison, James,Mason, George
To:

    [12 June 1776]

    16. 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; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.


Title: Independence and Constitution of Virginia, [1827?]
From: Madison, James
To:

[1827?]
  Editorial Note
  Although the date when JM prepared this manuscript must remain uncertain, it could well have been written in the autumn of 1827, during his exchange of letters with George Mason’s grandson about the Virginia Declaration of Rights and first Form of Government, and at a time when a revision of the state constitution was much in the public mind.
  The manuscript has considerable unity of content but its eight final sheets, dealing wholly with the first constitution of Virginia, are separately paged. This fact may warrant some doubt whether they were written immediately following the completion of the first twelve pages. If they were not, however, JM’s general title with its mention of “Constitution” would be misleading. Furthermore, the first twelve pages justify the use of the word “Independence” in the title only to the extent that the latter half of page one and most of page two are filled with an accurate copy by JM from the journal of the Convention of its resolves of 15 May 1776, instructing Virginia’s delegates in the Second Continental Congress “to propose to that respectable body, to declare the United Colonies free and independent States” (Proceedings of the Convention, May 1776, pp. 15–16).
  The first half of page one of this manuscript contains JM’s transcription of the journal entry of 10 May (ibid., p. 11) recording that a “Committee of the County of Augusta” had sent to the Convention a statement “representing the necessity of making the confederacy of the United Colonies the most perfect, independent, and lasting, and of framing an equal, free, and liberal Government that may bear the test of all future ages.” Clearly pertinent to JM’s subject, these recommendations must have attracted his special interest because he not only copied the full entry but wrote “Quere—its date” in the left-hand margin, and “[quere, as to the date of this representation, and whether the document be on the public files]” at the close of the paragraph. Whether he received an answer to these questions is unknown but, if he did, he succeeded where the present editors have failed. Apparently the “representation” from the Augusta County Committee is lost (Jos. A. Waddell, Annals of Augusta County, p. 241).
  Beginning at the bottom of page two of the manuscript and continuing to the middle of page four are JM’s extracts of salient entries in the Convention journal between 15 May and 29 June 1776, dealing with the appointment of the committee to prepare a Declaration of Rights and plan of government and with the timetable of action by the Convention upon the committee’s proposals about each of these subjects, and especially the Declaration of Rights.
  This portion has three brief interpolations by JM, not taken from the journal. After “Mr. Treasurer,” listed among the twenty-eight Convention members comprising the first appointees to the committee to propose a Declaration of Rights and a Form of Government, JM inserted “[Robert Carter Nicholas]” so as to make clear who was then the provincial treasurer. After noting, “May 18. Ordered that George Mason be added to that Committee,” JM wrote, “[It is inferred that he was not before present: especially as his name is not on any one of the numerous Committees of antecedent appointment. His distinguished talents, if present, could not have been overlooked.]” JM’s inference was correct. His very similar comment in a letter to George Mason’s grandson on 29 December 1827 (Madison, Letters(Cong. ed.). [William C. Rives and Philip R. Fendall, eds.], Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (published by order of Congress; 4
        vols.; Philadelphia, 1865). [Cong. ed.], III, 607) may signify that he prepared this manuscript at about that time. His final interpolation in this section of the manuscript is an addition of “[see a printed copy in the hands of J. M.]” after copying the journal entry of 27 May 1776, providing for the printing of the committee’s proposed Declaration of Rights.
  After dividing vertically the last seven and one-half pages of this first part of the manuscript into two columns of approximately equal width, JM transcribed in the left-hand column the Declaration of Rights, “as printed by order of the Convention” (q.v.) immediately after 27 May 1776, when it received its committee’s draft of the document. In the right-hand column, opposite the relevant item in the left-hand column, JM copied the amended wording, if any, of the Declaration of Rights “As agreed to by the Convention” (q.v.).
  Except that at the outset of his accurate transcription of the proposed Declaration, JM footnoted, “It was drafted by George Mason,” he refrained from interspersing either column of these pages with any comments of his own until he had reached the end of his copying with the article on religion in the committee’s draft of the Declaration. Above its closing word he placed an asterisk, drew an ink line across the left-hand column, and penned under this line the following remarkable footnote:
  “On the printed paper here literally copied is a manuscript variation of this last article making it read ‘That Religion or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only, not of violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of it, according to the dictates of Conscience; and therefore that no man or class of men, ought, on account of religion to be invested with peculiar emoluments or privileges, nor subjected to any penalties or disabilities, unless under colour of religion, the preservation of equal liberty and the existence of the State be manifestly endangered.’”
  “This variation is in the handwriting of J. M. and is recollected to have been brought forward by him with a view, more particularly to substitute for the idea, expressed by the term ‘toleration,’ an absolute and equal right in all, to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience. The proposal was moulded into the last article in the Declaration, as finally established, from which the term ‘toleration’ is excluded.”
  Forgetting what he had done in the Convention, probably over fifty years before, JM in this note blended his first and second amendments of the committee’s article on religion (q.v.) into a largely meaningless whole.
  From this analysis of the content of the first twelve pages, it is evident that the Declaration of Rights is their main subject rather than the “Independence” or “Constitution” specified in the general title of the manuscript.
  On the other hand, the last eight pages deal altogether with the constitution. They, as JM indicated by his bracketed note at the top of the first page, are in the main devoted to a “copy of a printed paper, in the hands of J.M.” This “paper,” now among his manuscripts in the Library of Congress, is a two-page leaflet, or broadside, probably printed about 10 June 1776, and entitled “A Plan of Government.” Immediately beneath this caption are the words, “Laid before the Committee of the House, which they have ordered to be printed for the perusal of the members.”
  Perhaps it was soon after JM received his copy as a member of this committee that he used his quill pen to make this statement read, “Laid before the Committee appointed for that purpose, which they have ordered to be printed for the perusal of the members of the House.” JM followed this amended form when he copied the document in his old age, but added a footnote reading:
  “An alteration in the handwriting of J.M. erases ‘of the House’ and inserts after ‘Committee,’ appointed for that purpose; and adds, at the end, after ‘members’ of the House, making the whole read—Laid before the Committee appointed for that purpose, which they have ordered to be printed for the perusal of the members of the House.
  “From this correction, it appears that what was laid before the Committee was printed by its order not by that of the Convention, as was done in the case of the ‘Declaration of Rights’ reported by Mr [Archibald] Cary, from the appointed Committee; nor is there in the Journal any order for printing any plan of Government reported to the Convention, from a Committee.”
  Except for this alteration, JM accurately copied this “plan of government” in full. The plan was the one submitted by George Mason to the committee of the Convention. Julian Boyd prints an annotated copy of it in his Papers of Thomas Jefferson, I, 366–69. Barring the footnote mentioned above, JM’s transcription is devoid of any further comment by him until he reached its close. He then added the following footnote:
  “It is not known with certainty from whom this first draught of a Plan of Government proceeded. There is a faint tradition that Meriwether Smith spoke of it as originating with him. What is remembered by J.M. is that George Mason was the most prominent member in discussing and developing the Constitution in its passage through the Convention. The Preamble is known to have been furnished by Thomas Jefferson.”
  In a letter to a grandson and namesake of George Mason on 29 December 1827 (Madison, Letters(Cong. ed.). [William C. Rives and Philip R. Fendall, eds.], Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (published by order of Congress; 4
        vols.; Philadelphia, 1865). [Cong. ed.], III, 605–8), JM, after calling Mason “the master builder of the Constitution, and its main expositor and supporter throughout the discussions which ended in its establishment,” somewhat inconsistently expressed strong doubt whether Mason could have been the author of “the primitive draft” represented by the printed “plan of government” which had been submitted to and printed by the committee in June 1776. The passage of over fifty years led JM to forget that this plan was by Mason, even though he correctly recalled the dominant role of Mason in shaping the recommendations of the committee and in steering them, with amendments, through the Convention (cf. with ibid., III, 451–52; also see Brant, MadisonIrving Brant, James Madison (6 vols.; Indianapolis and New
        York, 1941–61)., I, 236). JM, however, correctly stated to Mason’s grandson that the preamble of the constitution had been borrowed from drafts prepared by Jefferson (Boyd, Papers of JeffersonJulian P. Boyd et al., eds., The
          Papers of Thomas Jefferson (16 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950——)., I, 331, 337–40, 377–79).
  In copying Mason’s printed plan, JM filled the left-hand column of the closing eight pages of his manuscript. Judging from his heading of the right-hand column, “Copy of the Constitution as finally agreed to, by the Convention of 1776,” he intended to present, except for its preamble, the same sort of parallel arrangement which he had completed for the proposed and the official Declaration of Rights. In the case of the constitution, however, he laid the work aside after transcribing its first article and the opening ten words of the second article, which comprised the only alteration of that article as proposed by Mason. In other words, except for JM’s heading, given above, and these two entries, the right-hand column of this manuscript’s last eight pages is entirely blank.


Title: Notes
From:
To:


Title: From James Madison to William Bradford, [ca. 21 May] 1776—Summary
From: Madison, James
To: Bradford, William

Ca. 21 May 1776. In “A Memorandum Book,” Bradford noted on 28 May 1776: “This morning I recieved a Letter from Mr Maddison who is a member of the Virginia Convention, informing me of the declaration of Independency made by that body.”


Title: From James Madison to James Madison, Sr., [1–15 June] 1776
From: Madison, James
To: Madison, James, Sr.

[1–15 June 1776]

would be adviseable to make the best terms you can with him. I intend to apply myself to him on my return home. I have not had an opportunity since I red. your last of taking the opinion of Col Pendleton on Ignatius’s Queries, but I shall speak to him on the subject as soon as I can find him at leasure, which his close engagement in business occasions to be not very often the case. Col. Henry says that half blood entitles to personal Estates and that the money arising from the Sale of the Land must be considered as Chattels if the person who sold it was duly authorised by the Intestate. that is, if the bargain was so made as to bind the Intestate of
will of course bind the Heirs. so do not [forget?][he?] also said that [Ne?]gros was to be considered as Chattels, as the Intestate died with. I suppose the Law is plain enough in that instance. [Nothing rem]arkable has happened at Quin’s Island since the Enemy took [it. The]y are very active in fortifying it and those who are acquainted [with] the place are of opinion it will be impossible to dislodge them. Our [arm]y in field amount to abt. 500 Regulars I believe and are very [short of?] conveniences. Mr. Crig went from this place yesterday with a [pack]et[?] homewards, and will give you a more particular acct. [Many] of the Maryland Convention betray a disposition exceed[ingly?]
[adverse to?] the American Cause. Independ[ent] of the Recommendation [to detain the?] person and papers of Govr. Eden and to form a New Gove[rn]mt. [representative?] of the people, they have resolved that their present Governt. [is exerc?]ised under the Authority of the Crown and they confess the obliga[tion of its? rep]resentative[s] to obey the Mandates of the Ministry,  & they have not only given Eden permission to leave the Colony  [b]ut have insulted this Colony with a request that our Cruisars [should? fore]bear molesting him as he passes our Coasts. and have sent [us their?] proceedings respecting him among which is an address containing
[de?]clared it during the
apply
that the Persons who take them should be sworn. I expect it will avail noth[ing] and that the whole work will be to do over again. It is uncertain when the Convention will rise. Most of the members seem determind to go home to their Har[vests] and I expect the House will adjourn at that season though it is obvious th[e] Business will be by no means finished by that time. We shall expect the [Horses?] down about the 20th. of the Month if you do not hear from me again. Major Moore is well as usual. He grunts as much and eats as hearty a[s] an[y] man in Williamsburg.
I am Dr Sir your affectionate son
Js Madison junr


Title: To James Madison from William Bradford, 3 June 1776—Summary
From: Bradford, William
To: Madison, James

“As my friend Maddison had desired me in his last to give him a sketch of the Constitution of this province and of that of Connecticut which might be useful to him as a member of Convention, I determined to return an early answer & wrote a rough draught of a Letter for that purpose. The constitution of Connecticut I learnt from douglas who is no very good historian & a little viva voce information I picked up as I travelled thro’ the province in my [journey] to the Camp at Cambrige last fall. … In the Evening I copied the Letter to Mr. Maddison… .”


Title: Case of Unsettled Claims from Dunmore’s War, 9 December 1776
From: House of Delegates,Senate
To:

Editorial Note
On 29 June 1776, immediately after adopting the “form of government,” or state constitution, which it had framed, the Virginia Convention heeded the eleventh and twenty-second articles by electing a governor (Patrick Henry) and eight members of the Council of State. JM acted as one of the four tellers for each of these elections (Proceedings of the Convention, May 1776, pp. 78–79; 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)., IX, 112–19). This council selected John Page to be its president, thereby also making him the lieutenant governor of the commonwealth. In accordance with Article XXII of the constitution, the adjournment of the Convention on 5 July transformed its members into the personnel of the House of Delegates of the legislature. Before it convened at Williamsburg on 7 October, the qualified voters, balloting on varying dates in August and September in the districts defined by an ordinance of the Convention, elected a Senate of twenty-four members (ibid., IX, 128–30). Thus the bicameral legislature of the sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia came into being, with JM a charter member of the House of Delegates. His term in that body expired with its adjournment on 21 December 1776.
Much of its business was channeled through three large committees—the Committee of Privileges and Elections, the Committee of Propositions and Grievances, and the Committee of “Publick” Claims. JM was named to the first of these, a group comprising over fifty delegates (Journal of the House of Delegates of Virginia, Anno Domini, 1776 [Richmond, 1828], p. 4). He served on the long-standing Committee for Religion, and on the special committees for unsettled claims against the state arising from Lord Dunmore’s War, for preparing a letter to the delegates of Virginia in the Continental Congress about the disputed boundary between that state and Pennsylvania, for drafting a bill to abolish some special privileges of the Anglican Church and some disabilities of dissenters, and for examining the enrolled bills (ibid., pp. 13, 14, 41, 68, 77).
If the journal of the House of Delegates and the remnant of other legislative papers in the Virginia State Library can be trusted, JM was not the chairman of any committee, nor the draftsman of any committee report, nor the introducer of any motion during this session. Although its journal omits mention of the participants in the debates, he probably spoke seldom, if ever, from the floor. Thomas Jefferson, one of the most prominent members of the House of Delegates, recalled many years later how youthful JM appeared to be and how silent his shyness kept him when in a large group. On the other hand, although possibly not referring to this particular session, Jefferson added that young Madison demonstrated unusual skill in the wording of committee reports and resolutions (Edward Coles to Hugh Blair Grigsby, 23 December 1854, reporting what Coles had been told by Jefferson, RC in Virginia Historical Society). No extant document of this session, however, is in his hand, nor is any so distinctive in expression or thought as to be confidently attributed to him. Moreover, he seems never to have mentioned this meeting of the House of Delegates as one to which he contributed significantly.
For these reasons, one sample only is furnished of the work of this session. This is a report of the “unsettled claims” committee of which JM was a member. It was chosen, not because it suggests JM more than any other manuscript, but merely because, in its length and the interest of its subject matter, it fairly well typifies the extant reports of the special committees.

[9 December 1776]

The Committee appointed have According to Order Examined the Reports of John Harvie & Joseph Neville to whom it was referred to Settle such of the Claims against the Public On Account of the late Expedition Against the Indians as remained Unsettled, and to revise those that had been Settled in West Augusta, have Agreed upon a report and Come to a resolution thereupon, as Follows.
It appears to your Committee by the Testimony of Sundry Witnesses, that while the Forces under the Command of the Earl of Dunmore, on the late Expedition Against the Indians, were encamped near the Shawanese Towns, Colo. William Crawford was Ordered to take the Command of a Detachment of two hundred and fifty men, and to march against a Town of the Seneca Nation of Indians, Distant from the Camp about thirty miles, his Lordship at the same time Assuring him, that if any Plunder was taken, it shou’d be Equally Divided among the Captors. It further Appears that the Party took at the said Town Several Prisoners, with Plunder in Indian Goods, Horses[?], Silver Trinkets, and Other Articles, which were sold by Consent of the said Captors, the sale Amounting to three hundred & five Pounds fifteen Shillings & a half Penny, when the Captains of Each Company, became Responsible for the Purchases made by their men. It Likewise appears that another Party Commanded by Colo. McDonald, on an Expedition against the upper Shawanese Towns, after distroying the same, took Plunder which was sold in like Manner, to the Amount of thirty five Pounds Eleven Shillings & three Pence. It further Appears to your Committee that the Commissioners on Settling the Expences of the late Indian War, Stopped Out of the pay of the Different Officers, the said two sums, Amounting in the whole to three Hundred and forty One Pounds six Shillings and three Pence half Penny.
Resolved as the Opinion of this Committee, that the Captors had an Undoubted right to the said Plunder, and in Order that Strict Justice shou’d be Done them, a Commissioner Ought to be Appointed, to Recieve from the Treasury, the said sum of three hundred & forty One Pounds Six Shillings and three Pence half Penny, and to Call upon each of the Officers who Commanded Parties in the said Detachments, (on Oath) for lists of the Names of the Men who Served, and the said Commissioner Pay each of them, their Proportionate Parts of the said Sum of Money.

1776 Decr. 9
Agreed to by the House of Delegates
John Tazewell C. H. D.
Ordered that Mr. James Wood be appointed a Commissioner for the purposes mentioned in the within Resolution.
John Tazewell C. H. D.
Dec Xth 1776
Agreed to by the Senate
J. Pendleton C. S.


Title: From James Madison to James Madison, Sr., [29] March 1777
From: Madison, James
To: Madison, James, Sr.

Orange [29] March, Saturdy 1777
Hond Sir,

The family have been pretty well since you left us except Anthony. He was taken on Wednesday morning with a strong Ague succeeded by a high fever and accompanied with a pain in his Stomach and side. The Swelling in his Arm also increased very considerably and became hard and painful. I was a good deal at a loss in what manner to proceed with him being unable to form any Judgmt. of the nature of the Tumor or the effect a proper treatment of his other complaints might have on it. I ventured however to have a pretty large quantity of blood taken from him and had his arm kept moist by the usual Poultices, which has answered every purpose I cd. have hoped. His fever and pain have gradually abated and I have no doubt but he will be perfectly recovered from them in a few days, and the Swelling on his arm seems to be subsiding fast.
The following odd affair has furnished the Ct. of this County with some very unexpected business.
Two persons travelling from Phila. to the Southward one of them a French man and an officer in the Continental Army and the other a man of decent figure came to the Ct. House on the evening of the Ct. day and immediately enquired for a member of the Committee; and being withdrawn with several members into a private room they gave information, that they fell in with a man on the road a few miles from the Ct. house who in the cours[e] of Conversation on public affairs gave abundant proof of his being an adherent to the King of G. B. and a dangerous Enemy to the State, that he run into the most outrageous abuse of our proceedings and on their threatening to inform agt. him in the most daring manner bid defiance to Committees or Whoever shoul[d] pretend to judge or punish him. They said the man they alluded to had come with them to the Ct House and they made no doubt but they could point him out in the Crowd. On their so doing the Culprit appeared to be Benjamin Haley. As the Committee had no jurisdiction in the case it was referred to a justice of the Peace. Every one seemed to be agreed that his conduct was a direct violation of Law and called aloud for public notice; but, the Witnesses being travellers and therefore unable to attend on at a Trial, it was thought best not to undertake a Prosecution which promised nothing but impunity and matter of triumph to the offender. Here the affair dropped and every one supposed was entirely at an end. But as the French man was accidently passing through the room where Haley was, he took occasion to admonish the people of his being a disaffected person and upbraided him for his Tory principles. This introduced a debate which was continued for some time with great heat on the part of the Frenchman and great insolence on the part of Haley. At the request of the latter they at length both appeared before a Justice of the peace. Haley at first evaded the charges of his antagonist, but after some time, said he scorned to be a counterfeit and in answer to some questions that were put to him, signified that we were in the State of rebellion and had revolted from our lawful Soverign and that if the King had justice done him his Authority would still be in exercise among us. This passed in the presence of 20 or 30 persons and rendered the Testimony of the Travellers needless. A warrant for arresting him was immediately issued and executed. The criminal went through his examination in which his very Pleas seemed to aggravate his guilt. Witnesses were summoned sworn and their evidences taken. And on his Ob[s]tinate refusal to give security for his appearance he was committed to close goal [gaol]. This happened about 8 OClock. I have since heard he begged abt. one OClock in the morning to be admitted to bail & went hom[e] but not without threats of revenge and making public declaration yt. he was King George’s man. I have stated the case thus particularly not only for your own satisfaction, but that you may, if an opportunity occurs, take the advice of some Gentleman skilled in the Law, on the most proper & legal mode of proceeding against him.
Ambrose requests you will enquire whether any pretty neat Shoe Boots are to be had in Fredg. and the price of them.


Title: The Madison Family Tree
From: Madison, James
To:

THE MADISON FAMILY TREE

This family tree, framed under glass, is in LC: Madison Miscellany. For reasons given below, JM could hardly have prepared the chart earlier than the close of 1813 or later than September 1819. He apparently left among his papers at the time of his death a brief statement about his forebears. This document, now lost, came into the possession of his niece, Mrs. Lucie Hartwell Conway. She permitted Bishop William Meade of Virginia to print a copy of it in his Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia (2 vols.; Philadelphia, 1857), II, 96–97. This statement does little more than present in prose form the material on JM’s chart about his ancestors. Several of the chart’s cramped entries, however, are inaccurate and several others are the more difficult to read today because a water stain has partially obliterated them. The remainder of this note seeks to clarify what JM jotted down on the chart about his paternal and maternal ancestors in Virginia, and about his brothers and sisters and the number of their children.
John Madison, the second of that name in Virginia, and his wife, Isabella Minor Todd, had a son, Ambrose (d. 1732), who married Frances Taylor (1700–1761) in 1721. Frances Taylor was a daughter of James Taylor (ca. 1674–1729), probably the second rather than the third of that name in Virginia, and of his wife, Martha Thompson (1679–1762). The son of Ambrose and Frances Taylor Madison was James Madison, Sr. (1723–1801), the father of JM.
A son of Edwin Conway (ca. 1642–1698) and his wife, Elizabeth Thornton, was Francis Conway (1697–1733). Rebecca Catlett (d. 1760), whom Francis married about 1718, was the granddaughter of Elizabeth Underwood and John Catlett, killed by Indians in a fort at Port Royal on the Rappahannock River in 1670, and a daughter of John’s son of the same name (1658–1724) and his wife, Elizabeth Gaines. Nelly Conway (1732–1829), one of the children of Francis and Rebecca Catlett Conway, married James Madison, Sr., on 15 September 1749.
Omitting JM, but otherwise reading along the horizontal line of his chart from left to right, the children of James and Nelly Conway Madison were:
1. Frances Taylor (1774–1823) married Dr. Robert H. Rose (d. 1833) in 1800. Their eldest child was born either late in that year or in 1801. Although JM’s failure to mention any of their children might suggest the date when he made the chart, his omission in this regard is misleading for reasons given in items 3 and 8, below. Those reasons most probably warrant the conclusion that the Roses’ seven sons and four daughters went unmentioned because of JM’s inadvertence or uncertainty about their number.
2. Elizabeth (1768–1775).
  3. Sarah Catlett (1764–1843) married Thomas Macon (1765–1838) in 1790. JM’s note apparently reads “8 sons six livg[;] 1 daugr. do [living?].” He could not have known that Sarah and Thomas had seven (not eight) sons until 1808, when the seventh was born. Furthermore, they had two daughters, one born in 1794 and the other in 1803. The latter died in 1805. If it were not for the entry about William (see item 8, below), these Macon data would permit JM to have drawn his sketch as early as 1808, but not before that year.
4. Nelly (1760–1802) married Isaac Hite (1758–1836) in 1783. JM notes “1 son. 1 daugr.” The son died in 1791.
5. Francis (1753–1800) married Susanna Bell in 1772. JM seems to record that they had “five sons & fi[ve daugr?].” Perhaps he was correct but, if so, two sons remain unidentified.
6. Ambrose (1755–1793) married Mary Willis Lee (d. 1798) about 1780. JM states that they had two daughters. This may be true, but only one is known.
7. Catlett (1758). JM appears to write “not mar[rie]d.” Catlett died in the year of his birth.
8. William (1762–1843) married Frances Throckmorton (1765–1832) in 1783[?]. JM notes “6 sons 4 living[;] 4 daugr: 3 livg.” This comment again raises the question about the date when JM made his sketch. The first death among the four daughters was on 28 December 1813. Hence, the chart could not have been produced before that date. Furthermore, there were probably seven sons rather than six. Four were living in 1813, but only three after 16 September 1819. Therefore, JM seems to have prepared this “family tree” at some time between 1813 and 1819.
9. Reuben (1771–1775).
10. A “child” stillborn in 1770. There also was a son who lived only one day in 1766.