Confederation, at its own will, but adds, ‘no other colony shall
be admitted to the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine
States.’ When the plan of April, 1784, for establishing new States, was
on the carpet, the committee who framed the report of that plan, had
inserted this clause, ‘provided nine States agree to such admission,
according to the reservation of the 11th of the articles of
Confederation.’ It was objected, 1. That the words of the Confederation,
‘no other colony,’ could refer only to the residuary possessions of
Great Britain, as the two Floridas, Nova Scotia, &c. not being already
parts of the Union; that the law for ‘admitting’ a new member into the
Union, could not be applied to a territory which was already in the
Union, as making part of a State which was a member of it. 2. That
it would be improper to allow ‘nine’ States to receive a new member,
because the same reasons which rendered that number proper now, would
render a greater one proper, when the number composing the Union should
be increased. They therefore struck out this paragraph, and inserted
a proviso, that, ‘the consent of so many States, in Congress, shall be
first obtained, as may, at the time, be competent;’ thus leaving the
question, whether the 11th article applies to the admission of new
States, to be decided when that admission shall be asked. See the
Journal of Congress of April 20, 1784. Another doubt was started in this
debate; viz. whether the agreement of the nine Stales, required by
the Confederation, was to be made by their legislatures, or by their
delegates in Congress. The expression adopted, viz. ‘so many States, in
Congress, is first obtained,’ show what was their sense of this matter.
If it be agreed, that the 11th article of the Confederation is not to be
applied to the admission of these new States, then it is contended
that their admission comes within the 13th article, which forbids ‘any
alteration, unless agreed to in a Congress of the United States,
and afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.’ The
independence of the new States of Kentucky and Franklin, will soon bring
on the ultimate decision of all these questions.
8. Particular instances, whereby the General Assembly of Virginia have
shown, that they considered the ordinance called their constitution, as
every other ordinance, or act of the legislature, subject to be altered
by the legislature for the time being.
1. The convention which formed that constitution, declared themselves
to be the House of Delegates, during the term for which they were
originally elected, and, in the autumn of the year, met the Senate,
elected under the new constitution, and did legislative business with
them. At this time, there were malefactors in the public jail, and there
was, as yet, no court established for their trial. They passed a
law, appointing certain members by name, who were then members of the
Executive Council, to be a court for the trial of these malefactors,
though the constitution had said, in express words, that no person
should exercise the powers of more than one of the three departments,
legislative, executive, and judiciary, at the same time. This proves,
that the very men who had made that constitution, understood that it
would be alterable by the General Assembly. This court was only for that
occasion. When the next General Assembly met, after the election of the
ensuing year, there was a new set of malefactors in the jail, and no
court to try them. This Assembly passed a similar law to the former,
appointing certain members of the Executive Council to be an occasional
court for this particular case. Not having the journals of Assembly by
me, I am unable to say whether this measure was repealed afterwards.
However, they are instances of executive and judiciary powers exercised
by the same persons, under the authority of a law, made in contradiction
to the constitution.
2. There was a process depending in the ordinary courts of justice,
between two individuals of the name of Robinson and Fauntleroy, who
were relations, of different descriptions, to one Robinson, a British
subject, lately dead. Each party claimed a right to inherit the lands
of the decedent, according to the laws. Their right should, by the
constitution, have been decided by the judiciary courts; and it was
actually depending before them. One of the parties petitioned the
Assembly, (I think it was in the year 1782,) who passed a law deciding
the right in his favor. In the following year, a Frenchman, master of a
vessel, entered into port without complying with the laws established in
such cases, whereby he incurred the forfeitures of the law to any person
who would sue for them. An individual instituted a legal process
to recover these forfeitures, according to the law of the land. The
Frenchman petitioned the Assembly, who passed a law deciding the
question of forfeiture in his favor. These acts are occasional repeals
of that part of the constitution, which forbids the same persons to
exercise legislative and judiciary powers, at the same time.
3. The Assembly is in the habitual exercise, during their sessions,
of directing the Executive what to do. There are few pages of their
journals, which do not furnish proofs of this, and, consequently,
instances of the legislative and executive powers exercised by the same
persons, at the same time. These things prove, that it has been the
uninterrupted opinion of every Assembly, from that which passed the
ordinance called the constitution, down to the present day, that their,
acts may control that ordinance, and, of course, that the State of
Virginia has no fixed constitution at all.
ARTICLE BY JEFFERSON: ‘_Etats Unis,_’ FOR THE _Encyclopédie Méthodique_
[The succeeding observations were made by Mr. Jefferson on
an article entitled ‘_Etats Unis_,’ prepared for the
_Encyclopédie Méthodique_, and submitted to him before its
publication.]
Page 8. The malefactors sent to America were not sufficient in number to
merit enumeration, as one class out of three, which peopled America. It
was at a late period of their history, that this practice began. I
have no book by me, which enables me to point out the date of its
commencement. But I do not think the whole number sent would amount to
two thousand, and being principally men, eaten up with disease, they
married seldom and propagated little. I do not suppose that themselves
and their descendants are, at present, four thousand, which is little
more than one thousandth part of the whole inhabitants.
Indented servants formed a considerable supply. These were poor
Europeans, who went to America to settle themselves. If they could pay
their passage, it was well. If not, they must find means of paying it.
They were at liberty, therefore, to make an agreement with any person
they chose, to serve him such a length of time as they agreed on, upon
condition that he would repay, to the master of the vessel, the expenses
of their passage. If, being foreigners, unable to speak the language,
they did not know how to make a bargain for themselves, the captain
of the vessel contracted for them, with such persons as he could.
This contract was by deed indented, which occasioned them to be called
indented servants. Sometimes they were called redemptioners, because,
by their agreement with the master of the vessel, they could redeem
themselves from his power by paying their passage; which they frequently
effected, by hiring themselves on their arrival, as is before mentioned.
In some States, I know that these people had a right of marrying
themselves, without their master’s leave, and I did suppose they had
that right every where. I did not know, that, in any of the States, they
demanded so much as a week for every day’s absence, without leave.
I suspect this must have been at a very early period, while the
governments were in the hands of the first emigrants, who, being mostly
laborers, were narrow-minded and severe. I know that in Virginia, the
laws allowed their servitude to be protracted only two days for every
one they were absent without leave. So mild was this kind of servitude,
that it was very frequent for foreigners, who carried to America money
enough, not only to pay their passage, but to buy themselves a farm,
to indent themselves to a master for three years, for a certain sum of
money, with a view to learn the husbandry of the country. I will here
make a general observation. So desirous are the poor of Europe to get
to America, where they may better their condition, that, being unable to
pay their passage, they will agree to serve two or three years on their
arrival there, rather than not go. During the time of that service, they
are better fed, better clothed, and have lighter labor, than while in
Europe. Continuing to work for hire, a few years longer, they buy a
farm, marry, and enjoy all the sweets of a domestic society of their
own. The American governments are censured for permitting this species
of servitude, which lays the foundation of the happiness of these
people. But what should these governments do? Pay the passage of all
those who choose to go into their country? They are not able; nor,
were they able, do they think the purchase worth the price. Should they
exclude these people from their shores? Those who know their situations
in Europe and America, would not say, that this is the alternative which
humanity dictates. It is said these people are deceived by those who
carry them over. But this is done in Europe. How can the American
governments prevent it? Should they punish the deceiver? It seems more
incumbent on the European government, where the act is done, and where
a public injury is sustained from it. However, it is only in Europe that
this deception is heard of. The individuals are generally satisfied in
America, with their adventure, and very few of them wish not to have
made it. I must add, that the Congress have nothing to do with this
matter. It belongs to the legislatures of the several States.
Page 26. ‘_Une puissance, en effet,_’ &c. The account of the settlement
of the colonies, which precedes this paragraph, shows that that
settlement was not made by public authority, or at the public expense of
England; but by the exertions, and at the expense, of individuals. Hence
it happened, that their constitutions were not formed systematically,
but according to the circumstances which happened to exist in each.
Hence, too, the principles of the political connection between the
old and new countries were never settled. That it would have been
advantageous to have settled them, is certain; and, particularly, to
have provided a body which should decide, in the last resort, all cases
wherein both parties were interested. But it is not certain that
that right would have been given, or ought to have been given, to the
Parliament; much less, that it resulted to the Parliament, without
having been given to it expressly. Why was it necessary, that there
should have been a body to decide in the last resort? Because, it would
have been for the good of both parties. But this reason shows, it ought
not to have been the Parliament, since that would have exercised it for
the good of one party only.
Page 105. As to the change of the 8th article of Confederation, for
quotaing requisitions of money on the States.
By a report of the secretary of Congress, dated January the 4th, 1786,
eight States had then acceded to the proposition; to wit, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and
North Carolina.
Congress, on the 18th of April, 1783, recommended to the States to
invest them with a power, for twenty-five years, to levy an impost of
five per cent, on all articles imported from abroad. New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, had complied with this,
before the 4th of January, 1786. Maryland had passed an act for the
same purpose; but, by a mistake in referring to the date of the
recommendation of Congress, the act failed of its effect. This was
therefore to be rectified. Since the 4th of January, the public papers
tell us, that Rhode Island has complied fully with this recommendation.
It remains still for New York and Georgia to do it. The exportations
of America, which are tolerably well known, are the best measure for
estimating the importations. These are probably worth about twenty
millions of dollars annually. Of course, this impost will pay the
interest of a debt to that amount. If confined to the foreign debt,
it will pay the whole interest of that, and sink half a million of the
capital annually. The expenses of collecting this impost, will probably
be six per cent, on its amount, this being the usual expense of
collection in the United States. This will be sixty thousand dollars.
On the 30th of April, 1784, Congress recommended to the States, to
invest them with a power, for fifteen years, to exclude from their ports
the vessels of all nations, not having a treaty of commerce with them;
and to pass, as to all nations, an act on the principles of the British
navigation act. Not that they were disposed to carry these powers into
execution, with such as would meet them in fair and equal arrangements
of commerce; but that they might be able to do it against those who
should not. On the 4th of January, 1786, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,
and North Carolina, had done it: It remained for New Jersey, Delaware,
South Carolina, and Georgia to do the same.
in the mean time, the general idea has advanced before the demands of
Congress, and several States have passed acts, for vesting Congress with
the whole regulation of their commerce, reserving the revenue arising
from these regulations, to the disposal of the State in which it is
levied. The States which, according to the public papers, have passed
such acts, are New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey,
Delaware, and Virginia: but the Assembly of Virginia, apprehensive that
this disjointed method of proceeding may fail in its effect, or be much
retarded, passed a resolution on the 21st of January, 1786, appointing
commissioners to meet others from the other States, whom they invite
into the same measure, to digest the form of an act for investing
Congress with, such powers over their commerce, as shall be thought
expedient, which act is to be reported to their several Assemblies for
their adoption. This was the state of the several propositions relative
to the impost and regulation of commerce at the date of our latest
advices from America.
Page 125. The General Assembly of Virginia, at their session in 1785,
passed an act, declaring that the district called Kentucky shall be a
separate and independent State on these conditions. 1. That the people
of that district shall consent to it. 2. That Congress shall consent to
it, and shall receive them into the federal Union. 3. That they shall
take on themselves a proportionable part of the public debt of Virginia.
4. That they shall confirm all titles to lands within their district
made by the State of Virginia before their separation.
Page 139. It was in 1783, and not in 1781, that Congress quitted
Philadelphia.
Page 140, ‘_Le Congrès qui se trouvoit a la portée des rebelles fut
effrayé._’ I was not present on this occasion, but, I have had relations
of the transaction from several who were. The conduct of Congress was
marked with indignation and firmness. They received no propositions from
the mutineers. They came to the resolutions which may be seen in the
journals of June the 21st, 1783, then adjourned regularly and went
through the body of the mutineers to their respective lodgings.
The measures taken by Dickinson, the President of Pennsylvania,
for punishing this insult, not being satisfactory to Congress, they
assembled nine days after at Princeton, in Jersey. The people of
Pennsylvania sent petitions, declaring their indignation at what had
passed, their devotion to the federal head, and their dispositions
to protect it, and praying them to return; the legislature as soon as
assembled did the same thing; the Executive, whose irresolution had been
so exceptionable, made apologies. But Congress were now removed; and to
the opinion that this example was proper, other causes were now added
sufficient to prevent their return to Philadelphia.
Page 155, I. 2. Omit ‘_La dette actuelle,_’ &c.
And also, ‘_Les details,_’ &c. &c. to the end of the paragraph, ‘_celles
des Etats Unis_’ page 156. The reason is, that these passages seem to
suppose that the several sums emitted by Congress at different times,
amounting nominally to two hundred millions of dollars, had been
actually worth that at the time of emission, and of course, that the
soldiers and others had received that sum from Congress. But nothing is
further from the truth. The soldier, victualler, or other persons who
received forty dollars for a service at the close of the year 1779,
received, in fact, no more than he who received one dollar for the same
service in the year 1775, or 1776; because in those years the paper
money was at par with silver; whereas, by the close of 1779, forty
paper dollars were worth but one of silver, and would buy no more of the
necessaries of life. To know what the monies emitted by Congress were
worth to the people at the time they received them, we will state the
date and amount of every several emission, the depreciation of paper
money at the time, and the real worth of the emission in silver or gold.
[Illustration: Depreciation of Money 1775-1779, page411]
[* The sum actually voted was 50,000,400, but part of it was
for exchange of old bills, without saying how much. It is
presumed that these exchanges absorbed 25,552,780, because
the remainder 24,447,620, with all the other emissions
preceding September 2nd, 1779, will amount to 159,948,880,
the sum which Congress declared to be then in circulation.]
Thus it appears that the two hundred millions of dollars, emitted by
Congress, were worth to those who received them, but about thirty-six
millions of silver dollars. If we estimate at the same value the like
sum of two hundred millions, supposed to have been emitted by the
States, and reckon the Federal debt, foreign and domestic, at about
forty-three millions, and the State debts at about twenty-five millions,
it will form an amount of one hundred and forty millions of dollars, or
seven hundred and thirty-five millions of livres Tournois, the total
sum which the war has cost the inhabitants of the United States. It
continued eight years, from the battle of Lexington to the cessation
of hostilities in America. The annual expense then was about seventeen
millions and five hundred thousand dollars, while that of our enemies
was a greater number of guineas.
It will be asked, how will the two masses of Continental and of State
money have cost the people of the United States seventy-two millions
of dollars, when they are to be redeemed now with about six millions? I
answer, that the difference, being sixty-six millions, has been lost on
the paper bills separately by the successive holders of them. Every
one through whose hands a bill passed lost on that bill what it lost in
value, during the time it was in his hands. This was a real tax on him;
and in this way, the people of the United States actually contributed
those sixty-six millions of dollars during the war, and by a mode of
taxation the most oppressive of all, because the most unequal of all.
Page 166; bottom line. Leave out ‘Et c’est une autre économie,’ &c. The
reason of this is, that in 1784, purchases of lands were to be made
of the Indians, which were accordingly made. But in 1785 they did not
propose to make any purchase. The money desired in 1785, five thousand
dollars, was probably to pay agents residing among the Indians, or
balances of the purchases of 1784. These purchases will not be made
every year; but only at distant intervals, as our settlements are
extended: and it may be regarded as certain, that not a foot of land
will ever be taken from the Indians without their own consent. The
sacredness of their rights is felt by all thinking persons in America,
as much as in Europe.
Page 170. Virginia was quotaed the highest of any State in the Union.
But during the war several States appear to have paid more, because
they were free from the enemy, whilst Virginia was cruelly ravaged. The
requisition of 1784 was so quotaed on the several States, as to bring
up their arrearages; so that, when they should have paid the sums then
demanded, all would be on an equal footing. It is necessary to give a
further explanation of this requisition. The requisitions of one million
and two hundred thousand dollars, of eight millions, and two millions,
had been made during the war, as an experiment to see whether in that
situation the States could furnish the necessary supplies. It was found
they could not. The money was thereupon obtained by loans in Europe: and
Congress meant by their requisition of 1784, to abandon the requisitions
of one million and two hundred thousand dollars, and of two millions,
and also one half of the eight millions. But as all the States almost
had made some payments in part of that requisition, they were obliged
to retain such a proportion of it as would enable them to call for equal
contributions from all the others.
Page 170. I cannot say how it has happened, that the debt of Connecticut
is greater than that of Virginia. The latter is the richest in
productions, and, perhaps, made greater exertions to pay for her
supplies in the course of the war.
Page 172. ‘_Les Americains levant après une banqueroute,_ &c. The
objections made to the United States being here condensed together in a
short compass, perhaps it would not be improper to condense the answers
in as small a compass in some such form as follows. That is, after the
words ‘_aucun espoir,_’ add, ‘But to these charges it may be justly
answered, that those are no bankrupts who acknowledge the sacredness
of their debts in their just and real amount, who are able within a
reasonable time to pay them, and who are actually proceeding in that
payment; that they furnish, in fact, the supplies necessary for the
support of their government; that their officers and soldiers are
satisfied, as the interest of their debt is paid regularly, and the
principal is in a course of payment; that the question, whether they
fought ill should be asked of those who met them at Bunker’s Hill,
Bennington, Stillwater, King’s Mountain, the Cowpens, Guilford, and the
Eutaw. And that the charges of ingratitude, madness, infidelity, and
corruption, are easily made by those to whom falsehoods cost nothing;
but that no instances in support of them have been produced or can be
produced.’
Page 182. ‘_Les officiers et les soldats ont été payés_,’ &c. The
balances due to the officers and soldiers have been ascertained, and a
certificate of the sum given to each; on these the interest is regularly
paid; and every occasion is seized of paying the principal by receiving
these certificates as money whenever public property is sold, till a
more regular and effectual method can be taken for paying the whole.