The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 3 (of 9)

Congress, on the 24th of March, 1783, received informal intelligence from the Marquis de la Fayette, that provisional articles were concluded; and, on the same day, they received a copy of the articles, in a letter of March 19th, from General Carleton and Admiral Digby. They immediately gave orders for recalling all armed vessels, and communicated the orders to those officers, who answered, on the 26th and 27th, that they were not authorized to concur in the recall of armed vessels, on their part. On the 11th of April, Congress received an official copy of these articles from Dr. Franklin, with notice that a preliminary treaty was now signed between France, Spain and England. The event having now taken place on which the provisional articles were to come into effect, on the usual footing of preliminaries, Congress immediately proclaim them, and, on the 19th of April, a cessation of hostilities is published by the commander-in-chief. These particulars place all acts preceding the 11th of April out of the present discussion, and confine it to the treaty itself, and the circumstances attending its execution. I have therefore taken the liberty of extracting from your list of American acts all of those preceding that epoch, and of throwing them together in the paper No. 6, as things out of question. The subsequent acts shall be distributed, according to their several subjects, of I. Exile and confiscation: II. Debts: and III. Interest on those debts:

Beginning, I. with those of exile and confiscation, which will be considered together, because blended together in most of the acts, and blended also in the same article of the treaty.

Sec. 3. It cannot be denied that the state of war strictly permits a nation to seize the property of its enemies found within its own limits, or taken in war, and in whatever form it exists, whether in action or possession. This is so perspicuously laid down by one of the most respectable writers on subjects of this kind, that I shall use his words, 10"Cum ea sit belli conditio, ut hostes sint omni jure spoliati, rationis est, quascunque res hostium apud hostes inventas dominum mutare, et fisco cedere. Solet præterea in singulis fere belli indictionibus constitui, ut bona hostium, tam apud nos reperta, quam capta bello publicentur. Si merum jus belli sequamur, etiam immobilia possent vendi, et eorum pretium in fiscum redigi, ut in mobilibus obtinet. Sed in omni fere Europa sola fit annotatio, ut eorum fructus, durante bello, percipiat fiscus, finito autem bello, ipsa immobilia ex pactis restituuntur pristinis dominis." Bynkersh. Quest. Jur. Pub. 1. 1, c. 7. Every nation, indeed, would wish to pursue the latter practice, if under circumstances leaving them their usual resources. But the circumstances of our war were without example; excluded from all commerce, even with neutral nations, without arms, money, or the means of getting them abroad, we were obliged to avail ourselves of such resources as we found at home. Great Britain, too, did not consider it as an ordinary war, but a rebellion; she did not conduct it according to the rules of war, established by the law of nations, but according to her acts of parliament, made from time to time, to suit circumstances. She would not admit our title even to the strict rights of ordinary war; she cannot then claim from us its liberalities; yet the confiscations of property were by no means universal, and that of debts still less so. What effect was to be produced on them by the treaty, will be seen by the words of the fifth article, which are as follows:

Sec. 4. "Art. V. It is agreed, that the Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the Legislatures of the respective States, to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated, belonging to real British subjects, and also of the estates, rights, and properties, of persons resident in districts in the possession of his Majesty's arms, and who have not borne arms against the said United States; and that persons of any other description shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of the thirteen United States, and therein to remain twelve months, unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties, as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent, not only with justice and equity, but with that spirit of conciliation, which, on the return of the blessings of peace, should universally prevail; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States, that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last-mentioned persons, shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons, who may be now in possession, the bona fide price (where any has been given), which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties, since the confiscation. And it is agreed, that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage, settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights."

"Art. VI. That there shall be no future confiscations made."

Sec. 5. Observe, that in every other article, the parties agree expressly, that such and such things shall be done; in this, they only agree to recommend that they shall be done. You are pleased to say (page 7), "It cannot be presumed, that the Commissioners, who negotiated the treaty of peace, would engage, in behalf of Congress, to make recommendations to the Legislatures of the respective States, which they did not expect to be effectual, or enter into direct stipulations which they had not the power to enforce." On the contrary, we may fairly presume that, if they had had the power to enforce, they would not merely have recommended. When, in every other article, they agree expressly to do, why in this do they change the style suddenly, and agree only to recommend? Because the things here proposed to be done were retrospective in their nature—would tear up the laws of the several States, and the contracts and transactions, private and public, which had taken place under them; and retrospective laws were forbidden by the constitutions of several of the States. Between persons whose native language is that of his treaty, it is unnecessary to explain the difference between enacting a thing to be done, and recommending it to be done; the words themselves being as well understood as any by which they could be explained. But it may not be unnecessary to observe, that recommendations to the people, instead of laws, had been introduced among us, and were rendered familiar in the interval between discontinuing the old, and establishing the new governments. The conventions and committees who then assembled, to guide the conduct of the People, having no authority to oblige them by law, took up the practice of simply recommending measures to them. These recommendations they either complied with or not, at their pleasure. If they refused, there was complaint, but no compulsion. So, after organizing the Governments, if at any time it became expedient that a thing should be done, which Congress, or any other of the organized bodies, were not authorized to ordain, they simply recommended, and left to the People, or their Legislatures, to comply, or not, as they pleased. It was impossible that the negotiators on either side should have been ignorant of the difference between agreeing to do a thing, and agreeing only to recommend it to be done. The import of the terms is so different, that no deception or surprise could be supposed, even if there were no evidence that the difference was attended to, explained, and understood.

Sec. 6. But the evidence on this occasion removes all question. It is well known that the British court had it extremely at heart, to procure a restitution of the estates of the refugees who had gone over to their side; that they proposed it in the first inferences, and insisted on it to the last; that our commissioners, on the other hand, refused it from first to last, urging, 1st. That it was unreasonable to restore the confiscated property of the refugees, unless they would reimburse the destruction of the property of our citizens, committed on their part; and 2dly. That it was beyond the powers of the commissions to stipulate, or of Congress to enforce. On this point, the treaty hung long. It was the subject of a special mission of a confidential agent of the British negotiator from Paris to London. It was still insisted on, on his return, and still protested against, by our commissioners; and when they were urged to agree only, that Congress should recommend to the State Legislatures to restore the estates, &c., of the refugees, they were expressly told that the Legislatures would not regard the recommendation. In proof of this, I subjoin extracts from the letters and journals of Mr. Adams and Dr. Franklin, two of our commissioners, the originals of which are among the records of the Department of State, and shall be open to you for a verification of the copies. These prove, beyond all question, that the difference between an express agreement to do a thing, and to recommend it to be done, was well understood by both parties, and that the British negotiators were put on their guard by those on our part, not only that the Legislature will be free to refuse, but that they probably would refuse. And it is evident from all circumstances, that Mr. Oswald accepted the recommendation merely to have something to oppose to the clamors of the refugees—to keep alive a hope in them, that they might yet get their property from the State Legislatures; and that, if they should fail in this, they would have ground to demand indemnification from their own Government; and he might think it a circumstance of present relief at least, that the question of indemnification by them should be kept out of sight, till time and events should open it upon the nation insensibly.

Sec. 7. The same was perfectly understood by the British ministry, and by the members of both Houses in Parliament, as well those who advocated, as those who oppose the treaty; the latter of whom, being out of the secrets of the negotiation, must have formed their judgments on the mere import of the terms. That all parties concurred in this exposition, will appear by the following extracts from the parliamentary register; a work, which, without pretending to give what is spoken with verbal accuracy, may yet be relied on, we presume, for the general reasoning and opinions of the speakers.

House of Commons.—The preliminary articles under consideration; 1783, February 17th

Mr. Thomas Pitt.—"That the interests of the sincere loyalists were as dear to him, as to any man; but that he could never think it would have been promoted by carrying on that unfortunate war, which Parliament had in fact suspended before the beginning of the treaty; that it was impossible, after the part Congress was pleased to take in it, to conceive that their recommendation would not have its proper influence on the different Legislatures; that he did not himself see what more could have been done on their behalf, except by renewing the war for their sakes, and increasing our and their calamities."—9 Debrett's Parliamentary Register, 233.

Mr. Wilberforce.—"When he considered the case of the loyalists, he confessed he felt himself there conquered; there he saw his country humiliated; he saw her at the feet of America! Still he was induced to believe, that Congress would religiously comply with the article, and that the loyalists would obtain redress from America. Should they not, this country was bound to afford it them. They must be compensated. Ministers, he was persuaded, meant to keep the faith of the nation with them, and he verily believed, had obtained the best terms they possibly could for them."—Ib. 236.

Mr. Secretary Townsend.—"He was ready to admit, that many of the loyalists had the strongest claims upon this country; and he trusted, should the recommendation of Congress to the American States prove unsuccessful, which he flattered himself would not be the case, this country would feel itself bound in honor to make them full compensation for their losses."—Ib. 262.

House of Lords.—February 17, 1783

Lord Shelburne.—"A part must be wounded, that the whole of the empire may not perish. If better terms could be had, think you, my lords, that I would not have embraced them? You all know my creed. You all know my steadiness. If it were possible to put aside the bitter cup the adversities of this country presented to me, you know I would have done it; but you called for peace. I had 'but the alternative, either to accept the terms (said Congress) of our recommendation to the States in favor of the colonists, or continue the war. It is in our power to do no more than recommend.' Is there any man who hears me, who will clap his hand on his heart, and step forward and say, I ought to have broken off the treaty? If there be, I am sure he neither knows the state of the country, nor yet has he paid any attention to the wishes of it. But say the worst, and that, after all, this estimable set of men are not received and cherished in the bosom of their own country—is England so lost to gratitude, and all the feelings of humanity, as not to afford them an asylum? Who can be so base as to think she will refuse it to them? Surely it cannot be that noble-minded man, who would plunge his country again knee deep in blood, and saddle it with an expense of twenty millions, for the purpose of restoring them. Without one drop of blood spilt, and without one-fifth of the expense of one year's campaign, happiness and ease can be given the loyalists in as ample a manner as these blessings were ever in their enjoyment; therefore, let the outcry cease on this head."—Ib. 70, 71.

Lord Hawke.—"In America," said he, "Congress had engaged to recommend their [the loyalists'] cause to the Legislatures of the country. What other term could they adopt? He had searched the journals of Congress on this subject; what other term did they, or do they ever adopt in their requisitions to the different provinces? It is an undertaking on the part of Congress; that body, like the King here, is the executive power in America. Can the crown undertake for the two Houses of Parliament? It can only recommend. He flattered himself that recommendation would be attended with success; but, said he, state the case, that it will not, the liberality of Great Britain is still open to them. Ministers had pledged themselves to indemnify them; not only in the address now moved for, but even in the last address, and in the speech from the throne."

Lord Walsingham.—"We had only the recommendation of Congress to trust to, and how often had their recommendations been fruitless? There were many cases in point in which provincial assemblies had peremptorily refused the recommendations of Congress. It was but the other day the States refused money on the recommendations of Congress. Rhode Island unanimously refused, when the Congress desired to be authorized to lay a duty of five per cent. because the funds had failed. Many other circumstances might be produced of the failure of the recommendations of Congress, and therefore we ought not, in negotiating for the loyalists, to have trusted to the recommendations of Congress. Nothing but the repeal of the acts existing against them ought to have sufficed, as nothing else could give effect to the treaty; repeal was not mentioned. They had only stipulated to revise and reconsider them."—11 Debrett's Parliamentary Reg. 44.

Lord Sackville.—"The King's ministers had weakly imagined that the recommendation of Congress was a sufficient security for these unhappy men. For his own part, so far from believing that this would be sufficient, or anything like sufficient, for their protection, he was of a direct contrary opinion; and if they entertained any notions of this sort, he would put an end to their idle hopes at once, by reading from a paper in his pocket, a resolution, which the assembly of Virginia had come to, so late as on the 17th of December last. The resolution was as follows: 'That all demands or requests of the British court for the restitution of property, confiscated by this State, being neither supported by law, equity, or policy, are wholly inadmissible; and that our delegates in Congress be instructed to move Congress, that they may direct their deputies, who shall represent these States in the general Congress, for adjusting a peace or truce, neither to agree to any such restitution, or submit that the laws made by any independent State in this Union, be subjected to the adjudication of any power or powers on earth.'"—Ib. pages 62, 63.

Some of the speakers seem to have had not very accurate ideas of our government. All of them, however, have perfectly understood, that a recommendation was a matter, not of obligation or coercion, but of persuasion and influence, merely. They appear to have entertained greater or less degrees of hope or doubt, as to its effect on the Legislatures, and though willing to see the result of this chance, yet, if it failed, they were prepared to take the work of indemnification on themselves.

Sec. 8. The agreement then being only that Congress should recommend to the State Legislatures a restitution of estates, and liberty to remain a twelvemonth for the purpose of soliciting the restitution, and to recommend a revision of all acts regarding the premises, Congress did, immediately on the receipt of the definitive articles, to wit, on the 14th of January, 1784, come to the following resolution, viz: "Resolved unanimously, nine States being present, that it be, and it is hereby, earnestly recommended to the Legislatures of the respective States, to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated, belonging to real British subjects; and also, of the estates, rights, and properties, of persons resident in districts which were in the possession of his Britannic Majesty's arms, at any time between the 30th day of November, 1782, and the 14th day of January, 1784, and who have not borne arms against the said United States; and that persons of any other description shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States, and therein to remain twelve months, unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties, as may have been confiscated; and it is also hereby earnestly recommended to the several States, to reconsider and revise all their acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent, not only with justice and equity, but with that spirit of conciliation which, on the return of the blessings of peace, should universally prevail; and it is hereby also earnestly recommended to the several States, that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last-mentioned persons should be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession, the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid, on purchasing any of the said lands, rights or properties, since the confiscation.

"Ordered, That a copy of the proclamation of this date, together with the recommendation, be transmitted to the several States by the Secretary."

Sec. 9. The British negotiators had been told by ours, that all the States would refuse to comply with this recommendation; one only, however, refused altogether. The others complied in a greater or less degree, according to the circumstances and dispositions in which the events of the war had left them; but, had all of them refused, it would have been no violation of the 5th article, but an exercise of that freedom of will, which was reserved to them, and so understood by all parties.

The following are the acts of your catalogue which belong to this head, with such short observations as are necessary to explain them; beginning at that end of the Union, where, the war having raged most, we shall meet with the most repugnance to favor:

Sec. 10. Georgia.—1783, July 29. An act releasing certain persons from their bargains. A law had been passed during the war, to wit, in 1782, [A. 30.] confiscating the estates of persons therein named, and directing them to be sold; they were sold; but some misunderstanding happened to prevail among the purchasers, as to the mode of payment. This act of 1783, therefore, permits such persons to relinquish their bargains, and authorizes a new sale; the lands remaining confiscated under the law made previous to the peace.

1785, Feb. 22. An act to authorize the auditor to liquidate the demands of such persons as have claims against the confiscated estates. In the same law of confiscations made during the war, it had been provided that the estates confiscated should be subject to pay the debts of their former owner. This law of 1785, gave authority to the auditor to settle with, and pay the creditors, and to sell the remaining part of the estate confiscated as before.

1787, Feb. 10. An act to compel the settlement of public accounts, for inflicting penalties, and vesting the auditor with certain powers. This law also is founded on the same confiscation law of 1782, requiring the auditor to press the settlement with the creditors, &c.

1785, Feb. 7. An act for ascertaining the rights of aliens, and pointing out the mode for the admission of citizens. It first describes what persons shall be free to become citizens, and then declares none shall be capable of that character who had been named in any confiscation law, or banished, or had borne arms against them. This act does not prohibit either the refugees, or real British subjects, from coming into the State to pursue their lawful affairs. It only excludes the former from the right of citizenship, and it is to be observed, that this recommendatory article does not say a word about giving them a right to become citizens. If the conduct of Georgia should appear to have been peculiarly uncomplying, it must be remembered that that State had peculiarly suffered; that the British army had entirely overrun it; had held possession of it for some years; and that all the inhabitants had been obliged either to abandon their estates and fly their country, or to remain in it under a military government.

Sec. 11. South Carolina.—1783, August 15th. An act to vest 180 acres of land, late the property of James Holmes, in certain persons, in trust for the benefit of a public school. These lands had been confiscated and sold during the war. The present law prescribes certain proceedings as to the purchasers, and provides for paying the debts of the former proprietors.

1786, March 22. An act to amend the confiscation act, and for other purposes therein mentioned. This relates only to estates which had been confiscated before the peace. It makes some provision towards a final settlement, and relieves a number of persons from the amercements which had been imposed on them during the war, for the part they had taken.

1784, March 26. An act restoring to certain persons their estates, and permitting the said persons to return, and for other purposes. This act recites, that certain estates had been confiscated, and the owners, 124 in number, banished by former laws; that Congress had earnestly recommended in the terms of the treaty—it therefore distributes them into three lists or classes, restoring to all of them the lands themselves, where they remained unsold, and the price, where sold, requiring from those in lists No. 1, and 3, to pay 12 per cent. on the value of what was restored, and No. 2, nothing; and it permits all of them to return, only disqualifying those of No. 1 and 3, who had borne military commissions against them, from holding any office for seven years.

Governor Moultrie's letter of June 21, 1786, informs us, that most of the confiscations had been restored; that the value of those not restored, was far less than that of the property of their citizens carried off by the British, and that fifteen, instead of twelve months, had been allowed to the persons for whom permission was recommended to come and solicit restitution.