James Madison Papers

Notes on Debates, 10 March 1783

Notes on Debates

MS (LC: Madison Papers). For a description of the manuscript of Notes on Debates, see Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (6 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , V, 231–34.

See the Journal. much debate passed relative to the proposed commutation of half pay; some wishing it to take place on condition only that a majority of the whole army should concur[;] others preferring the plan expressed on the journal,1 and not agreed to.2

1JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 178–79. The debate focused upon the report of a committee, which Congress had appointed on 7 March (NA: PCC, No. 186, fol. 87). Drafted by Daniel Carroll, the report recommended that the half pay for life guaranteed on 21 October 1780 by Congress should be commuted at its option into either full pay for five years or an equivalent sum in 6 per cent bonds, provided that this offer of commutation should be acceptable to the officers of the continental line of each state deciding collectively. The already retired officers of those lines, the officers of corps not belonging to those lines, and the officers not included in any of the above categories—each deciding as a group—should have the same choice. During the debate Theodorick Bland sought unsuccessfully to amend in the following respect the proposed mode of exercising the option: “in case the officers of the army or a majority of them will agree to accept the same, to be certified to Congress by a committee from the whole army, authorized for that purpose[,] to consist of a member from each line.” This quotation is canceled as printed in JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 178, n. 2.

For the background of the general issue, see JM Notes, 6 Jan., and n. 2; 9–10 Jan.; 13 Jan., and nn. 11, 18, 20, 21; 17 Jan., and n. 6; 24 Jan., and n. 25; 25 Jan., and nn. 8–12; 4 Feb., and nn. 7, 10, 11, 13–15; 25 Feb., and nn. 1–4, 11; 27 Feb., and n. 2; 28 Feb. 1783; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 93–95, 95, n. 1, 145–48, 149–51, 154–56, 161, and n. 2, 169–70, 170, n. 1, 176.

2Eight, rather than the requisite minimum of nine, states voted in favor of the report. Except for John Francis Mercer, the five delegates from Virginia voted “ay” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 179).

Index Entries