1. The two “foreign officers” were Jacques Marie Blaise, Chevalier de Segond (1758–1832), and Jacob Schreiber. Of the latter, little is known except that, as a soldier of fortune, he had come from France or one of the German states to the United States in 1779 and been commissioned on 26 November a lieutenant of continental artillery in the South Carolina line (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 151). From 2 March 1780 until his retirement on 1 May 1783, he was a captain of army engineers. Having been captured by the British when Charleston fell on 12 May 1780, Schreiber was not freed on parole until the summer of the next year. On 6 August 1781, being then in Philadelphia, he addressed the first of many petitions to Congress, calling attention to his “utmost Distress for Want of the Necessaries of life” and asking for his long-overdue pay (NA: PCC, No. 41, IX, 171; No. 42, VIII, 136; No. 148, II, 46).

Unlike American-born officers who also had become supernumerary or “deranged” in the continental army as a result of resolutions by Congress in October 1780, December 1781, and August 1782 (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XVIII, 893–97, 958–62; XXI, 1186–87; XXII, 451–55), Schreiber had no home in the United States to which he might retire and no “domestic affairs” to provide him an income (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 691, 698). For this reason and because by 1782 the cessation of warfare in the United States foreclosed the possibility of his reassignment to active duty, he wanted to return to Europe where, as he alleged, a major’s commission in “a Legion” awaited him (NA: PCC, No. 41, IX, 193–95; No. 78, XXI, 157, 267; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 1111–12, 1140–41; XXII, 152 n., 218–19, 449). Until 16 October 1782, when Congress resolved against “any partial exchange of prisoners of war in future” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 661, 664, 678–79), Schreiber’s requests to be exchanged had been denied because they conflicted with a directive of Congress of 7 August 1780 requiring Washington to give “due regard to the order of Captivity” in exchanging officers who were prisoners of war (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XVII, 705–6; Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington description begins John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, from the Original Sources, 1745–1799 (39 vols.; Washington, 1931–44). description ends , XXIII, 221). In 1787 Schreiber married Mary Ann Hall of South Carolina (South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, LI [1950], 97). The editors are indebted to W. Edwin Hemphill of the South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, for the information that Mrs. Schreiber in her will, proved in 1806, did not know the whereabouts of her husband, apparently because she had been abandoned by him for some years (Charleston County Wills, XXX [1800–1807], 1010, microfilm in the South Carolina Archives Department).

Like Schreiber, the Chevalier de Segond was on parole as a prisoner of war who had been captured with the rest of General Benjamin Lincoln’s command at Charleston. Although Segond wished to be exchanged and given the arrears of his pay, he seems to have been more eager in his memorials to Congress, 1781 ff., to be promoted in rank or granted some other “honourable Testimonial of his Services.” This would gratify his family, help his future military career, and signify that he was not less deserving than his French compatriots in the American army (NA:PCC, No. 36, IV, 283; No. 41, IX, 196, 241–48; No. 149, II, 549; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 8, 9; XXIII, 664; XXIV, 37, 367 n).

Segond had arrived in the United States in June 1777 from his home in Provence. After serving for the rest of that year and the early part of 1778 as a volunteer in the battles around Philadelphia and in the winter at Valley Forge, he had been commissioned on Lafayette’s recommendation as a captain of cavalry in Count Casimir Pulaski’s Legion (NA: PCC, No. 41, IX, 241–48; Baron Ludovic de Contenson, La Société des Cincinnati de France et la Guerre d’Amérique, 1778–1783 [Paris, 1934], p. 259). Washington regarded him as “a brave and zealous officer” (NA: PCC, No. 149, II, 545–46). Segond was exchanged on 26 November 1782, promoted to the brevet rank of major on 30 September 1783, and resigned his commission about five weeks later (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 633, 680, 786). Between 1785 and 1793 he continued his military career by serving successively in the Netherlands, Russia, and France (Boyd, Papers of Jefferson description begins Julian P. Boyd et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (17 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950——). description ends , XI, 53 n.). As late as 1787 his pay for two years was still owed by Congress (ibid., XI, 53, 82–83).

In separate letters to Congress on 28 and 29 October 1782, Secretary at War Benjamin Lincoln asked for a directive concerning foreign officers who were prisoners of war on parole. He depicted Schreiber’s plight as an example of their hard lot because of the rule against making partial exchanges and recommended that he, at least, be excepted from the application of the rule. On 30 October the matter was referred to a committee comprising Theodorick Bland, chairman, Samuel Osgood, and Philemon Dickinson (Del.). Dickinson’s term in Congress expired on 3 November (NA: PCC, No. 149, II, 67–68, 73–76; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 691, and n. 2, 698, and n. 1, 707–8). The committee’s recommendation, which Congress accepted on the morning of 5 November, authorized Washington to obtain the exchange of Segond as well as Schreiber and granted each of these captains a “leave of absence” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 712). JM underlined “on national.” For an explanation of his emphasis upon these words, see n. 11, below.

2. The sentence presumably ends here. The vote is not recorded in the printed journal. JM and Bland, the only delegates present from Virginia, evidently canceled each other’s vote.

3. Following the adoption of the committee’s recommendation (n. 1, above), Congress directed its attention to other matters. Judging from the printed journal, Osgood’s motion to have the “measure” reconsidered was made and adopted late in the session of 5 November. The word “Reconsidered” appears in the margin beside the committee’s report (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 712, 714). Whether Osgood, as his motion appears to suggest, had disagreed with Bland and Dickinson in framing the resolution cannot be certainly known, because he was Massachusetts’ only delegate in Congress and hence the vote of that state was omitted by JM in his tally.

4. Late in his life JM wrote “adison” above “M——” in his original notes.

5. See n. 1, above.

6. JM inadvertently wrote “to” twice.

7. JM interlineated this adverb after deleting “previous” between “All” and “exchanges.” Judging from the shade of the ink and the handwriting, these alterations were a part of the original text of the notes.

8. That is, “the enemy.”

9. The dispatch of 2 August 1782 to Washington from General Sir Guy Carleton and Admiral Robert Digby. See Virginia Delegates to Harrison, 9 August, and n. 1; 13 August 1782.

10. JM interlineated “by Congress” after “expedient” and deleted “passing the declaration” after “time of.”

11. Having received Washington’s letter of 5 August enclosing a copy of the Carleton-Digby letter of 2 August, mentioned in n. 9, above, Congress on 9 August referred both dispatches to a committee comprising Arthur Lee, chairman, Witherspoon, and Rutledge (Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (5 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , IV, 441, n. 4). Three days later the committee submitted an acceptable report which included a recommendation “That the Commander in Chief be directed to propose to his Britannic Majesty’s commanders at New York, the appointment of commissioners to settle forthwith a general cartel for the exchange of prisoners” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 462–63; Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington description begins John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, from the Original Sources, 1745–1799 (39 vols.; Washington, 1931–44). description ends , XXV, 71–72).

The meeting of the British and American cartel commissioners at Tappan, N.Y., late in September was, in Washington’s words, “speedy and indecisive.” Although Carleton’s instructions prevented his representatives from acknowledging the independence of the United States by negotiating “a Cartel on national ground,” there were irreconcilable particular issues which also contributed to the failure of the negotiations (ibid., XXV, 221–22; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 645, n. 1). JM interlineated “with regard to Independence” after “sincerity” and also “of a Cartel” after “treating.”

12. Prior to the resolution of Congress on 16 October 1782 (n. 1, above), partial exchanges of prisoners of war had been the “mode.”

13. See nn. 1 and 3, above; Notes on Debates, 7 November 1782, and n. 1.