1. Above this date JM wrote “No. III.” For an explanation of this number, see Notes on Debates, 4 November 1782, ed. n.

2. See Motion on Court of Appeals, 22 November 1782, n. 1.

3. In the printed journal no mention is made of nominees other than Lowell and Read or of the vote by states (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 765). William Peartree Smith (1723–1801), who was graduated by Yale College in 1742 and inherited an “ample fortune” from his father, moved from his native New York City to Elizabethtown, N.J., in 1758, and from there in 1780 to Newark, where he lived for the rest of his life. Versed in law but not a practicing lawyer, Smith was a judge of the Vice Admiralty Court in 1759 and one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Essex County, N.J., from the close of the Revolution until his death. He was a charter trustee of the College of New Jersey and remained on the Board as long as he lived. In 1774–1775, as a member of the colony’s Committee of Correspondence and the Provincial Congress, he gained prominence as a forthright opponent of British policies. His daughter, Catherine, married Elias Boudinot’s brother, Elisha (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , I, 19–20; J[ane] J. Boudinot, ed., Life, Public Services, Addresses and Letters of Elias Boudinot, II, 32; George A. Boyd, Elias Boudinot, pp. 12, n. 48, 20, 22, 24, 25, 75–76, 138).

Henry Marchant (1741–1796) of Newport, R.I., was graduated by the College of Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania) in 1762, began the practice of law in Newport five years later, and in 1771 became attorney general of the colony. In 1777 he resigned this office to accept an appointment as a delegate from his state in Congress. He served in this capacity until 1779 but did not attend Congress following his reelection in 1782. He was a prominent advocate of the ratification of the Federal Constitution in the state convention which met in 1789 to decide that issue. From 1790 until his death he was the judge of the federal district court of Rhode Island (David S. Lovejoy, Rhode Island Politics and the American Revolution, 1760–1776 [Providence, 1958], pp. 132–33, 162, 165, 184; Bulletin of the Newport Historical Society, No. 26 [July 1918], p. 13; Collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society, VII [1885], pp. 120, 329, 341, 342; Joseph Jencks Smith, comp., Civil and Military List of Rhode Island, 1647–1800 [Providence, 1900], pp. 252, 266, 270, 295, 360, 364, 372, 416, 425; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , VIII, 418–19; XI, 575; XIV, 725; Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, lxxiv).

4. See Notes on Debates, 3 December 1782, and nn. 12, 14. That date should have been inserted in the blanks.

5. Judging from JM’s handwriting, this sentence was interlineated by him sometime after he first drafted his notes. See JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 765.

6. In the original draft, JM wrote only “Mr. M.” For “the coercive clause” embodied in the third resolution proposed by McKean and for his first resolution, which JM calls “the preceding clause,” see Motion in re Coercing Vermont, 5 December 1782, and n. 2.

7. Ibid., n. 3.

8. During the session of 3 December (i.e., “this stage”), Thomas McKean had “called for” the report of 14 November by the committee “on the case of Vermont” and then moved that its consideration be postponed “to make way” for his “set of Resolutions.” The motion evidently was adopted in spite of an objection by some members that this parliamentary maneuver violated the sixth procedural rule, reading in part, “When a report, which has been read and lies for consideration, is called for it shall immediately be taken up” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XX, 477; Notes on Debates, 3 December 1782). This point of order was not at issue on 5 December (the “subsequent stage”), because the report of the committee on Vermont was not before Congress on that day.

9. For the tactics of delay employed by David Howell of Rhode Island, see Notes on Debates, 27 November 1782, and n. 12. On 3 December, Abraham Clark of New Jersey, seconded by Howell, had moved to strike out McKean’s coercive resolution (Notes on Debates, 27 November, n. 19; 3 December 1782, and n. 15). Two days later Howell introduced the same motion and Clark seconded it. The only other Rhode Island delegate in Congress was Jonathan Arnold, who also opposed McKean’s resolution (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 766–69). For JM’s motion to postpone consideration of the Howell-Clark motion, see Motion in re Coercing Vermont, 5 December 1782, and n. 2.

10. See Motion in re Coercing Vermont, 5 December 1782, n. 3. On 17 November 1779 the New Hampshire General Assembly had pledged that “the decisions and determinations” of Congress would be “obligatory on this state” insofar as they affected it (NA: PCC, No. 40, I, 563–69; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XV, 1095–99). See also n. 13, below.

11. See 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 , III, 225, n. 11; IV, 40, n. 6; 56, n. 4; 132–33; 164; Notes on Debates, 14 November 1782, and n. 2.

12. JM interlineated “In answer” and deleted “it was read,” which he at first had written immediately after “objn.”

13. The law of New Hampshire (n. 10, above) included a passage reading: “Be it therefore enacted, that all the powers and authorities which it is recommended to or requested of this State, in and by the said resolutions, to vest in or grant to the said Congress, shall be and hereby are vested in and granted thereto, as fully and amply as if the same were here again particularly enumerated and described” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XVI, 132).

14. See citations in n. 11, above, and especially 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, 133.

15. On 18 October 1781 the Vermont General Assembly, meeting in “a committee of the whole” with the governor and council of that state, resolved “that inasmuch as the resolutions of Congress of the 7th and 20th of August last, did by no means comport with, but entirely preclude, any propositions made by our agents,” to a committee of Congress, these propositions should not bind Vermont in the future (NA: PCC, No. 40, II, 69, 100, 119; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 1166, n. 1). In the final sentence of the paragraph, JM meant that by the above “act” the Vermont leaders had “declared” their recognition of the fact that their previous rejection of the stipulations laid down in the congressional resolutions of August 1781 had already effectually “annulled” an offer that could be revived only by being “subsequently admitted by Congress.”

16. In his old age, after inserting a caret between Hamilton and the comma, JM repeated the caret at the bottom of the page and wrote in small script and with a trembling hand, “was agreed to.” Following these words, he wrote “see Journal if right,” as a reminder to himself or his clerk to check the accuracy of the vote. The tally is accurate. JM and Joseph Jones cast Virginia’s vote in favor of the McKean-Hamilton motion (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 769). Probably on 5 December Congress refused to adopt Hugh Williamson’s motion to have the secretary at war “take order for causing” the resolutions concerning Vermont to be delivered to “Governor” Chittenden (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 766, n. 1; Notes on Debates, 27 November 1782, n. 7). For the next discussion in Congress about Vermont, see Notes on Debates, 10 December 1782.