1. See postscript.

2. Delegates to Harrison, 18 Feb. 1783, n. 3. The “Washington” had reached Lorient about 1 November 1782 (Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., V, 854).

3. Harrison to Delegates, 20 Mar. 1783, n. 2.

4. JM Notes, 12–15 Mar. 1783, and nn. 1, 6. Mercer’s “8” should have been 9, and his second “Adams,” Laurens.

5. JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 245–47.

6. That is, the Treaty of Paris of 1763, concluding the Seven Years’ War between Great Britain on the one side and France and Spain on the other, insofar as territories in North America had been at issue in the conflict. 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, 51, n. 5; 153; 158–59; 161, nn. 6, 9.

7. Article II reads: “From the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, viz. that angle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix river to the highlands, along the said highlands, which divide those rivers that empty” etc. (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 246). This passage, owing to a lack of accurate maps or even of maps which agreed as to the meaning of “St. Croix river,” resulted in a boundary dispute between the United States and Canada which the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 finally adjusted (Richard B. Morris, The Peacemakers, pp. 363–67). For a detailed, factual analysis of the geographical ambiguities of the boundaries delineated in Article II and of their solution in a series of treaties between 1794 and 1910, concluded by the United States with Spain or Great Britain, see Charles O. Paullin, Atlas of the Historical Geography of the United States, ed. John K. Wright (Washington and New York, 1932) pp. 52–62 and plates 89, 90, 91A, B, and C, 92A and B, 93A, B, D, and E.

8. The adjective “northwesternmost” immediately before “head” in the “text” of Article II would be difficult to define because, unknown to the peace commissioners, the Connecticut River originated from the confluence of a number of large streams, several of which were joined by lesser watercourses flowing from the northwest. See plate 93A in Charles O. Paullin, Atlas. The “Iroquois or Cataroquy” was the St. Lawrence River.

9. From “Superior” through “Mississippi,” the text of Article II reads: “Superiour northward of the isles Royal and Philipeaux to the Long lake; thence through the middle of said Long lake, and the water communication between it and the lake of the Woods, to the said lake of the Woods; thence through the said lake to the most north-western point thereof, and from thence in a due west course to the river Mississippi” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 246). This boundary could not be made effective, partly because of the difficulty in identifying “the Long lake” but mainly because the “highest source” of the Mississippi is south and somewhat east of the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods. See Charles O. Paullin, Atlas, pp. 57–58, 60–61, and plates 91B, 93B.

10. This is a much simplified summary of the latter half of the text of Article II, and, as would be expected, omits mention of the “separate article” concerning the southern boundary of the United States (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 246–47; JM Notes, 12–15 Mar. 1783, and nn. 6, 12, 13).

11. Article III of the preliminary articles acknowledges “the right” of “the people of the United States” to fish “on the Grand bank, and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, also in the gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish.” In the same article Great Britain conceded to the people of the United States the “liberty” to fish on all coasts, including that of Newfoundland, and in all “bays and creeks” of “his Britannick Majesty’s dominions in America,” but they could “dry and cure fish” only on “the unsettled” shores of “Nova Scotia, Magdelen islands and Labrador” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 247–48). Mercer was incorrect in writing “subject to either power,” for the extension of a “liberty” in Article III was unilateral by Great Britain only, and related solely to coastal lands and waters within her jurisdiction.

12. In this long sentence Mercer summarized the fourth and fifth articles and the first clause of the sixth article of the preliminary peace treaty. Governor Harrison probably would also have been interested in the stipulation of Article V providing that former combatants should have “free liberty” to go anywhere in the United States and remain there “unmolested” for a year while they endeavored to recover their confiscated “estates, rights and properties” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 248–49). See also JM to Randolph, 12 Mar. 1783, n. 4.

13. Not conforming with any part of the provisional treaty of peace, this paragraph summarizes the fourth article of an agreement, concluded by the American and British commissioners at Paris on 8 October 1782, concerning the possible terms of such a treaty. The document was to be submitted to King George III for “his majesty’s consideration” (Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., V, 805–7).

In his covering letter of 5 December 1782 to Robert R. Livingston, enclosing a copy of the tentative agreement of 8 October as well as copies of other documents, Franklin explained the British refusal to mention commerce in the provisional treaty: “The reason given us for dropping the article relating to commerce was that some statutes were in the way which must be repealed before a treaty of that kind could be well formed, and that this was a matter to be considered in Parliament” (ibid., VI, 113). Before concluding the present dispatch, Mercer was told by his colleagues, or he otherwise ascertained, that the article on commerce was not included in the provisional treaty. See his postscript. An example of a chartered company with “exclusive rights” was the British East India Company.

14. Although the word “amnesty” does not occur in the preliminary articles, it reflects the intent of the signatories respecting the part any person “may have taken in the present war.” Except that Mercer’s mention of “offences” and “prosecutions” refers to Article VI, his paragraph summarizes Articles VII and IX. Article VII explicitly included, among the items of American “property” which the British must not destroy or carry away, “negroes,” “archives, records, deeds and papers belonging to any of said states, or their citizens,” and the “American artillery that may be” in the “fortifications” to be evacuated. The same article also stipulated that “all prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 249–50).

In view of Virginia’s special concern about her western territory, it is surprising that the delegates did not quote Article VIII, reading: “The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain, and the citizens of the United States” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 250).

15. The reference is to Franklin’s dispatch of 24–25 December to Livingston, enclosing a copy of Vergennes’ note of 25 (not 24) December to Franklin (Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., VI, 163, 168). For quotations from that note, see the next paragraph of the present letter and n. 17, below.

16. Mercer derived this information principally from the 14 December portion of Franklin’s dispatch of 5 and 14 December 1782 to Livingston (Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., VI, 113). For the stubborn problem caused by Great Britain’s refusal to relinquish Gibraltar despite the determination of Spain to regain it and the obligation of France to endorse her ally’s demand, see Richard B. Morris, The Peacemakers, pp. 386–410.

17. Except for the last of the three alleged quotations, Mercer distorted what Vergennes had written to Franklin on 25, not 24, December 1782, viz., “I should have been happy could I have informed him [La Luzerne] that our negotiation is advanced as far as yours, but it is far distant as yet. I cannot even foretell what will be the issue of it, for even difficulties proceed from the facility with which we have listened to their proposals.… I do not despair, I rather hope; but everything is as yet uncertain” (Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., VI, 168). The tenor of this passage contrasts with that of the portion of an earlier dispatch from Vergennes quoted in n. 18. See also JM to Randolph, 12 Mar. 1783, and n. 10.

18. Delegates to Harrison, 18 Mar. 1783, of which only an abstract has been found by the present editors. The contents of the dispatches and other papers submitted to Congress on 12 March do not justify Mercer’s sanguine view about the state of the negotiations between France and Great Britain by 25 December 1782. Mercer, however, may have seen the extracts from John Adams’ journal, even though they were not laid before Congress until 14 or 15 March (JM Notes, 12–15 Mar. 1783, n. 1).

In his entry for 5 December 1782 Adams recorded that he was told by La Vauguyon (JM Notes, 29 Jan. 1783, n. 3) that “France and England are agreed, and that there is but one point between England and Spain. England and Holland are not yet so near” (Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., VI, 109). This information is supported by the following passage in Vergennes’ dispatch of 19 December 1782 to La Luzerne—the purport of which the latter may have revealed on 12 March 1783 to one or more of his friends in Congress or to Livingston: “There is no essential difficulty at present between France and England, but the King [Louis XVI] has been resolved that all his allies should be satisfied.” Vergennes then added that the “fundamental points” with regard to “the interests of Spain” had already been “established and little remains but to settle the forms” (ibid., VI, 152). The negotiations with Holland, being protracted, were not finished by 20 January 1783, when peace commissioners representing Great Britain, France, and Spain signed a “Declaration” stipulating a “cessation of hostilities” as soon as the preliminary peace terms among them had been ratified, and Franklin and Adams signed a separate “Declaration” to the same effect (ibid., VI, 152, 215, 219, 223–25, 226; Jefferson to JM, 7–8 Feb. 1783, n. 13; Richard B. Morris, The Peacemakers, pp. 428–29).

19. JM Notes, 12–15 Mar. 1783, nn. 9, 12.

20. Delegates to Harrison, 18 Mar. 1783.

21. The information in this paragraph is based upon the dispatches to Livingston from Adams on 14 December and from Franklin on 24 December 1782. Franklin enclosed a copy of the commission from King Gustavus III (1746–1792) of Sweden to the eminent poet, Gustav Filip, Count Creutz (1731–1785), then ambassador at the court of France and later chancellor of Sweden, to conclude with the United States a treaty of amity and commerce. The commission stated that the independence of the thirteen United States had been “duly and solidly acknowledged and established.” By the date of the present letter, the first draft of the treaty had already been agreed upon by Creutz and Franklin (Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., VI, 133–34, 163–64, 276). See also 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, 167–68; 168, nn. 2, 3; 186; 188, n. 7; Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, 263, and n. 2.

22. William Shattuck, who had recently arrived in Philadelphia as an emissary from Governor George Clinton to reinforce with oral testimony Clinton’s dispatch with many enclosures concerning the continuing outrages to which patriotic New Yorkers were being subjected in the New Hampshire Grants (Vermont), may have been the source of the delegates’ information about the “deputation from the refugees.” Arthur Lee was a member of the committee to which Clinton’s letter had been referred on 4 March 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, 164, n. 1; Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, 66–67; Syrett and Cooke, Papers of Hamilton description begins Harold C. Syrett and Jacob E. Cooke, eds., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (15 vols. to date; New York, 1961——). description ends , III, 282–83, n. 4; 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, 353, n. 15). Although no reference is made to this “deputation,” the Pennsylvania Packet of 11 March and the Pennsylvania Journal of 8 and 12 March 1783 emphasized the odium and detestation with which the Loyalists of New York City regarded King George III for deserting them and being “the author of their ruin.” For Governor Clinton’s implacably hostile attitude toward Loyalists, see E[rnest] Wilder Spaulding, New York in the Critical Period, 1783–1789 (New York, 1932), pp. 122–28; also Thomas J. Wertenbaker, Father Knickerbocker Rebels, pp. 256–59. The last contingent of British troops did not leave New York City until 25 November 1783 (ibid., pp. 263–67).

23. See n. 13; Mr. “O” was Richard Oswald.

24. The “Express” was William Blake. He was probably the former continental infantryman, William Blake (1730–1798) of Chesterfield County (Lineage Book of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, CXXXI [1933], 237; Gwathmey, Historical Register of Virginians description begins John H. Gwathmey, Historical Register of Virginians in the Revolution: Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, 1775–1783 (Richmond, 1938). description ends , p. 68). Blake traveled to Richmond by way of Baltimore, where he left the Maryland delegates’ dispatches that were forwarded to Annapolis on 15 March. He arrived in Richmond during the evening of 19 March. The following day the Council of State directed that he be issued a warrant for $49.00 on the contingent fund (Harrison to Delegates, 20 Mar. 1783; Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, 74, and n. 4, 88; JCSV description begins H. R. McIlwaine et al., eds., Journals of the Council of the State of Virginia (4 vols. to date; Richmond, 1931——). description ends , III, 232).