1. Under Articles VI and IX of the Articles of Confederation, the “United States in Congress assembled” was delegated “the sole and exclusive right and power” in the domain of foreign affairs, and each state, without the consent of Congress, was barred from entering “into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any king, prince or state.” Article XXXI of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between France and the United States, of 6 February 1778, stipulated that the “functions” of their consular officials in the ports of the contracting powers should “be regulated by a particular agreement” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XI, 419–44). This article remained dormant, and probably necessarily so, until the adoption of the Articles of Confederation centralized in Congress the appointment and control of American consuls stationed in foreign ports. On 27 July 1781 a “Memoire,” drafted by the court of Versailles and dispatched to La Luzerne, was submitted to Congress. This document embodied “the plan of a convention for regulating the powers and duties of consuls and vice consuls” (Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends , IV, 604; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 792–804). The following day Congress referred the “Memoire” to a committee whose members were, as JM’s note states, Edmund Randolph, Oliver Ellsworth, and Nicholas Van Dyke (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 811). The committee and La Luzerne prepared an amended form of the convention which, after considerable debate in Congress, was finally adopted on 25 January 1782 (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 845, 914, 916, 925–26, 1053; XXII, 17–26, 43–45, 46–54). Although the convention was immediately sent to France for ratification, and although the two countries exchanged consuls, they failed to reach a formal accord about consular relations until 1790 (Hunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America [8 vols.; Washington, 1931–48], II, 228–44). On 6 September 1782, eleven months after Congress appointed Thomas Barclay to be consul in France, Virginia made him her agent there to effect a settlement for military supplies which she had purchased before the adoption of the Articles of Confederation (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 1036; Journals of the Council of State description begins H. R. McIlwaine et al., eds., Journals of the Council of the State of Virginia (Richmond, 1931——). description ends , III, 142). As a member of Congress under the Articles, Edmund Randolph’s services were outstanding in devising the terms of the lengthy Franco-American consular convention, a foundation document in the foreign relations of the United States. JM appears to have shared little, if at all, in the discussions leading to this achievement.

As his “notes” and many of his other papers in the present volume bear witness, JM had a special interest in foreign affairs and was frequently a member of committees relating to them. Prior to 10 August when Congress named Robert R. Livingston, who had been a delegate from New York in 1780 and was chancellor of that state, to be secretary for foreign affairs, a post which had been left vacant ever since its creation six months before, JM had been regarded by some of his fellow congressmen as qualified to hold that office. Apparently he did not solicit the position. Livingston had been one of Mrs. House’s boarders in 1780. There he and JM had come to admire each other’s talents and agree in their views of foreign policy. Livingston wrote on 7 July 1781 to Marbois, “I am sorry to hear that Mr. Madison & I have been pitted against each other.… As we have one interest it should not be split.… Shd the choice fall on Mr. M—— my esteem for him would leave no room for the mortification I might otherwise feel on such an occasion” (George Dangerfield, Chancellor Robert R. Livingston of New York, 1746–1813 [New York, 1960], pp. 127, 134, 474, n. 18; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XIX, 43–44; XXI, 851–52).