1. The loans of 1782 and 1784 were floated by a consortium consisting of the politically unaffiliated firm of Wilhem and Jan Willink, and the Patriot firms Nicolaas & Jacob van Staphorst, and de la Lande & Fynje. On these loans, see PJA, description begins Robert J. Taylor, Gregg L. Lint, et al., eds., Papers of John Adams (17 vols. to date; Cambridge, Mass., 1977–) description ends 13: 110–16, 250–392; 16: 1–2, 4–14, 31–32, 35–43, 53–54, 80–85, 482–85, 486–89, and PRM, description begins E. James Ferguson et al., eds., The Papers of Robert Morris, 1781–1784 (9 vols.; Pittsburgh, Pa., 1973–99) description ends 6: 352–53, 428; 8: 807–8; 9: 307–19. On the character of these firms and their agreement to limit the liability of each to the proportion of the loan each had assumed, see Van Winter, Dutch Investment, 86–92.

2. On Britain’s refusal to appoint a minister to the United States, see the editorial note “Anglo-American Relations,” above; on France’s delay in appointing a successor to La Luzerne, see the editorial note “The Franco-American Consular Convention,” above. On the ambiguous status of Gardoqui, see JJ’s report to Congress, 15 Feb., above.

3. The Van Berckels were strong supporters of the American cause. Minister Pieter Johan van Berckel, formerly burgomaster of Rotterdam, and his nephew, Gijsbert Karel van Hogendorp, who accompanied him to the United States, both later invested in and promoted the Dutch purchase of shares in the Bank of North America. Pieter Johan’s younger brother, Englebert François van Berkel, the pensionary of Amsterdam, was described by John Francis Mercer as the “father of the American Interest in the States General.” See LDC, description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends 20: 46, 208, 215, 302, 305; PRM, description begins E. James Ferguson et al., eds., The Papers of Robert Morris, 1781–1784 (9 vols.; Pittsburgh, Pa., 1973–99) description ends 8: 813; 9: 307–19; and van Winter, Dutch Investment, description begins Pieter J. van Winter, American Finance and Dutch Investment 1780—1805, with an Epilogue to 1840. English adaptation of the revised version of the original Dutch edition prepared for publication with the author’s assistance by James C. Riley (New York, 1977) description ends 1: 28, 82–93, 122, 126. On Van Berckel’s appointment and for a critical evaluation of his performance, see Schulte Nordholt, Dutch Republic, description begins Jan Willem Schulte Nordholt, The Dutch Republic and American Independence, Herbert H. Rowen, trans. (Chapel Hill, N.C., and London, 1982) description ends 252–53. On his reception by Congress, see JCC, description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends 25: 780; PRM, description begins E. James Ferguson et al., eds., The Papers of Robert Morris, 1781–1784 (9 vols.; Pittsburgh, Pa., 1973–99) description ends 8: 669–70.

If the report of French chargé d’affaires Otto can be trusted, Van Berckel’s strong ties with the pro-French Patriot faction may have colored his attitude toward JJ, whom Otto had frequently faulted for his resistance to French influence. After commenting on congressional delegates’ reluctance to discuss public business with foreign ministers, Otto added that this “system” applied “more particularly” to JJ and criticized him for having “entirely embraced the Northern party”; for his great sense of the “importance of his homeland” and his extreme distrust of French principles and policies. He then remarked that Van Berckel was no more pleased with JJ than he was. Otto later reported that Van Berckel considered it useless for the States General to maintain a minister to a government that disregarded its most legitimate and pressing demands, and frequently expressed his wish to be recalled. For Otto’s reports on Van Berckel, see Giunta, Emerging Nation, description begins Mary A. Giunta et al., eds., The Emerging Nation: A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, 1780–1789 (3 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1996) description ends 2: 840; 3: 91, 419, 459, 523–24.

Van Berckel was removed from his post on 8 May 1788 after the pro-British Orangists regained their ascendancy. He was replaced by his son, Pieter Franco van Berckel, whose political sympathies differed from his father’s. The younger van Berckel served until 1795, when another political faction came to power and removed him. In recalling Pieter Johan van Berckel, the States General assured Congress of its continued regard and affection. In his memoire of 25 Aug. 1788 conveying his recall notice to Congress, Van Berckel repeated these assurances and expressed the hope that he had advanced the reciprocal interests of both powers and strengthened the commercial and diplomatic relations engendered by “one of the most happy and important of revolutions.” In its reply to the States General, drafted by JJ, Congress expressed its full approval of Van Berckel’s conduct and its desire to maintain friendship with the States General. Otto reported that Van Berckel was offended that Congress had directed JJ to reply to his memorial rather than having its president do so.

On hearing that Van Berckel had been recalled, Otto described him as having been “sacrificed to the Stathouder and to the enemies of the United States,” and as a “victim of his family’s old affection for the Americans.” Van Berckel, fearing a hostile reception if he returned home, purchased a farm in New Jersey, and remained in the United States until his death in 1800. See JCC, description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends 34: 470–71, 488–92; Giunta, Emerging Nation, description begins Mary A. Giunta et al., eds., The Emerging Nation: A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, 1780–1789 (3 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1996) description ends 3: 773–74, 828–29, 838, 893; LDC, description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends 25: 355; and Schulte Nordholt, Dutch Republic, description begins Jan Willem Schulte Nordholt, The Dutch Republic and American Independence, Herbert H. Rowen, trans. (Chapel Hill, N.C., and London, 1982) description ends 253. On the appointment of Pieter Franco van Berckel, see Giunta, Emerging Nation, description begins Mary A. Giunta et al., eds., The Emerging Nation: A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, 1780–1789 (3 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1996) description ends 3: 818, 838.

4. On 23 June, Congress appointed William Livingston to replace JA, but Livingston declined the appointment because of his advanced age. Congress failed to agree on a successor who would accept the appointment and eventually postponed the election indefinitely, leaving JA as titular minister until 24 Feb. 1788, when his term as minister to Great Britain also ended. See JJ to JA, 3 Aug. 1785, above; LDC, description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends 22: 289, 327, 380, 422, 456; JCC, description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends 33: 611; and PTJ, description begins Julian T. Boyd, Charles T. Cullen et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (41 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950–) description ends 12: 430.

5. JA contracted for another loan of one million guilders to cover interest payments on these loans on 1 June 1787. The loan was ratified by Congress on 11 Oct. 1787. After being notified by the commissioners of the treasury that no remittances would be made until the new government was functioning, JA and TJ were required to negotiate a further loan to cover interest due on the previous loans in 1788. See JA to JJ, 23 May 1787, ALS, DNA: PCC, item 84, 6: 481–84; TJ to JJ, 16 Mar. and 4 May 1788, below, and 12 Mar. 1789, ALS, DNA: PCC, item 87, 2: 450–55; PrC, DLC: Jefferson (EJ: 10192); JCC, description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends 33: 649; PTJ, description begins Julian T. Boyd, Charles T. Cullen et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (41 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950–) description ends 12: 566–67, 581; Ferguson, Power of the Purse, description begins E. James Ferguson, The Power of the Purse: A History of American Public Finance, 1776–1790 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1961) description ends 260–61; and Schulte Nordholt, Dutch Republic, description begins Jan Willem Schulte Nordholt, The Dutch Republic and American Independence, Herbert H. Rowen, trans. (Chapel Hill, N.C., and London, 1982) description ends 249.

6. Article 21 of the treaty granted each party the right to have consuls, vice consuls, agents, and commissaries whose functions would be regulated by mutual agreement in the each other’s ports. See PJA, description begins Robert J. Taylor, Gregg L. Lint, et al., eds., Papers of John Adams (17 vols. to date; Cambridge, Mass., 1977–) description ends 13: 379–81. For the form of exequatur issued to a consul recognized by Congress, see Governor William Moultrie of South Carolina to JJ, 9 Sept. 1785, ALS, DNA: PCC, item 78, 16: 475–76 (EJ: 10730).

7. See JJ’s report to Congress, 24 Nov. 1785, below.

8. Van Berckel had notified Congress that the Dutch government had discovered that a phrase in the form of sea letters prescribed in the Dutch-American treaty of commerce did not appear in its treaties with other nations and had instructed him to inform Congress that it had removed the phrase from the form to be used in the Dutch-American sea letters. See Van Berckel to Congress, 8 Dec. 1784, LS, DNA: PCC, item 99: 67–68. While noting that sea letters were necessary only if one of the two parties to the Dutch-American commercial treaty of 1782 was at war, JJ challenged the Dutch government’s removal of a clause concerning them from a form attached to the treaty without its having either asked or obtained American consent to the alteration, an action he described as “improper and disrespectful.” See JJ’s report to Congress, 1 Nov. 1785, DS, DNA: PCC, item 81, 1: 485–90 (EJ: 3872).

9. See JJ’s report to Congress, 14 Mar. 1787, DS, DNA: PCC, item 81, 3: 193–200 (EJ: 3965); LbkCs, DNA: PCC, item 124, 3: 1–7 (EJ: 4589); NNC, JJ Lbk. 3; JCC, description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends 32: 116 and n1; and Van Berckel to JJ, 20 Feb. 1787, LS, DNA: PCC, item 99, 273, trans., item 99, 281 (EJ: 4344).

10. See Van Berckel to JJ, 18 Dec. 1787, below.

11. See the editorial note “The Bankruptcy of de la Lande & Fynje,” above.

12. See Van Berckel to JJ, 13 Feb. 1785; LS, DNA: PCC, item 99, 75 (EJ: 3674); and JJ to President of Congress, 8 Mar. 1785, LS, DNA: PCC, item 80, 1: 93; LbkC, DNA: Domestic Letters description begins Domestic Letters of the Department of State, 1784–1906, RG59, item 120, National Archives (M40). Accessed on Fold3.com. description ends , 1: 133 (EJ: 77 and 1582); and DC, description begins William A. Weaver, ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States of America, from the Signing of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, 10th September, 1783, to the Adoption of the Constitution, March 4, 1789 (7 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1833–34) description ends 6: 437–61; and the editorial note “Interfering Claims to the Mississippi River,” above.

13. See Dumas to JJ, 26 Oct. 1787, below. For earlier efforts to provide for Dumas, see JJ to TJ, 5 May 1786, Dft, NNC (EJ: 5806); LbkC, DNA: Foreign Letters description begins Foreign Letters of the Continental Congress and Department of State, 1785–1790, RG 59, item 121, National Archives (M61). Accessed on Fold3.com. description ends , 182–83 (EJ: 2458).

14. On Ridley’s loan, see van Winter, Dutch Investment, description begins Pieter J. van Winter, American Finance and Dutch Investment 1780—1805, with an Epilogue to 1840. English adaptation of the revised version of the original Dutch edition prepared for publication with the author’s assistance by James C. Riley (New York, 1977) description ends 95–97. After a period of haggling, both sides agreed in 1786 to arbitration. JJ agreed to serve for the state of Maryland along with Robert R. Livingston, while New York City’s mayor, James Duane, and Rufus King, a delegate from Massachusetts, were named to serve on behalf of the Dutch firm. The arbitrators never met, as they were quickly supplanted by negotiators appointed by the Maryland General Assembly. In turn, the new negotiators failed to reach a settlement.

Correspondence relating to the appointment of JJ and RRL as arbitrators will be found in William Smallwood, for the Maryland Council, commission for JJ and RRL, 19 Sept. 1786, DS, NNC (EJ: 7148); Matthew Ridley to JJ, 22 Sept., below, and 18 Dec. 1786, ALS, MHi: Ridley (EJ: 4730, 4868). JJ’s acceptance of service: JJ to RRL, 18 Dec. 1786, ALS, NHi: Robert R. Livingston (EJ: 859); JJ to William Hindman, 29 Dec. 1786, Dft, NNC (EJ: 8862). For a succinct account of the negotiations and the Amsterdam politics involved, see van Winter, Dutch Investment, description begins Pieter J. van Winter, American Finance and Dutch Investment 1780—1805, with an Epilogue to 1840. English adaptation of the revised version of the original Dutch edition prepared for publication with the author’s assistance by James C. Riley (New York, 1977) description ends 1: 97, 156–59. For the request to suspend the arbitration, see Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Thomas Johnson, and Uriah Forrest to JJ, King, RRL, and Duane, 18 May 1787, LS, NHi: Duane. On the Supreme Court case Van Staphorst v. Maryland, see DHSC, description begins Maeva Marcus et al., eds., The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789–1800 (8 vols.; New York, 1985–2007) description ends 5: 7–56.