1. The proposed amendment was designed to replace land valuations by a triennial census of state populations as a means of determining congressional requisitions. Set forth in JM’s Report on Public Credit, 6 Mar. 1783 (Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (8 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , VI, 313–14), the amendment had been adopted by Congress on 18 Apr. 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, 260–61), and its acceptance by the states strongly urged in his Address to the States, 25 Apr. 1783 (Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (8 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , VI, 491–92). Passed on 19 May, the present resolution was approved by the Senate on 8 June. There the matter rested for nearly two weeks until on 21 June a delegate offered a resolution “That leave be given to bring in a bill ‘to authorise the delegates representing this State in Congress, to subscribe and ratify an alteration in the 8th of the articles of confederation and perpetual union between the thirteen States of America.’” The resolution was passed and JM appointed the chairman of a three-member committee to prepare such a bill, which suggests that it was JM who moved the issue. He conferred with his colleagues and introduced the bill later in the same day. See Bill Authorizing an Amendment in the Articles of Confederation, 21 June 1784.

2. In Jefferson’s letter of 7 May, JM had received a copy of the congressional resolution on which the seventh committee resolution was based. This resolution follows almost verbatim that of Congress (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXVI, 320, 322). That the copy forwarded by Jefferson served as the model seems likely since the official transcript of the resolution was not received by the House of Delegates until the following day—that is, 20 May (Executive Letter Book description begins Executive Letter Book, 1783–1786, manuscript in Virginia State Library. description ends , p. 325; JHDV description begins Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Begun and Held at the Capitol, in the City of Williamsburg. Beginning in 1780, the portion after the semicolon reads, Begun and Held in the Town of Richmond. In the County of Henrico. The journal for each session has its own title page and is individually paginated. The edition used is the one in which the journals for 1777–1786 are brought together in two volumes, with each journal published in Richmond in either 1827 or 1828 and often called the “Thomas W. White reprint.” description ends , May 1784, p. 13).

JM was on a committee appointed to prepare a bill of implementation that became law on 30 June (JHDV description begins Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Begun and Held at the Capitol, in the City of Williamsburg. Beginning in 1780, the portion after the semicolon reads, Begun and Held in the Town of Richmond. In the County of Henrico. The journal for each session has its own title page and is individually paginated. The edition used is the one in which the journals for 1777–1786 are brought together in two volumes, with each journal published in Richmond in either 1827 or 1828 and often called the “Thomas W. White reprint.” description ends , May 1784, pp. 12, 37, 81, 86, 89). He may well have drafted the bill himself, but so closely did the bill follow the wording of the congressional resolution that to all practical effect it had already been drafted by Congress in session at Annapolis (Hening, Statutes description begins William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619 (13 vols.; Richmond and Philadelphia, 1819–23). description ends , XI, 388–89). The legislation was in further retaliation to British trading restrictions imposed in July 1783 which prevented the resumption of the lucrative trade with the British West Indies. An act passed at the Oct. 1783 session had authorized Congress to prohibit West Indian imports “so long as the said restriction shall be continued on the part of Great Britain” (ibid., pp. 313–14). Fortunately, American exports to the French West Indies rose steadily during the 1780s to offset some of the loss (John H. Coatsworth, “American Trade with European Colonies in the Caribbean and South America, 1790–1812,” WMQ description begins William and Mary Quarterly. description ends , 3d ser., XXIV [1967], 246–47; Albert Anthony Giesecke, American Commercial Legislation before 1789 [New York, 1910], pp. 126–27).