1. JM Notes, 5–6 Feb. 1783, n. 5.

2. JM Notes, 7 Feb. 1783, and n. 14.

3. The chief matter at issue was the basis on which “retrospective operation,” or reapportionment, of the indebtedness of the Confederation should be made according to the first valuation of lands. John Francis Mercer was concerned lest the debt be reapportioned without regard to contributions previously made in money or kind by individual states. Clearly such reapportionment would be disadvantageous to Virginia and other states which, having contributed heavily in kind, would now be called upon to bear a proportionate share of the deficiencies created by states which had contributed slightly. Mercer evidently believed, as did Governor Harrison, that despite appearances of delinquency in discharging past quotas, Virginia’s contributions would, with a final settlement of accounts, be found considerable (McIlwaine, Official Letters description begins H. R. McIlwaine, ed., Official Letters of the Governors of the State of Virginia (3 vols.; Richmond, 1926–29). description ends , III, 145).

The reason why Eliphalet Dyer shared this view, as expressed on 7 February, is equally clear (JM Notes, 7 Feb., and n. 14). In 1782, for example, Connecticut had paid over 76 per cent of her financial quota and was owed large sums by Congress for provisions and munitions forwarded to the continental army (NA: PCC, No. 142, II, 191; Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington description begins John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, from the Original Sources, 1745–1799 (39 vols.; Washington, 1931–44). description ends , XXIII, 86–87, 278; XXIV, 232, n. 13, 368–69).

4. Charles Thomson recorded the vote as being seven states “ay.” The delegates from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut (including Dyer), New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania were unanimously in the affirmative, and three (including Rutledge) of the four delegates from South Carolina also supported the amendment. Mercer joined Arthur Lee in voting “no,” thus offsetting the “ay” of JM and Joseph Jones and rendering the vote of Virginia ineffective. The votes of Rhode Island and North Carolina were lost by similar deadlocks, and Maryland was represented only by Daniel Carroll (NA: PCC, No. 36, III, 450; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 120–21). See also JM Notes, 17 Feb. 1783, and n. 1.

Although the duration to which quotas under the first valuation should be operative was limited to five years, the manuscript motion shows that the phrase “within these years,” as affecting the period of time to which the “rule” would be effective, was struck out, probably in debate (NA: PCC, No. 36, III, 463; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 120 and n. 1). Mercer, who on 12 February vigorously opposed “the principle of general revenue” for Congress, may have feared that deletion of the phrase would be an invitation to loose construction by a future Congress. On 17 February he joined Dyer in successfully moving a reconsideration of the whole subject of land-valuation quotas so as to have a proposal phrased in a manner acceptable to them (JM Notes, 12 Feb.; 17 Feb.; JM to Randolph, 18 Feb. 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, 135–37).