1. Delegates to Harrison, 18 Feb. 1783, and n. 3. The official journal omits mention both of the reading of dispatches on 13 and 15 March and of the convening of Congress on 12 and 14 March (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 182–84). Charles Thomson’s record book lists no dispatches submitted on 13 March. Although he did not differentiate those and other papers laid before Congress on 14 March from those read the next day, he noted the presentation on 12 March of the following items: Benjamin Franklin’s journal from 9 May to 1 July 1782; his dispatches of 4, 5, 14, and 24 December 1782; John Jay’s dispatch of 12 December, enclosing a copy of Franklin’s letter of 26 November to Richard Oswald; a dispatch of 14 December from John Adams, Franklin, Jay, and Henry Laurens, enclosing a copy of the preliminary articles proposed by them; a copy of the preliminary articles proposed by the British commissioners; a copy of an article proposed by the American commissioners; and a copy of the preliminary articles signed on 30 November 1782 (NA: PCC, No. 185, III, 56; Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, 71). See also Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., V, 550–86, 842–43, 849–50, 851–53; VI, 74–80, 96–100, 106–7, 110–14, 130, 131–33, 163. For Richard Oswald, 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, 154, n. 2; JM to James Madison, Sr., 1 Jan., and n. 3; Harrison to Delegates, 4 Jan., n. 3; Rev. James Madison to JM, 16 Jan. 1783, n. 5.

On 14 and 15 March 1783 Congress received the following dispatches and other papers relating to the peace negotiations: Jay’s dispatch of 17 November and 14 December, the former enclosing his journal kept at Paris from 23 June to 17 November; Adams’ dispatches of 6, 11, 18, and 21 November, and of 4 and 14 December, including extracts from his journal kept at Paris between 2 November and 9 December; Laurens’ dispatches of 15 and 24 December; and Jefferson’s dispatch of 13 March 1783 (NA: PCC, No. 185, III, 56–57; Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., V, 845–46, 849, 854–58, 869, 872–80; VI, 6–49, 52–54, 56–61, 62–64, 65, 66, 70, 72–74, 82–84, 85–88, 90–93, 103–6, 109, 122–25, 133–37, 138–40, 159–60, 164–65, 298).

2. The preliminary articles were not spread on the journal until 15 April 1783, the day on which Congress ratified them (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 242–51). Article V concerns the “restitution of confiscated property.” For relevant statutes of state legislatures, instructions of Congress to its peace commissioners, and efforts by British officials to secure the return of that property to the persons from whom it had been confiscated or sequestered, 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 , I, 169, n. 13; 239, n. 2; II, 244, n. 2; 245, n. 3; III, 69, n. 2; 121, n. 1; 188, and n. 1; 189, n. 16; IV, 12–13; 16, nn. 27–28; 89; 90, n. 5; 357; 361, nn. 39, 40; 369; 370, n. 3; V, 35; 36, n. 8; 39; 48, n. 7; 74; 80; 81, n. 5; 112, n. 11; 409–10; 410, n. 3; 470, n. 11; JM to Randolph, 7 Jan.; JM Notes, 16 Jan. 1783, and 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, 79; Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., VI, 9, 77–80, 82, 84, 87, 106.

3. Immediately following this sentence, JM canceled another sentence too heavily to permit all its words to be recovered with assurance. Granting that “The representation of Mr. Jay against M. Ver[gennes] was generally thought however that the separate article was unwarrantable” is at least a nearly accurate rendition, JM probably deleted the sentence both because it is ungrammatical and because it treats a subject to which he decided to devote a complete paragraph.

For samples of the contrasting viewpoints of members of Congress on the preliminary articles, see the letters of Boudinot, Hamilton, and Lee in Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, 77–78, 81–87; also JM to Randolph, 18 March 1783. For a thorough and scholarly account of the course of the peace negotiations, especially as influenced by John Jay, see Richard B. Morris, The Peacemakers, pp. 282–385.

4. William Petty, Earl of Shelburne. His “dexterity” was believed to consist of having his agents implant in the receptive minds of Jay and Adams a belief that Vergennes was secretly negotiating with the British on behalf of Spain, and to the detriment of the United States. Consequently, in accord with Shelburne’s design, Jay and Adams, unknown or not fully known to Vergennes and unknown at the outset even to Franklin, engaged in separate parleys with the British. Shelburne assented the more willingly to extend generous terms of peace to the United States, for he wished to draw her into the British orbit of influence and out of that of France. Not being in Paris until the day before the signing of the “preliminary Articles” on 30 November 1782, Laurens had not shared in these maneuvers but was pleased by their result (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, 418, n. 17; citations in n. 5, below; n. 8; Randolph to JM, 3 Jan., and n. 14; and JM to Randolph, 12 Mar. 1783).

5. Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., VI, 7, 14–15, 17–21, 27–32, 45–49, 52–54, 57–61, 63, 64, 66, 70, 72, 74, 91, 93, 94–95; JM Notes, 1 Jan., n. 2; 3 Jan. 1783, and n. 2. “Mr. A.” is John Adams.

6. The “separate article,” appended to the preliminary articles of peace and separately signed by Richard Oswald, British commissioner, and the four American commissioners, reads: “It is hereby understood and agreed, that in case Great Britain, at the conclusion of the present war, shall recover, or be put in possession of West Florida, the line of north boundary between the said province and the United States shall be a line drawn from the mouth of the river Yassous, where it unites with the Mississippi, due east to the river Apalachicola.” In Article II of the preliminary articles the southern boundary of the United States from the Mississippi River to the “river Apalachicola” was defined as the “northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude” (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, 250–51). Thus, if Spain in her negotiations of peace with Great Britain succeeded in retaining West Florida, its northern boundary would be about ninety miles farther south than if Great Britain regained that area.

The preamble of the preliminary articles states that although they would comprise the contents of the definitive treaty “to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States,” the definitive treaty would not be “concluded until terms of a peace shall be agreed upon between Great Britain and France” (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). For this reason the American peace commissioners had not broken the letter of the Treaty of Alliance between the United States and France, but by not consulting Vergennes during the negotiation of the preliminary articles, they appeared to have violated “the spirit of the Alliance.” See JM to Randolph, 7 Jan. 1783, n. 8.

More to the point, the American peace commissioners had violated their instructions of 15 June 1781, wherein Congress had reflected its “candor rectitude & plain dealing” by admonishing them “to make the most candid and confidential communications upon all subjects to the ministers of our generous ally, the King of France; to undertake nothing in the negotiations for peace or truce without their knowledge and concurrence; and ultimately to govern yourselves by their advice [p. 332] and opinion” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XX, 651; 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 , III, 153–54; 154, nn. 3, 5). As the United States in the summer of 1781 had greatly needed French military aid, so in the spring of 1783 Congress earnestly hoped that its desperate financial plight would be eased by the “generous ally.” For this reason, many members of Congress judged the offense given to King Louis XVI and Vergennes by the American peace commissioners to be unwise, if not reprehensible.

7. The Chevalier de La Luzerne, minister of King Louis XVI to the United States.

8. In his old age JM without canceling “who,” interlineated “which” above “who.” For this reason the present editors have inserted a bracketed “which” after the word it was intended to replace. In his dispatch of 24 December 1782 Henry Laurens informed Livingston that the British still viewed the United States as their “colonies,” a “reconciliation” with them as possible, and a general peace as “far distant.” “Every engine has been,” continued Laurens, “every degree of craft under the mask of returning affection will be, practiced for creating jealousies between the States and their good and great ally” (Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., VI, 165). See also Delegates to Harrison, 18 Mar., and nn. 2, 3; JM Notes, 24 Mar. 1783.

9. Following his instructions from Vergennes, La Luzerne orally informed Robert R. Livingston, secretary for foreign affairs, and several members of Congress of his sovereign’s and Vergennes’ displeasure, and emphasized in a letter to Washington and in anonymous communications to Philadelphia newspapers that the signing of the preliminary articles did not signify the end of the war. To give added stress to this fact, La Luzerne in a letter on 15 March to Robert Morris, superintendent of finance, pointed out that King Louis XVI would lend the United States six million livres during 1783, rather than the twenty million requested, “to enable them to carry on the war” and with the earnest expectation that Congress would speedily establish a “solid general revenue” so as to fulfill to the letter the terms of its financial “engagements” in Europe (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 288–90; William E. O’Donnell, Chevalier de La Luzerne, pp. 232–36; George Dangerfield, Chancellor Robert R. Livingston of New York, 1746–1813 [New York, 1960], pp. 170–75). See also JM Notes, 9–10 Jan., n. 14; 13 Jan., and n. 3; 26 Mar.; JM to Randolph, 22 Jan. 1783, and n. 8.

Although knowledge of this new loan, of the fact that Vergennes had not appeared “displeased” when shown the preliminary articles after they were signed, and of his apparent instruction to La Luzerne not to lodge a formal “complaint” against the conduct of the American peace commissioners must have slightly eased the “dilemma” which members of Congress “sorely felt,” they naturally expected that Vergennes would reciprocate to the injury of the United States in the negotiations of the definitive treaty of peace and in the extension of more financial aid. In truth, after Franklin on 17 December had replied ingeniously to Vergennes’ muted protest of two days before, the cordial relations between the two men appeared to be unimpaired. After mentioning the “very irregular conduct of their commissioners in regard to us,” Vergennes added in his dispatch of 19 December 1782 to La Luzerne: “You may speak of it not in the tone of complaint. I accuse no person; I blame no one, not even Dr. Franklin. He has yielded too easily to the bias of his colleagues, who do not pretend to recognize the rules of courtesy in regard to us. All their attentions have been taken up by the English whom they have met in Paris. If we may judge of the future from what has passed here under our eyes, we shall be but poorly paid for all we have done for the United States and for securing to them a national existence” (Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., VI, 150–52, 152 n.). See also ibid., VI, 113, 133, 140, 143–44.

10. For an explanation of this numeral, 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, 231, ed. n.

11. François, Marquis de Barbé-Marbois, secretary of the French legation and consul of France in Philadelphia.

12. In his dispatches during December 1782 to La Luzerne, Vergennes apparently did not mention “the separate article,” even though an entry in John Adams’ [p. 333] journal permits little doubt that Vergennes knew of the existence but not the contents of the article on or shortly after 5 December (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). On 19 March, General Sir Guy Carleton and Admiral Robert Digby, having received a copy of the preliminary articles including the separate article, forwarded a copy to Washington for transmission to Congress. Washington’s dispatch, enclosing the copy, was received by Congress on 24 March 1783 (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 , XXVI, 237, n. 48; NA: PCC, No. 152, XI, 179, 183; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 211, n. 1). The separate article apparently was not published in any newspaper of Philadelphia or New York City during March or April 1783. See JM Notes, 24 Mar. 1783; Richard B. Morris, The Peacemakers, pp. 440–42.

13. See n. 2, above. A summary of the preliminary articles, derived from “a kind correspondent,” appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet of 13 March. That newspaper on 18 March, and the Pennsylvania Gazette and Pennsylvania Journal the next day, printed the full text, with the exception of the secret article.