1. For a probable explanation of the Roman 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.

2. Amendment to Report on Public Credit, 28 Mar., and ed. n., and nn. 1, 2, 4, 5; JM Notes, 28 Mar., and nn. 2, 3, 5.

Although unnoted in the journal, Nathaniel Gorham’s “call” is ipso facto evidence that Congress at the close of the inconclusive discussion on 28 March provided that the issue should either be made the standing order of the day or be taken up specifically on 1 April 1783.

3. On 13 February the Massachusetts General Court resolved to have Governor John Hancock invite the other New England states and New York to elect commissioners [p. 426] to join with three from Massachusetts at Hartford on 30 April 1783 to consider “the necessity of adopting within the said States for their respective Uses such General & uniform system of Taxation by import & excise as may be thought advantageous to the Said States” (Hugh Hastings and J. A. Holden, eds., Public Papers of George Clinton, VIII, 65).

4. A meeting of commissioners from New York and the New England states in November 1780 had considered means of conferring more power on the Continental Congress. 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 , II, 318–19; E. Wilder Spaulding, New York in the Critical Period, pp. 163–64.

5. No provision was included in the brief resolution, mentioned in n. 3, for submitting whatever should be agreed upon by the convention to Congress, either for its information or sanction.

6. Members of Congress who held that the convention would violate the “spirit” of the Confederation probably had in mind the following portion of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation: “No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the united states in congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XIX, 216).

7. Many years after writing his notes, JM inserted his surname in place of an “M.” For examples of these “partial conventions,” see Edmund C. Burnett, The Continental Congress, pp. 423, 484–87; 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 , II, 318–19; Boyd, Papers of Jefferson description begins Julian P. Boyd et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (18 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950——). description ends , IV, 138–41; Syrett and Cooke, Papers of Hamilton description begins Harold C. Syrett and Jacob E. Cooke, eds., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (15 vols. to date; New York, 1961——). description ends , II, 400–18.

Hamilton was referring to resolutions, adopted by the legislature of New York on 20–21 July 1782, calling for “a general Convention of the States, specially authorised to revise and amend the Confederation.” Forwarded to Congress on 4 August 1782, these resolutions were still tied up in committee (ibid., III, 110–13 and nn. 2, 4). Although clearly impatient with this procrastination, Hamilton did not draft his own “plan” until July 1783, when Congress was at Princeton. During that month, his last in Congress until 1788, Hamilton found so little support for his proposals that he did not submit them before returning to New York (ibid., III, 420–26; Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, lxxi; VIII, xci).

8. On 1 March 1783 the New Hampshire House of Representatives resolved that “the method of laying impost duties proposed” by Massachusetts “will be unequal & hurtful to this State; and as this State impowered Congress to lay such Duties, which they still think preferable to the method proposed by the said Resolve, that it is not best to appoint Delegates as therein proposed” (Nathaniel Bouton et al., comp. and eds., New Hampshire Provincial and State Papers [34 vols. to date; Concord, 1867——], VIII, 971–72). Rhode Island and New York also appear to have declined. In a letter to Governor Hancock on 28 February 1783, Governor William Greene of Rhode Island wrote that he had referred the invitation to the General Assembly, but it seems to have adjourned without acting upon the proposal (John Russell Bartlett, ed., Records of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England [10 vols.; Providence, 1856–65], IX, 634–76, 685). Although Governor Jonathan Trumbull and the Council of Safety of Connecticut on 24 March 1783 accepted Hancock’s invitation by appointing three delegates, the meeting at Hartford evidently did not convene (Charles J. Hoadly et al., eds., Public Records of Connecticut, V, 101–2).

9. In a letter of 8 February 1787 to Henry Knox, Stephen Higginson remarked that in 1783 he had “pressed upon Mr. Maddison and others the Idea of a special Convention, for the purpose of revising the Confederation, and increasing the powers of the Union,” but they “were as much opposed to this Idea, as I was to the measures they were then pursuing, to effect, as they said, the same thing” (Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1896 [2 vols.; Washington, 1897], I, 745).

10. JM Notes on Debates, 28 Mar. 1783. On that day a committee’s report, amended so as to apportion tax quotas among the states in accord with the whole number of free inhabitants and three-fifths, rather than one-half, of the number of all other inhabitants, except Indians not taxed, was rejected by a vote of 6 to 5. The vote of New York was ineffective because William Floyd, although in favor of the amendment, was the only delegate present from that state. If Hamilton had attended, the amended report would have been adopted by a 7-to-5 margin (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 215–16).

11. By “without opposition,” JM meant only that there was no oral dissent respecting “the rate of 3/5,” but Massachusetts and Rhode Island still refused to agree to the amended report as a whole. Its adoption was assured by Oliver Wolcott and Eliphalet Dyer of Connecticut, Thomas Sim Lee of Maryland, and John Rutledge and Ralph Izard of South Carolina reversing their votes of 28 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, 222–24).

In a printed copy of the report of the committee on restoring public credit, Benjamin Bankson, Jr., a clerk in the office of the secretary of Congress, embraced in a parenthesis so much of the twelfth paragraph as had been amended by the vote, just mentioned, and wrote alongside the parenthesis, “Aprill 1. reconsidered & report amended & adopted” (NA: PCC, No. 26, fol. 412). See also Report on Restoring Public Credit, 6 Mar., and n. 20; JM Notes, 7 Mar. 1783, ed. n.

12. For a “preliminary question” submitted to the grand committee, see JM Notes, 4 Apr. 1783.

13. On 15 March Congress appointed a committee, Samuel Osgood, chairman, to report on the desire to resign expressed by John Adams in his dispatch of 4 December and by Henry Laurens, in his of 15 December 1782. In a letter to Congress on 26 February 1783, Robert R. Livingston queried whether Francis Dana should not be recalled as minister-designate to the court of Catherine the Great, since his dispatches had pointed out that British interference would most probably restrain the tsarina from recognizing the independence of the United States. This issue, too, was referred by Congress to the committee for consideration.

Congress also instructed the committee to recommend a reply to Jefferson’s request of 13 March 1783 for a decision “on the expediency of continuing or of countermanding my mission to Europe” as a peace commissioner (NA: PCC, No. 185, III, 57; No. 186, fol. 88; JM Notes, 12–15 Mar., and n. 1; JM to Randolph, 12 Mar. 1783, and n. 13; Boyd, Papers of Jefferson description begins Julian P. Boyd et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (18 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950——). description ends , VI, 257; Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., V, 752–53, 780–83, 812–14; VI, 106, 133–34, 138–40, 264–65). On 1 April 1783 Congress by a vote of 8 to 1 authorized Livingston to thank Jefferson for his “readiness” to be of public service, but to inform him that “the object” of his “appointment” was “so far advanced” as to render it unnecessary for him to pursue his voyage (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 226, and n. 2; Boyd, Papers of Jefferson description begins Julian P. Boyd et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (18 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950——). description ends , VI, 259–60; JM to Randolph, 8 Apr. 1783).

14. Although the Osgood committee recommended that John Adams “have leave to return to America,” Congress postponed accepting his resignation (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 225; Wharton, Revol. Dipl. Corr description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends ., VI, 375). Congress adopted the committee’s proposal that Francis Dana be free to return to America, provided he complete any “negociation with the Court of St. Petersburg” in which he may be engaged “at the time of receiving this Resolution” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 226, 227, 267). Dana received this resolution on 21 July, left St. Petersburg about a month later, and reached Boston on 18 December 1783 (W[illiam] P[enn] Cresson, Francis Dana: A Puritan Diplomat at the Court of Catherine the Great [New York, 1930], pp. 303, 317–18).

15. Knowing that the South Carolina General Assembly had elected Henry Laurens to be a delegate in Congress, Ralph Izard probably was the more insistent that Congress sanction Laurens’ return to America (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 226; Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, lxxv, 137). Laurens did not arrive in the United States until 3 August 1784 (ibid., VII, 585).