1. Jabez Bowen (1739–1815), deputy governor of Rhode Island, had enclosed to Washington an affidavit, taken at Providence on 13 November, of Christopher Osgood, a carpenter of Brookline, near Brattleboro in the “state” of Vermont, mentioning the names of leading Vermonters who had been corresponding with William Smith, royal chief justice of the province of New York. Upon receiving a copy of the affidavit from Bowen, Washington forwarded it, or a copy of it, on 19 November to Elias Boudinot, president of Congress.

In his covering letter Washington remarked: “I am fully of opinion that the information is well founded, but considering the peculiar situation of the people of Vermont, I do not know how far my interference, without the immediate order of Congress, would be deemed proper. If any measures are to be taken to secure the Characters who are mentioned by Osgood, your Excellency will see the necessity of enjoining secrecy untill they shall have been carried into execution” (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 , XXV, 350–51, 351, nn. 11, 12). The receipt of Washington’s dispatch and its enclosures is not mentioned in the printed journal of 25 November (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 750–53, but see 753, n. 3). The affidavit is docketed: “Information of Chrisr. Osgood—Novr. 25. 1782 To be kept secret Referred to Mr. Osgood Mr Carroll Mr. Rutledge Decr. 13 1782 Injunction of secresy taken off” (NA: PCC, No. 152, XI, 36).

Jabez Bowen, a resident of Providence, and prominent lawyer and judge, served as deputy governor from 1778 to 1780, and from 1781 until he was defeated for reelection in 1786 by the “paper money party.” He favored the proposed impost amendment to the Articles of Confederation and the adoption of the Federal Constitution of 1787. During Washington’s presidency, he served as a federal commissioner of loans. Influential in the founding and promotion of Rhode Island College (Brown University), Bowen was its chancellor from 1785 until his death (Samuel Greene Arnold, History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations [2 vols.; New York, 1859–60], II, 417, 454, 470, 511, 520).

2. Following the period JM wrote and deleted “of the opposition to its independence.”

3. After “party,” JM at first wrote, “had been intriguing with the enemy in N. Y. as well as the leaders of the opposition party.” After deleting “had been” and the passage following “N. Y.” in this quotation, he interlineated “opposed to its independence but who had since changed sides, had been.”

Luke Knoulton (Knowlton) (1738–1810), a native of Shrewsbury, Mass., settled in Newfane, near Brattleboro, in 1773. In September 1780 he testified before a committee of Congress as the agent of residents of the Brattleboro neighborhood who wished the area west of the Connecticut River in the New Hampshire Grants to remain under the jurisdiction of New York (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XVIII, 839–40, 864). Concluding that neither New York nor Congress was willing or able “to restore peace, harmony, and good Order to the Inhabitants” of Vermont (NA: PCC, No. 40, I, 371, 571), Knoulton became an advocate of its independence and, at least by 1782, a Loyalist, who employed Christopher Osgood to carry messages to and from British officials in Canada and New York City.

Although a primary aim of Knoulton seems to have been to profit from trading with the enemy, the British granted him after the war a large tract of land in the province of Quebec, Canada. He held high judicial offices in Vermont from 1786 to 1793, served six years in its General Assembly between 1784 and 1806, and was a member of the governor’s Council from 1790 to 1800 (Hiland Hall, The History of Vermont from Its Discovery to Its Admission into the Union in 1791 [Albany, N.Y., 1868], pp. 312, 315, 338–39, 429; Abby Maria Hemenway, collator, Vermont Historical Gazetteer [5 vols.; Brandon, Vt., 1868–91], V, Part 2, 378, 380, 381, 387, 463–64).

4. To Samuel Osgood, Daniel Carroll, and John Rutledge (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 753, n.3).

5. See Notes on Debates, 27 November 1782.

6. This was JM’s Motion on Exchange of Cornwallis, 22 November 1782 (q.v.). See also Notes on Debates, 22 November, and nn. 2, 4, 13, 18, 22; JM to Randolph, 26 November 1782.

7. See Notes on Debates, 22 November 1782, and n. 26. Hugh Williamson’s motion, first offered on 22 November, had two parts: (1) to postpone further consideration of JM’s motion for approving Franklin’s conditional release of Cornwallis from parole; (2) to disapprove Franklin’s action. Congress disposed of Williamson’s motion by rejecting its first part (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 753, and n. 3).

8. Many in Congress probably believed that to propose again a “General Cartel,” which the British had declined several times, would be in derogation of “national dignity” as well as futile. See JM to Randolph, 3 September 1782, n. 8.

9. “Mr. L,” was Henry Laurens. For a sovereign to bargain with one of its own appointees in the fashion proposed by the motion would indeed be “very extraordinary.” The Gaillard Hunt edition of the journal erroneously enters the text of the motion under 26 November (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 754). The docket of the manuscript motion states that it was withdrawn the day before (NA: PCC, No. I, 443).

10. See Notes on Debates, 22 November; JM to Randolph, 26 November 1782.

11. Alexander Hamilton was serving his first day in Congress as a delegate from New York (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIII, 750–51).

12. In this sentence, JM added “auren” to “Col: L,” interlineated “of the Army” above the completed name and “Washington” above “W.,” and substituted “his father” above a deleted “Mr. L.” Judging from the handwriting, these emendations, except for the last of them, were made by JM many years after he first wrote his notes.

Lieutenant Colonel Hamilton was probably repeating what he had been told by his friend Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens. They had been closely associated as aides-de-camp of Washington. During the Yorktown campaign each commanded a battalion (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 , XXII, 438; XXIII, 199, 205). On 17 October 1781, following Cornwallis’ offer to surrender, Washington designated Laurens as one of the “two American commissioners for digesting” with their British counterparts the Articles of Capitulation, which were formally signed two days later (ibid., XXIII, 236–37, 240, n. 46, 243). If Laurens conveyed the “intimation” to Cornwallis “previous to his capitulation,” he must have done so after noon on 18 or before noon on 19 October (Douglas S. Freeman, George Washington, V, 382–84). In a letter of 26 February 1782 to General Sir Henry Clinton, Washington remarked: “I apprehend Lord Cornwallis, misunderstood Colo. Laurens in the conversation they had upon that matter in Virginia. I could never have given an assurance that His Lordship should be exchanged for Mr. Laurens the Father of the Colonel, as I had no authority to make any such stipulation” (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 , XXIV, 23).

Although not noted in the printed journal of 25 November, the debate of that day on JM’s motion ended when Congress “ordered” the motion “to lay over” (Motion on Exchange of Cornwallis, 22 November 1782, headnote). See JM to Randolph, 26 November 1782, and n. 28.

13. See Motion To Inform Foreign Ministers, 21 November 1782, and n. 10.