1. JM Notes, 5–6 Feb. 1783, and n. 12; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 117. “Mr. Lee” was Arthur Lee of Virginia.

2. JM Notes, 5–6 Feb. 1783, and n. 11. In his old age JM inserted his surname, or its last four or five letters, wherever he referred to himself in his notes of 7 February.

3. After adopting Lee’s motion, “Congress was then resolved into a committee of the whole” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 118). JM’s “first question” was seconded by Elias Boudinot (NA: PCC, No. 36, III, 448).

4. The manuscript motion in JM’s hand reads, “1. Shall the valuation of the land within the U.S. as directed by the Articles of Confederation be immediately attempted?” Canceled below this is the following, also in JM’s hand, “Shall the sd valuation be referred to the several States?” (NA: PCC, No. 36, III, 469; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 118).

5. James Wilson’s motion, seconded by William Floyd, is in Wilson’s hand (NA: PCC, No. 36, III, 467). For Charles Thomson’s copy of the motion, see ibid., No. 36, III, 448. See also JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 119, and n. 2.

6. At the outset of the debate on land valuation, the North Carolina delegates were William Blount, Benjamin Hawkins, Abner Nash, and Hugh Williamson. They evidently agreed on how the problem should be solved (Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VI, 462–63, 517–18). Blount unquestionably and Nash probably had left Congress by 7 February (ibid., VII, lxxii; Jefferson to JM, 15 Feb. 1783). Nash was a member of the Rutledge committee, which on 6 January had rendered a report on land valuation. Hawkins served on the grand committee to which the Rutledge report was referred on 13 January (JM Notes, 9–10 Jan., and n. 2; 13 Jan.; 31 Jan. 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, 113, and n.).

7. The question is in the hand of Daniel Carroll, and Thomson, although making a copy of the motion, recorded the vote on Carroll’s manuscript (NA: PCC, No. 36, III, 448, 467; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 119, and n. 2). On the issue of slaves in relation to valuation, see JM Notes, 14 Jan.; 28 Jan. 1783, and n. 42.

8. This motion, with several inconsequential differences in phraseology, is in Thomson’s hand with interlineations by JM (NA: PCC, No. 36, fol. 461; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 118, and n. 2).

9. For earlier references to “the inequalities” which would result from an evaluation by each state “of its lands with the buildings & improvements,” see JM Notes, 9–10 Jan.; 14 Jan., and nn. 7, 9; 31 Jan.; JM to Randolph, 14 Jan. 1783. John Francis Mercer referred to the “experiments in Virga.,” authorized by statutes of 5 and 28 January 1782, to apportion the total revenue to be levied by a tax on land among the counties or districts comprising several counties in accord with the “average price per acre” in each county or district. The evaluations made by the local commissioners were obviously so inconsistent that the returns had to be “equalized” at Richmond (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, 311, n. 10; 347–48; 350, and nn. 18, 20; JM Notes, 14 Jan., and n. 7; 28 Jan. 1783, and n. 42).

10. In their dispatch of 24 March 1783 to Governor Alexander Martin, the North Carolina delegates in Congress remarked that, for purposes of levying state taxes, Virginia had rated the value of her lands one-third higher than Pennsylvania had rated hers; but, in truth, the average value of land in Pennsylvania was one-third higher than in Virginia (Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, 98). Although the source of JM’s information is unknown, he may have derived his estimate of the value of Virginia’s land from a recent conversation with Jefferson in Philadelphia (JM to James Madison, Sr., 1 Jan. 1783, nn. 2, 4). See also 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, 345, hdn.; 348; 350, n. 18.

11. JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 118. JM and Mercer evidently voted “no.” JM’s tally accords with that of Thomson (NA: PCC, No. 36, III, 461; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 118, and n. 2).

12. Thomson’s version reads, “Shall any period be fixed beyond which the rule which shall be eventually established b[y] Congress shall not be in force” (NA: PCC, No. 36, III, 448; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 118). Jottings in four different hands on an undated page include the following by JM, “Shall any period be fixed beyond which Rule shall be eventually established by Congress, shall not be in force?” Instead of “beyond which,” he at first wrote, “at this time for the duration of the” (NA: PCC, No. 24, fol. 69).

13. JM Notes, 5–6 Feb. 1783. Thomson did not note that Connecticut’s three-year proposal was rejected, writing only, “Answered unanimously: Not exceeding five years and &c.” (NA: PCC, No. 36, III, 448; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 118, and n. 1).

14. The manuscript of this question, slightly altered in phraseology, is in JM’s hand (NA: PCC, No. 36, III, 475; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 119, and n. 1). JM implied that the question received an affirmative reply, but Thomson copied and canceled this query in his own record (NA: PCC, No. 36, III, 448; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 119). Evidently the committee of the whole decided to adjourn and resume at its next meeting a consideration of the Dyer-Mercer interpretation of “retrospective operation.” See JM Notes, 5–6 Feb., and n. 9; 8 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, 119–20.