1. Neither of the proceedings noted by JM is mentioned in the journal of Congress for this date (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 335–37).

2. On 15 April Congress had included among its instructions to Washington a request that he “make the proper arrangements with the Commander in Chief of the British forces, for receiving possession of the posts in the United States occupied by the troops of his Britannic Majesty” (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; Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (7 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , VI, 462, and n. 2; 466, and n. 1). In his reply of 3 May, Washington asked for “some more particular Explanation of the Intentions of Congress,” especially since negotiations for the evacuation of “the Northern and Western Posts” would “take much time,” because they were under the military jurisdiction of General Sir Frederick Haldimand, “who commands in the District of Canada,” rather than of General Sir Guy Carleton in New York City. Washington also emphasized that, if there should be an interim between evacuation by British and occupation by American troops, the vacated posts probably would be “burned or destroyed by the Indians, or some other evil minded persons” (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, 398–400).

On 6 May Congress appointed a committee, Alexander Hamilton, chairman, and JM and Oliver Ellsworth (Conn.) among the other four members, to recommend a reply. Because entries in the journal of Congress are lacking, doubt is warranted whether the committee submitted versions of the report on both 8 and 9 May. Charles Thomson’s committee book makes clear only that Congress received “a Report” on 8 May (NA: PCC, No. 186, fol. 99). The docket of Hamilton’s draft of a report includes the notation, “Delivered May 8, 1783.” The docket of Ellsworth’s variant draft reads, “May 9, 1783—postponed by the State of Virginia” (NA: PCC, No. 38, fol. 303; No. 19, VI, 431–33).

If the Hamilton draft was debated on 8 May, the Virginia delegates almost surely opposed its recommendation that Congress have full power to decide how long the troops dispatched by Washington to garrison the posts should remain there. The territorial claim of Virginia to the Old Northwest, as well as her military operations in that area, would impel her delegates to resist an assumption of so much authority by Congress. Although the report may have been returned on 8 May to the committee for revision, the Ellsworth draft of the next day could hardly have been more acceptable to the Virginia delegates. The offending passage had been excised, but the wording of the report still implied that Congress had complete military jurisdiction in the Old Northwest, at least over the posts. If for this reason the Virginians induced Congress on 9 May to postpone a vote on the report, they evidently were no better satisfied three days later when they alone, but with JM absent, opposed the adoption of a slightly amended version of the Ellsworth draft (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 337–39).

On the manuscript below the report appears the following canceled passage, also in Ellsworth’s hand: “Resolved that the Expence of such Garrisons shall be charged to the particular State to whom the Property of the Posts so garrisoned, shall be finally adjudged” (NA: PCC, No. 19, VI. 433). Whether this resolution was suggested only within the committee or offered in Congress as an amendment during the debates on 9 or 12 May cannot be determined.

3. Congress had ratified the preliminary articles of peace with Great Britain on 15 April 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, 242–51). For discussion of the stipulation of those articles providing for the return of the confiscated property to Loyalist or British owners, see Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (7 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , VI, 15, n. 5; 48, n. 1; 328; 330, n. 2; 334–35; 337, n. 12; 340; 370; 456; 458, n. 3; 499; 500, n. 6. For renewed debates of the issue, see JM Notes, 14 and 20 May 1783.