1. Neither Arthur Lee's letter nor a reply from JA is extant in the Adams Papers. JA likely never received the letter.

2. That is, the French minister at Philadelphia, the Chevalier de La Luzerne, and his secretary, Barbé-Marbois. For the effect of Livingston's close relationship with La Luzerne, see vol. 12:44.

3. The garrison at Savannah was evacuated to Charleston on 11 July, after the town was besieged by Gen. Anthony Wayne. The British did not leave Charleston until 14 Dec. (John Richard Alden, The South in the American Revolution, Baton Rouge, 1957, p. 266–267).

4. Lee is referring to Congress' instructions to the joint peace commissioners of [15 June 1781] , and specifically to the third paragraph that directed them to “make the most candid & confidential communications to the ministers of our generous Ally the King of France to undertake nothing in the Negotiations for Peace or truce without their knowledge & concurrence & ultimately to govern yourselves by their advice & opinion” (vol. 11:374–377). John Jay had written to Congress on 20 Sept. 1781 to protest the provision and, in effect, to offer his resignation (Wharton, Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 4:716–718). But JA had never commented on the provision referred to by Lee because he had deciphered only a portion of the first sentence of the third paragraph and was unaware that Congress intended the commissioners to negotiate under the direct supervision of the French government. Indeed, in his diary entry for 27 Oct., the day after he reached Paris, JA states, “this Instruction, which is alluded to in a Letter I received at the Hague a few days before I left it, has never yet been communicated to me” ( D&A , 3:38; but see also JA's reply to Lee of 10 Oct., below).

Lee's objections to the instructions had a tangible result, for on 8 Aug. he moved that the peace instructions “be reconsidered.” That motion almost immediately was replaced with another requiring a committee to “be appointed to revise and consider the instructions . . . and to report what alterations ought to be made.” A lengthy debate then ensued, during which James Madison admitted that “the instructions given are a sacrifice of national dignity” but defended them as “a sacrifice of dignity to policy” because “the situation of affairs and circumstances at the time rendered this sacrifice necessary. Nothing essential is given up.” In the end a motion by Madison to appoint a committee “to take into consideration and report to Congress the most advisable means of securing to the United States the several objects claimed by them and not included in their ultimatum for peace” was adopted, but nothing further was done about the instructions (Wharton, Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 5:645–651; JCC , 22:458–460).

In a letter to James Warren, likely written shortly after 8 Aug., Arthur Lee was even more explicit about his distaste for the instructions and their source. Lee noted that he had “movd in vain for reconsideration of the Instructions.” But, apparently assuming that John Jay would not act under the instructions, he declared that “the yoke is riveted upon us, and the Man [Franklin] who I am sure sold us in the negociation with France is the sole adjunct with Mr. Adams, in a negociation on which every thing that is dear and honorable to us depend. He, good man, felt no qualms at such a commission, no sense of dishonor or injury to his Country. On the contrary he expressd the utmost alacrity in accepting it, and I believe most cordially; since it puts him in the way of receiving money, which is the God of his Idolatry” ( Warren-Adams Letters , 2:173; there dated [July]).

5. Lee is likely referring to John Jay's very long 28 April letter to Robert R. Livingston, which reached Congress on 2 Aug. (Wharton, Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev. , 5:336–377; PCC, No. 185, III, f. 36). There Jay described his continuing, but unsuccessful, efforts to open negotiations with Spain for recognition of the United States and for a commercial treaty. But most of the letter concerned the lack of support that he had received from both {p. 222} the French ambassador and the Spanish government when a large number of bills drawn on him were presented for payment and, because he lacked sufficient funds, ultimately were protested. Lee indicated to JA that “some secret agency” was involved, but in his letter to James Warren cited in note 4, he stated that “Spain has behavd towards us with very little wisdom or decency; but it much to be suspected that the French were at the bottom of it” ( Warren-Adams Letters , 2:174).

6. The letter from Gen. Sir Guy Carleton and Adm. Robert Digby was of 2 Aug. and was enclosed with George Washington's letter of 5 Aug. to Congress (PCC, No. 152, X, f. 669–671, 665–668). The Carleton-Digby letter informed Washington that Thomas Grenville was at Paris with powers to negotiate with all powers and that he was empowered to propose independence immediately rather than it being a condition for a general treaty, but in return the loyalists were to be restored their property or compensated. They then mentioned the release of Henry Laurens as amounting to his exchange for Cornwallis and the need to negotiate a general prisoner exchange. In response to Washington's request for advice on how to proceed, Congress adopted three resolutions on 12 August. The first resolved that the letter from Carleton and Digby, in so far as it concerned peace negotiations, be considered “as mere matter of information” in the absence of any information on the subject from the peace commissioners and that no action be taken regarding it. The second is as Lee indicates, but with “and effect” being replaced by “as the only effectual means of securing the settlement of a safe and honorable peace.” The third resolution as given by Lee was replaced by another that did not mention the exchange of Cornwallis for Laurens, but rather called only for negotiations to “settle forthwith a general cartel for the exchange of prisoners” ( JCC , 23:462–464).