1. The recipient's copy is more reasoned and focused than the draft, but from both it is clear that JA's chief motive for writing was concern over the implications for the conduct of American foreign policy raised by Silas Deane's address “To the Free and Virtuous Citizens of America” (Pennsylvania Packet, 5 Dec. 1778). In his Diary entry of 8 Feb., JA called it “one of the most wicked and abominable Productions that ever sprung from an human Heart” and described Silas Deane as “a wild boar, that ought to be hunted down for the Benefit of Mankind,” the only alternatives being “the Ruin of Mr. Deane, or the Ruin of his Country” ( Diary and Autobiography , 2:345). The depth of JA's anger owed to his belief that such an appeal by a private person over the head of the congress, combined with that body's refusal to censure its author, appeared “like a Dissolution of the Constitution,” well calculated to create in the European mind a perception of the American government as being weak and untrustworthy (same, 2:353). More specifically, the address dramatically called into question the fundamental support of the congress, or significant elements within it, for the French alliance and the war effort as well as its competence to appoint its own representatives.

Although he never showed this letter to him, JA writes in his Diary that he explained to Franklin on 8 Feb. why such an approach to Vergennes seemed to him necessary. It was imperative to know what the chief ministers of the French government thought of Deane's conduct because “if they, and their Representatives in America, were determined to countenance and support by their Influence such Men and Measures in America, it was no matter how soon the Alliance was broke” (same, 2:345). When Deane left France in 1778 he had received testimonials to his conduct from various French officials, including Louis XVI and Vergennes, as well as from Benjamin Franklin, who described him as “an able and faithfull Negotiator” (same, 2:352). JA hoped to convince Vergennes that Franklin had been deceived, but he also wanted to know if the French testimonials indicated support for the views expressed in Deane's address, for then it would indicate, at least in JA's mind, a desire to dictate the foreign policy of another sovereign state.

Had Deane simply criticized congress' foreign policy, it is unlikely that JA's re• {p. 404} sponse would have been construed as a defense of Arthur Lee's conduct as a Commissioner. No one with whom JA dealt during his first mission is treated more harshly in his Diary than Arthur Lee. On 9 Feb., JA wrote that Lee, “whom I have allowed to be honest, has such a bitter, such a Sour in him, and so few of the nice feelings, that G[od] knows what will be the Consequence to himself and to others.” He had “Confidence in no body,” believing “all Men selfish—And, no Man honest or sincere. This, I fear, is his Creed, from what I have heard him say. I have often in Conversation disputed with him, on this Point.” Finally, Lee “with his privy Council, are evermore, contriving” and “their Contrivances, render many Measures more difficult” (same, 2:346–347). Arthur Lee's reputation became part of the assault on the address because Deane had cast doubt on Lee's loyalty (and that of his brothers William, Richard Henry, and Francis Lightfoot), and on his legitimacy as an appointed executor of the policies set down by the congress. Such “a Contempt of Congress committed in the City where they set, and the Publication of such Accusations in the Face of the Universe, so false and groundless as the most heinous of them appeared to me, ... made too by a Man who had been in high Trust, against two others, who were still so, ... ought to unite every honest and wise Man against him” (same, 2:345). Clearly JA felt compelled to remove any doubts about the authority of the congress or the credibility of its representatives; in so doing, he defended Arthur Lee the Commissioner, not Arthur Lee the man.

2. In fact, as the Diary entry quoted in note 1 indicates, JA had informed Benjamin Franklin of his intention to approach Vergennes regarding Deane's address. In the draft, however, he stated that he had not shown nor did he intend to show his letter to either of his colleagues because Franklin had allied himself with Deane against Lee. In regard to Franklin, JA held to his plan, but he did provide Lee with a copy on 9 June, eight days before JA sailed from France, in response to Lee's appeal for a testimonial to his loyalty contained in a letter of 5 June (below).

3. At this point the Letterbook copy originally read “are groundless,” but the “are” is canceled and “is false and” is interlined for insertion.

4. This passage, so thoroughly canceled in the recipient's copy that it cannot be read independently of another version, is also heavily canceled in the Letterbook, indicating that JA decided that it was inappropriate after the recipient's copy was completed. The final five words, however, are also deleted in the draft. Moreover, in the draft the words “and particularly of Mr. Deane” are followed by a further canceled passage: “who has been so forsaken by his Discretion as to have published to the World many such Insinuations.”

5. Richard Henry Lee and Francis Lightfoot Lee.

6. At this point the paragraph in the draft continues with “of Mr. R. H. Lees holding improper Intercourse with a Dr. Berkenhout, is a cruel and an infamous Calumny.” The entire paragraph is then canceled. Dr. John Berkenout was a British agent who had known Arthur Lee in London and met Richard Henry Lee when he came to America in 1778. JA's assertions, explicit in the draft and more veiled in the recipient's copy, regarding Richard Henry Lee's conduct, are accurate.

7. This paragraph does not appear in the draft.

1. Not printed here, but see Pringle's letter of the 9th (above).

2. Lee and JA to Pringle, 12 Feb. (below).

3. No instructions to Pringle have been found, but see the letter to Pringle immediately following.

4. Although this letter was signed only by JA, it is clear that he was speaking also for Benjamin Franklin. Franklin probably was unwilling to sign because of Lee's severe criticism of the original appointment of Edward Bancroft in his letter of 7 Feb. to Franklin and JA (above). That neither JA nor Franklin was pleased by the appointment of Pringle in place of Edward Bancroft can be surmised from both the tone of the letter and the implication that Pringle's instructions would be the work of Arthur Lee, not Franklin or JA.