RC (PPAmP: Franklin Papers); addressed: “The Honble. B. Franklin & John Adams Esqr. Ministers plenipotentiary at Passi.”

Lee is referring to Williams' letter of 23 Jan., which mentioned the numbers on the packages belonging to Simeon Deane, and apparently to the reply of the Commissioners to that letter of 9 Feb. (both above). The decision to print the reply as being from the Commissioners is based on Lee's statement here that he “signd the letter,” and on Jonathan Williams' reply, directed to the Commissioners, of 20 Feb. (PPAmP: Franklin Papers). At the foot of Lee's letterbook copy of the response, however, is the note: “not sign'd by A L.” (PCC, No. 102, IV, f. 151–152). Since the recipient's copy of the letter has not been found, it is impossible to determine whether Lee did sign the letter.

That is, Benjamin Franklin and JA to Jones, 10 Feb. (above). At the bottom of his letterbook copy of that letter Lee 401wrote “not signd by A Lee” and added: “See Jones's letter contradicting this dated Augt. 18. 1778” (PCC, No. 102, IV, f. 152–153). This note referred to the second and third paragraphs of the letter to Jones of 10 Feb. Jones' letter may be that directed to Abraham Whipple, which is also in the letterbook, where Jones called for a court-martial for Thomas Simpson with whose conduct “I have been and am unsatisfied and who is now under suspicion of Disobedience of my written order” (same, f. 50). Lee may have believed that in their letter of the 10th Franklin and JA were giving official approval of what he saw as Jones' hypocrisy.

An interesting sidelight to this affair is Jones' statement in his journal of 1782 that Lee “was willing to sign but I did not wish him to, for reasons which I explained to Dr. Franklin, and which the Doctor communicated to Mr. Adams; the said reasons being obviously quite satisfactory to both those most eminent gentlemen” (quoted in Augustus C. Buell, Paul Jones: Founder of the American Navy, 2 vols., N.Y., 1902, 1:140). Considering Lee's statements in both the present letter and in his note to his copy of the Franklin-JA letter of 10 Feb., Jones' recollection seems questionable.

Lee's quotations from Bancroft's letter of 9 Feb. are almost exact (MH-H: Lee Papers). Lee assumed that Bancroft received his information from one of Lee's colleagues, probably Franklin; but, in a letter of 13 Feb., Bancroft informed Lee that “the information which produced my Letter to you, was given to me by your honorable Colleagues, and first by Mr. Adams” (CtY: Franklin Papers).

RC (Arch. Aff. Etr., Paris, Corr. Pol., E.-U., vol. 7); docketed: “rece. le 13 fev. M. Adams Se plaint de l'apel au Peuple publié par M. Silas Deanne.” Dft printed: JA, Diary and Autobiography , 2:347–350. The draft is approximately one-third longer than either the recipient's copy or the Letterbook copy (see below) because JA made numerous deletions in the drafting process. It should be compared with the RC as printed here. The recipient's copy and the Letterbook copy contain some text that does not appear in the draft. LbC (Adams Papers); notations: “Sent by a Comis, early in the Morning of the 12. Feb. 1779” and “The next Day after the above Letter was written, and within a few Hours after it was Sent, Dr Winship arrived and not long after him the Aid du Camp of the Marquiss De la Fayette, with Letters, and with Dispatches from Congress, a Letter among the rest to Me, from Messrs. Lee and Lovell of the Committee of foreign affairs 28 Oct. 1778 (above) acquainting me, with the new Commission to Dr. Franklin, and.” Compare this passage with the second paragraph of JA's Diary entry for 12 Feb. ( Diary and Autobiography , 2:353).

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-404sponse 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 God 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.

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).

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

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.”

Richard Henry Lee and Francis Lightfoot Lee.

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.

This paragraph does not appear in the draft.