The Declaration of independence, an interpretation and an analysis

GIFT OF
JUGK3GH

THE

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

AN INTERPRETATION
AND AN ANALYSIS

THE DECLARATION
OF INDEPENDENCE

AN INTERPRETATION
AND AN ANALYSIS

HERBERT FRIEDENWALD, PH.D.

OF THE

UNIVERSITY)!

Neb) ¥otfe
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., LTD.
1904

COPYRIGHT, 1904
BY HERBERT FRIEDENWALD

PRESS OF

THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY
LANCASTER, PA.

TO MY MOTHER

PREFACE

It has been my endeavor to show, in the first five
chapters, the close interrelation between the develop
ment of the authority and jurisdiction of the Con
tinental Congress and the evolution of the senti
ment for independence. The gradual, though occa
sionally rapid manner in which the Congress ac
quired power, and the ways in which this was exer
cised, went side by side with the growth of the idea
that independence was a necessary outcome of the
controversy between England and America, that had
been raging for nearly fifteen years. As the author
ity and jurisdiction of the Congress were extended, it
adopted various means to further the desire for in
dependence. Also, as this desire became more widely
spread, the Congress, the embodiment of the union
sentiment, acting for all and in behalf of all, gained
additional strength. The highest point of its power
was reached on July 4, 1776. It was never again
so powerful as on the day it declared independence
of England. The decline of its authority dates from
this time, when the first steps were taken to define
the limits to its jurisdiction, by means of the Articles
of Confederation. The states then began to acquire
power at the cost of the Congress, ultimately culmi-
vii

Viii PREFACE

nating in its complete overthrow and the establish
ment of a new federal government under the Con
stitution.

In order to describe the beginnings of the Con
gress and of independence it has not been thought
necessary to go over again the oft-told, though as yet
inadequately told story of the rise of the American
revolutionary movement. A familiarity with the
main facts of that history is assumed. Only such
of the earlier phases of the controversy, as bear im
mediately upon independence, have been touched
upon in the opening chapter. In one sense Chalmers
was correct in dating independence from the first
days of the settlement of the colonies. In another,
the events preceding the Congress of 1774, are to be
differentiated from those happening after that date,
when ideas of establishing independence first had
their rise. There is no evidence of a conscious striv
ing for independence in the earlier period; there is
none even previous to November, 1775, but after
that date it appears on every hand with a force that
rendered the final outcome inevitable.

In the explanation of -the meaning of the various
clauses of the Declaration, embodied in chapters X
and XI, I have not attempted to deal with every ex
ample of a colonial grievance that might with pro
priety be assumed to have been held in mind by the
framers of that document. Only the grievances of

PREFACE IX

particular significance, and those that had attained
greatest prominence are referred to. The limit
(1763) fixed by the Congress of 1774 as the starting
point of the controversy, has been adhered to in the
main ; not, however, because it is any part of my in
tention to hold that the causes of the revolution had
their origin at so late a period, but for the reason that
the principal grievances complained of reached their
most aggravating development after that date.

The earlier chapters are in some respects a pre
liminary studv, in part an abstract of a larger, more
detailed work on this subject for which I have
been collecting material for some years. The first
incentive to undertake it was received under the
guidance of Professor John Bach McMaster, to
whom is owing a debt which it is a pleasure to
acknowledge here. He has put me under additional
obligation by his kindness in reviewing a portion of
the manuscript, and for encouragement given me to
push the work to completion.

For helpful criticism of some of the manuscript
and all of the proofs, I am indebted to Prof. John L.
Stewart. And I have to thank my kind friends, Miss
Henrietta Szold, Mr. Joseph Jacobs, Dr. Cyrus
Adler, and Mr. C. L. Sulzberger, for reading the
proofs and for many valuable suggestions.

For purposes of convenience I have throughout
cited Peter Force's well-known American Archives

PREFACE

as Force. The references to Jefferson's Writings
are to Ford's edition, and those to Mass. State
Papers to Bradford's Speeches of the Governors of
Massachusetts, from 1765 to 1775; and the Answers
of the House of Representatives to the same, etc.,
Boston, 1818.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I
THE POPULAR UPRISING 1-29

CHAPTER II
THE CONGRESS FINDING ITSELF 30-49

CHAPTER III

THE IDEA OF INDEPENDENCE TAKES ROOT, AND THE
CONGRESS PREVAILS 50-76

CHAPTER IV
THE CONGRESS AND THE DEMOCRACY 77-98

CHAPTER V
INDEPENDENCE IN THE MAKING 99-120

CHAPTER VI
ADOPTING AND SIGNING THE DECLARATION 121-151

CHAPTER VII
THE DECLARATION AND ITS CRITICS 152-171

CHAPTER VIII

THE PURPOSE OF THE DECLARATION 172-183

xi

Xll CONTENTS

CHAPTER IX +
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION 184-207

CHAPTER X

(1) THE " FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD ". 208-239

CHAPTER XI

(2) THE " FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD". 240-259

APPENDIX

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 261-279

INDEX 281-299

JHW£RSITY

\\ OF

THE

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
AN INTERPRETATION AND AN ANALYSIS

CHAPTER I
THE POPULAR UPRISING

During the period of more than one hundred years
preceding the Declaration of Independence, repeated
occasion offered for differences of opinion to arise
between the crown and the colonies, over questions
of policy and the interpretation of constitutional
law. Beginning in controversy over governmental
methods, earnest discussion led on to serious dis
pute that finally culminated in engendering much
bitterness of feeling. Owing, however, to the lack
of a definite British colonial policy consistently car
ried out, or, more exactly, the failure to carry out
consistently the existing policy, the colonies were in
large measure allowed to grow up neglected. When
laws were passed by Parliament designed, in pur
suance of the mercantile theories of the age, to
control the commerce and productions of the

2 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

colonies, for the benefit of England, tjiey were
either not enforced at all, or enforced with such lax
ity, as practically to nullify their intended purpose.1
This neglect had a double effect: it deprived the
home country of the commercial rewards that would
have been hers had these acts been enforced rigidly,
and it allowed the colonists to develop their com
merce largely on the lines suggested by an intelligent
perception of the natural advantages of their geo
graphical relation to the West Indies. In like man
ner, the control of their political affairs by the crown
was exercised with such leniency, in the main, as
ultimately to produce a condition that has been ad
mirably described as " virtual independence with re
lations of mutual good-will/'2

Upon the accession of Grenville to power in 1763,
the attempt was made to accomplish the impossible
task of subverting peacefully the multiform customs
and precedents that a century of license had per
mitted to be established. If at this time King, min
istry and Parliament could have fashioned a states
man in whose mind would be found a combination
of the wisdom of a Moses and a Solomon, with the
philosophy of a Plato and an Aristotle, he might
have carried through to success the policy which

1 The number of British acts of Parliament affecting the
commerce and industry of the colonies in force at this time,
footed up a total of thirty.

2 C. F. Adams, Life and Works of John Adams, I, 133.

THE POPULAR UPRISING 3

Grenville undertook to initiate. But nothing short
of some such superhuman aggregate of mental re
sources could have accomplished it. On the other
hand, it would appear as if Grenville and his suc
cessors endeavored to carry out their plans in a
manner pre-designed to create as much irritation
as the circumstances would allow. If, instead, the
British authorities had, in dealing with the colonies,
exercised some of the tactful diplomacy which has
won so many triumphs in the larger field of inter
national affairs, the separation might have been
postponed for a considerable term of years.1

Further, a serious tactical blunder was made, by
yielding to the clamor of the colonies against the
Stamp Act, by reason of which it was repealed on
March 17, 1766. At the same time the act since gen
erally known as the Declaratory Act was made into
law.2 It was unwise to pass laws and then allow
them to be annulled by non-enforcement. It was in
the highest degree injudicious to enact a measure
containing many of the provisions of the Stamp Act.
But the crowning act of folly came with the repeal
of an obnoxious act upon the occasion of the first
show of resistance to it, by means of the revolution
ary memorials of the Stamp Act Congress of 1765.
Had the Grenville ministry or its successor, the

1 This was Franklin's view.

2 See Chapter XL

4 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Rockingham Whigs,1 determined at all hazards to
enforce the law with a high hand, for this purpose
calling in the military arm of the government, there
would have been an end to resistance, and the revo
lution would have been postponed for many years.
When troops were finally sent over they availed little,
for they were few in number, were utilized in no
spirited manner, and served only to raise the issue of
quartering troops without consent, in time of peace,
causing the additional irritation which culminated
in the clash at Boston on March 5, 1770. But in the
beginning a large force would have had a decided
effect. For no sort of extra-legal, intercolonial po
litical organizations existed as yet, nor any suffi
cient feeling of the necessity for united action, such
as grew up during the first ten years of the con
troversy. At the end of that time the ramifications
of the newly created committees of correspondence
and the like, were so widely extended as to touch
the popular mind at every point. This is evidenced

*The fact that the Rockingham Whigs were of a different
political complexion from the Grenville ministry, and conse
quently had no interest in enforcing the unwelcome acts of
its predecessors, does not affect the case. For they imme
diately proceeded to pass the Declaratory Act, which (though
little attention was paid to it at the time by the colonists)
ultimately proved more serious in its consequences than was
anticipated, when an attempt was made to live up to its pro
visions. The colonists at first regarded it as but another
British act passed with no intention of being enforced.

THE POPULAR UPRISING 5

by the fact that only nine colonies were represented
at the Stamp Act Congress, all but three of the dele
gations having been elected by the respective legal
assemblies. Ten years later, when but one colony
failed to respond,1 only five of the delegations to the
Congress of 1774 were elected by the assemblies.
The revolutionary organization was by this time so
complete that it mattered little whether or not assem
blies were in session ; delegates were elected none the
less in a regular and orderly manner throughout the
colonies.2

If anything approaching an adequate conception
respecting the temper and attitude of mind of the
colonies existed in England, it was not shown in
any of the legislation enacted, beginning with the
passage of the Townshend Acts of ij6j? nor is
there any evidence of the existence of an apprecia
tion of the extraordinary ability for dialectics that
had developed in the minds of the foremost Ameri
cans. Moreover, through the Stamp Act Congress,
by its successful resistance to the Stamp Act, the
colonists had their first taste of the efficiency of
united action against Great Britain, when the inter
ests of all were thought to be at stake. It had

1 Georgia.

2 New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia
were not represented at the Stamp Act Congress because their
respective assemblies were not in session and there was no
other organization to supply the deficiency.

8 See Chapter XI.

O THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

been the custom for a colony to appeal by petition to
the King when any grievance weighed too heavily
upon it, and often with success. It was natural,
therefore, that they should appeal in common when
all were concerned alike.

But by adopting memorials to Lords and Com
mons, at the Stamp Act Congress, at the same time
as a petition to the King was formulated, they went
further than they had any idea of going, and took
the first step on the road to independence. For this
marks the beginning of an entire change in the
character of the controversy. Hitherto dispute had
always been with the crown. But Parliament, by
the Sugar Act1 and the Stamp Act, had projected
itself into American affairs, by passing laws having
the purpose of raising revenue by direct taxation,
and the colonists were not slow to make that
branch of the British government a party to their
disputes. This, however, is the only occasion on
which the colonists as a body addressed Parliament
directly, and demonstrates the unformed character
of the colonial opposition. After opportunity had
been given for an interchange of views respecting
the grounds of the colonial contentions, and a defi
nite stand had been taken, the tactical error of ap
pealing to Parliament was not repeated. As the
controversy advanced, though Parliament was held

1 April 5, 1764. See Chapter XL

THE POPULAR UPRISING

llJ

at fault, the doctrine was consistently maintained
that the King had it within his power to right their
wrongs, and to him must all appeals be made. The
colonists gradually renounced all consideration of
parliamentary control, and they would stultify them
selves by appealing for redress to a power whose
authority they would not recognize.

Further, an examination of the declaration of
rights and of the petition and memorials of the
Stamp Act Congress discloses a fundamental dif
ference between them and the documents issued
subsequently. The theory of the natural right of
Englishmen to enjoy the blessings of the British
constitution, to representation, to taxation only by
representatives, and to trial by jury, figure con
spicuously, it is true, in the state papers of the
Stamp Act Congress. But, side by side with these,
and raised to equal importance, were put the eco
nomic reasons why the enforcement of the Stamp
Act and the recently revised trade laws would prove
burdensome. The colonies would be drained of
specie, they held, rendering it impossible to pay the
debts due England's merchants ; the profits Great
Britain would derive from her trade with the col
onies would be decreased materially, because they
would be made so poor as to be unable to pur
chase needed commodities ; and they would, there
fore, be unable to bear the burden of paying the

8 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

taxes imposed by the Stamp Act, short of absolute
ruin. Another point should be noted: the tone
of these appeals is far more moderate. Rights are
asserted with much less vehemence, and there is
much more show of a conciliatory spirit than is evi
dent in any of the documents produced by the next
congress.1

But a new phase was entered upon with the repeal
of the Stamp Act and the passage of the Declaratory
Act. In this the assertion of the colonists that
their own assemblies had the sole and exclusive right
of imposing duties and taxes was denounced, and
it was specifically declared that the colonies " have
been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate
unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown of
Great Britain; and that the King's majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual
and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in
parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought
to have, full power and authority to make laws and
statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the
colonies and people of America, subjects of the
crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever."2
The economic burdens of which the colonies com-

1 The proceedings of the Stamp Act Congress are to be
found in Niles' Principles and Acts of the Revolution, 1822,
451 et seq.

2 The text of the act can be found most conveniently in
MacDonald's Select Charters Illustrative of American History,
1606-1775, 316.

THE POPULAR UPRISING 9

plained having been removed, they were led to
hope that since the change in the ministry, and the
return to power of the Whigs, Rockingham would
not enforce the revised trade regulations. Their
economic grievances being practically at an end, the
Declaratory Act, another of Great Britain's meas
ures of unwisdom, was made the means of carry
ing on the controversy, whose entire character was
now transformed from one in which economic
and political elements played an equal part to one
having almost exclusively a political basis. Com
plaint respecting the effects and workings of any
of the subsequent British acts, is never again based
on grounds that may be regarded as primarily eco
nomic. The only economic phase of the subsequent
controversy is found when non-importation agree
ments are entered into, with the view to oppressing
British merchants engaged in colonial commerce to
such an extent as to induce them to espouse the
cause of the colonists, and make them work to have
the obnoxious acts repealed to save themselves from
ruin.

The repressive measures of Hillsbo rough of 1768,
and the retention of the duty on tea in April, 1770,
when the other Townshend taxes of I7671 were re
pealed, are of a piece with the Declaratory Act in
their effect in emphasizing the transformation of the

xThe nature and effect of these several acts are described
in chapters X and XI.

10 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

character of the dispute. The tea duty was re
tained for the same reason that prompted the pas
sage of the Declaratory Act — to maintain the prin
ciple of parliamentary authority — and was but an
other in the long list of deeds of unwisdom of the
British government. By repealing the other duties
Parliament yielded to popular clamor, as in the repeal
of the Stamp Act, but retained an obnoxious measure
that was to prove a fruitful source of further irrita
tion. A partial repeal, with the retention of one
duty designed for a purpose only too well known in
America, was folly worse confounded, and showed
that there was no real conception in England of the
earnestness and determination of the Americans, nor
of the nature of the independent development of
political institutions produced by a century of ex
perience. The events that had transpired in the five
years succeeding the passage of the Stamp Act were
productive of great results, so that by 1770 the con
troversy had been pushed to the point from which
must issue either complete submission of the colonies
to England, or else independence.

In Great Britain at the end of the hundred years
subsequent to the Puritan Revolution, the reaction
had reproduced a virtual kingly autocracy, though
within certain legal and constitutional bounds. By
force of his dominating personality, the King,
though nominally guided by his ministers, had made

THE POPULAR UPRISING I I

himself the directing head of the nation's affairs, and
practically controlled his cabinet and Parliament
as he saw fit. In America, where the structure of
society was far simpler, there had been no such re
action. On the contrary, there had been a constant
development along the democratic lines made famil
iar by the popular uprisings under Cromwell. In
consequence the political ideas of Locke passed cur
rent not alone in the Puritan colonies of New Eng
land, but were received at their face value in the
other colonies which at their foundation had noth
ing in common with the Puritan ideals. By rea
son of the extent to which the colonists participated
in their political affairs throughout the colonies,
the laxity with which parliamentary enactments
were enforced, and the leniency shown by the
crown, a complete administrative machinery of their
own was developed in many respects far in advance
of anything of a similar nature existing in Great
Britain. In other words they had brought over with
them a perfect familiarity with British constitutional
and administrative forms, which, owing to the more
democratic nature of the conditions under which
they lived, produced a body politic in which prac
tically every property owner had a stake. Out of
this was evolved an attachment for their own
methods, as strong as that of any parent for its child.
The questions at issue previous to 1763 had been

12 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

argued with the crown, either directly or through
the royal governors, often with great earnestness,
though only on occasion with a show of heat. But
with the change in the nature of the dispute from
one between King and colonies, in which the points
of disagreement were localised, were peculiar to
each colony, and did not permit of any united op
position, to one between Parliament and colonies,
in which, among others, the principle of taxation was
at issue, affecting all alike, the natural passions
were aroused that are ordinarily engendered when
the attempt is made by an outsider to appro
priate and convert to his own use what one believes
to be his own property, the fruit of his toil. Their
point of view was admirably stated by Burke when
he said " a great people who have their property,
without any reserve, disposed of by another people
at an immense distance from them, will not think
themselves in the enjoyment of liberty."1 That taxa
tion without representation was tyranny, and nothing
less, became the doctrine universally held. It was re
peatedly reiterated that, by the nature of their loca
tion, they had and could have representation only in
their assemblies, by which alone they would therefore
consent to be taxed.2 As one man they flung back

Speech on "State of the Nation," Works II, 170.

2 It is true that Otis in his pamphlet The Rights of the
British Colonies Asserted, 1764, advocated colonial repre
sentation in Parliament, but this idea did not attain to gen-

THE POPULAR UPRISING 13

and would have none of the British idea of virtual
representation, which was that the colonies were not
less represented than the people of Great Britain,
five-sixths of whom had no share in the election of ,
members of Parliament, by reason of the corrupt
and inefficient British system. That a member of
Parliament was as much a member for the whole
empire as for the constituency which sent him, was
the theory held as largely then as now. But it did
not appeal to the colonists, grown accustomed to the
benefits of actual representation.

The unanimity of the acceptance of the idea
of the interrelation of representation and taxation,
as also the wide extent of the belief in the theories
that man was born with certain natural, inalienable
rights, and that government derived its origin from
a compact for mutual protection, was due to the re
markable series of disquisitions on the rights of the
colonies, the nature and extent of these rights, and
the constitutional limitations to parliamentary con
trol, which the five years of discussion had produced.
Every man who was ready with the pen, — and the'
number of these indicated an unusual diffusion of
skill in political debate, — contributed his share,
though the productions of men like James Otis,

eral adoption. In the Declaration of Rights of 1774 it was
specifically stated as the colonial contention that the colonies
could be represented only in the colonial legislatures. See
Declaration of Rights, article 4.

14 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Samuel and John Adams, Richard Bland, Daniel
Dulany, John Dickinson, and Stephen Hopkins, stand
out in especial prominence. Without going into an
examination of the merits of their arguments, it
suffices to draw attention to the fact that they served
to familiarize the public, in the widest possible de
gree, with a reasonable theory of the origins of gov
ernment, and of the constitutional relations between
the colonies and Great Britain. They made every
freeholder believe and maintain that he possessed
certain rights and privileges which were far too
sacred to permit of being infringed by any acts of
King or Parliament, and for which it was his duty
to contend, with all the power that in him lay. The
men who wrote these often stirring pamphlets were
the same who in legislative assemblies embodied
their thoughts in the form of resolutions and me
morials, and thus gave them not only the widest
circulation, but a semi-legal character as well, mak
ing them the acts of the people. There were able
counterblasts, too, notably from the well-attuned
trumpet of Jonathan Boucher, proclaimer of the
sacred rights of kings and government. But they
were not sufficiently harmonious in these prelim
inary stages to make any strong impression. Not
until the later point was reached of the practical
denial of parliamentary authority, dating from 1774,
does this opposition become in any way important.

THE POPULAR UPRISING 15

In fact, one of the most striking elements in the
preliminary stages of the revolution, is the extra
ordinary unanimity of opinion as to the existence
of rights and of serious infringements of them pre
vailing throughout the colonies.

Not much more was required, therefore, to make
the parties at issue fall farther and farther apart.
Nor was there a question as to whether the colonies
or the home government had the greater weight of
authoritative legal opinion on its side. It has come
to be admitted that the preponderance of constitu
tional law was with those favoring the parliamen
tary contention, and that both English political
parties were at one in their belief in the legality
of parliamentary dominance over the colonies as em
bodied in the Declaratory Act, whatever may have
been their differences on other points. No one had
firmer faith in this doctrine than Pitt himself, the
idol of America, under whose ministry the Act was
passed. The extent of administrative development
in America through the legislative assemblies, and
the firmness of the faith that full justification for
the colonists' attitude was found in the current in
terpretation of the origin and ends of government,
should not have been overlooked by the British
statesmen. That there was a power above the con
stitution from which rights were derived, was an
idea as generally diffused as that Americans were

1 6 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

free-born English subjects and entitled to all their
rights and privileges. In contests over the interpre
tation of constitutional and political theories, the
question is ultimately decided not by the weight of
legal precedents, but by the sacrifices which the par
ties at issue are willing to make when points of
difference prove irreconcilable. In fundamentals,
as has been well said, all constitutional questions are
" questions of power, and not of law."1 The
theories of America and England were so much at
variance by this time that nothing short of abso
lute submission of the one or the other could bring
about a peaceful solution. That the latter was not
to result, the events of the four years succeeding
1770 made inevitable. Clashes between soldiery
and populace were succeeded by repeated acts of
violence in resistance to authority in which the
military arm played little or no part. A spirit of
lawlessness, so far as the enforcement of British
acts was concerned, was manifested side by side
with the most perfect respect for legislative acts of
the colonists' own creation.

In the meantime, as assemblies were being pro
rogued throughout the colonies, and as this admin
istrative machinery was in danger of breaking down,
recourse was had to a new expedient for political
control, the Committees of Correspondence. At first

1 Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, Horce Sabbaticce, III, 120.

THE POPULAR UPRISING I/

appointed by the assemblies, they gradually came
into existence almost everywhere by original au
thority of the people, and their variety of forms
made necessary by difference of conditions, is a
striking witness to the wide diffusion of, familiarity
with, and capacity for political organization.1 They
served to keep the colonists in touch with each other,
by extending their activities even beyond the bounds
of the individual colonies. They thus performed the
function of an intercolonial clearing house, through
which the inhabitants of one colony were made fa
miliar with the occurrences taking place in another.
When, therefore, Great Britain in 1774 began her
policy of attempting to coerce the colonies into sub
mission, it was too late to meet with success, for an
effective instrument for resistance had been de
veloped as the result of the previous ten years of
discussion. Moreover, as was ultimately proved,
the colonists were willing to sacrifice their all
for the maintenance of the principles which they
firmly believed were involved. Familiarity with the
uses to which their extra-legal committee organiza
tions could be put, for purposes of colonial and
intercolonial communication, made it natural that
still greater reliance should be placed upon them
when the question of convening a continental con-

1 On Committees of Correspondence and their significance,
see the able treatment which they receive at the hand of Dr.
Edward D. Collins, in Rep't American Hist. Assn., 1901, I, 243.

1 8 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

gress for mutual support was before them. Thus
it happened, that of the twelve colonies sending
delegates to the Congress but five acted through
their assemblies, though three1 of these were so
completely in control of the revolutionists as scarcely
to be of significance in this connection. All of the
remaining delegations were chosen by some form
of committee organization.

The Congress which convened at Carpenter's Hall
/ in Philadelphia, on September 5, 1774, had, there
fore, a much more popular basis than any Congress
heretofore called together. And whereas recourse
was had in the past to the various committees of
correspondence for purposes of united action, under
the more difficult and complex conditions that had
arisen, their place was now to be taken by this new
engine of political organization. The Congress and
the local committees bore to each other relations of
interdependence: the committees created the Con
gress, and the Congress in turn looked to the com
mittees to enforce its recommendations. The voice
that the committees had in calling the Congress into
being, thereby giving it a popular character, spoke
out even to the extent of outlining the work that it
was to undertake.

In their instructions, either to delegates directly,
or to committees that were to have a share in the

1 Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.

THE POPULAR UPRISING 19

election of delegates, the people gave expression to
their desires in not uncertain tones. The credentials
which the delegates bore to this first Continental
Congress were in the main of the same character.
They were authorized in general to devise measures
that would extricate the colonies from the difficulties
with which they were beset, to state the rights and
privileges to which on constitutional grounds they
were entitled, and to endeavor to restore harmony,
mutual confidence, and union.1 Behind these creden
tials, however, and of a much more specific character,
were the instructions issued to the delegates by
their constituent bodies. Three days after the
Boston Port Bill reached that town her citizens
gave expression to their view that the salvation of
North America depended on the other colonies com
ing to a general agreement to stop all importation.2
It was on this hint that the colonies spoke for a gen
eral Congress. At the same time, the suggestion
of obtaining redress by the adoption of commercial
restrictions was taken up by no less than six of the
colonies. Definitive resolutions were passed in Mary
land,3 Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Vir-

credentials are to be found in Journal of Congress
for 1774.

2 May 13, 1774, Force, 4th, I, 331.

s Maryland's resolutions were passed June 22, 1774, Force,
4th, I, 439 ; Pennsylvania's on July 15, ibid., 555 ; New Jersey's
July 21, ibid., 624; Delaware's August 2, ibid., 668; Virginia's

2O THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

ginia, and North Carolina, authorizing their repre
sentatives to enter into non-importation and non-
exportation agreements if the representatives of the
other colonies were of the same mind. South Caro
lina alone had considered the matter and voted it
down, substituting general instructions, and proved
later on the stumbling block over which the Con
gress came near falling.1 Maryland and Virginia
went even further and embodied their views respect
ing commercial aggression, in the credentials to their
delegates, while New Jersey and Delaware pledged
themselves in advance to support the Congress in
whatever action it might take in addition to these
measures,

Thus the Congress before it met was committed
to issuing a statement of the rights and grievances
of the colonists and to the adoption of the only
powerful and efficient means at hand to effect the re
peal of the obnoxious acts — a non-importation
and non-exportation agreement. It was generally
appreciated that their objects could not be attained
without some form of central organization which
should extend beyond any hitherto known. The
Congress, therefore, was the natural advance from

August 1-6, ibid., 689 ; North Carolina's August 27, ibid., 689.
In Rhode Island especially, the town meetings expressed sim
ilar views, as was the case in many instances elsewhere.

1 See John Adams' Diary, Works, II, 382 et seq., 393 et seq.;
McCrady, South Carolina under Royal Gov't., 762 et seq.

THE POPULAR UPRISING 21

the committee organizations, and served as the ex
pression of the popular desire for united action and
for the creation of a policy on which such action
might be based.

The Congress in turn showed its appreciation of
the fact that it was the creature of the popular will
and dependent on it for the success of its resolves
by three acts of striking significance. The first
was the unanimous and immediate endorsement
of the resolutions of the Suffolk County Com
mittee, recommending " a perseverance in the same
firm and temperate conduct as expressed in the
resolutions/'1 Firm they undoubtedly were, but a
perusal will disclose that " temperate " is scarcely
the other adjective by which they should, in truth,
be described.2 The pledge of Suffolk County, to
support whatever the Congress determined on, went
a long way toward influencing it in taking this
radical action. Their assurance was the first infor
mation of this nature officially conveyed, as the reso
lutions of the Congress thereon were the first public
expression of the fact that the colonies would sup
port each other and stand as one man in the con
test. By the endorsement of these resolutions the
Congress gave the sanction of its authority to the
most recent American view respecting the constitu-

1 Journal of Congress, September 17, 1774.

2 The Suffolk Resolutions are to be found in the Journal of
Congress, September 17, 1774.

22 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

tional relations of Parliament and the colonies, that
of no legislation without representation. From this
to war for independence was inevitably but a short
step.

Secondly, came the letter to General Gage1 de
manding the cessation of activity on the part of
his troops, in which the Congress proclaims that its
members are " appointed the guardians " of the
rights and liberties of the colonies. And, lastly,
we have the clauses of the Articles of Association,
(practically an ordinance of nullification, and the
expression of the previously announced popular de
sire), by which enforcement of its provisions was
to be ensured, and which mark a still further de
velopment in government by committee. These
Articles as finally adopted and signed on October
20, prohibited the importation of British products
after December i, 1774, as also of certain enu
merated commodities from the West Indies, and of
East India tea no matter whence derived ; nor
were any slaves to be brought in after that date
nor the trade in them continued. No tea was to be
used or purchased on which any duty had been
paid, and none whatever after the first of March,
1775. After September 10, 1775, unless all the
acts complained of had been repealed in the interval,
no commodities, excepting " rice to Europe," were to
1 October n, 1774.

THE POPULAR UPRISING 23

be exported to Great Britain, Ireland, or the West
Indies. Committees were to be chosen in every
county, city, and town, by those qualified to vote for
representatives in the legislature. Their business
was to see that the Association was not violated, and
that violators of it should be practically boycotted.
The Committees of Correspondence, further, were
given plenary instructions to examine entries at the
custom houses to obtain evidence of the violation
of the Association. In addition to the Articles of
Association, this Congress adopted a Declaration of
Rights, a petition to the King, and issued addresses
to the people of Great Britain, to the inhabitants of
the colonies, and a special one to those of Quebec.

Among the very earliest of the important acts of
the first Congress was the decision, reached only
after much discussion, to limit any statement
of rights to such " as have been infringed by
acts of the British parliament since the year
1763, postponing the further consideration of the
general state of American rights to a future day."1
This is self-explanatory and gave a definitiveness to
the controversy that would not otherwise have been
obtained.

To frame a declaration of rights was one of the
principal duties of this Congress, thereby to fix a
common ground upon which all could stand. But

1 Journal of Congress, September 24 ; John Adams, Works,
I, 160 ; II, 370 et seq.

24 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

at the outset a stumbling block was met with, when
consideration was given to the extent to which the
authority of Parliament was to be recognized in this
declaration. Upon this point there was wide diver
gence of opinion, and various propositions were
advanced. Some proposed drawing the distinction
between internal and external taxation, some advo
cated the denial of the applicability to the colonies
of any statute wherein taxation was intended, and
some even the disavowal of any parliamentary au
thority whatever. Finally John Adams came for
ward with his equivocal compromise proposition.
In this, while claiming the exclusive power to legis
late in their own representative assemblies upon all
matters of taxation and internal polity, subject only
to the negative of their sovereign, the willingness
was expressed, from the necessity of the case and
for the purpose of " securing the commercial advan
tages of the whole empire to the mother country,"
to consent to the operation of all laws regulating
commerce with other countries, " excluding every
idea of taxation, internal or external, for raising
a revenue on the subjects in America without their
consent." x This forms the fourth of the rights
embodied in this declaration, and with the sixth is
the only one which did not meet with unanimous ap
proval. The preamble of the Declaration of Rights,
Adams, Works, II, 397; Journal of Congress.

THE POPULAR UPRISING 25

as passed on October 14, contains a summary
of all the acts of Parliament passed " since the close
of the last war " which are viewed as infringing
rights, and enacted with a view to subjecting the
colonists to a jurisdiction and control which they
cannot recognize. Added to this their assemblies
have been frequently dissolved, and their " dutiful,
humble, loyal, and reasonable " petitions treated
with contempt. In consequence, they, the duly
appointed, elected, and constituted representatives
of the colonies have come together " in order to
obtain such establishment, as that their religion,
laws and liberties may not be subverted/' Follow
ing comes an enumeration of the rights and privi
leges to which, " by the immutable laws of nature,
the principles of the English constitution, and the
several charters and compacts," they are entitled.
These are (i) the right to life, liberty and prop
erty; (2) the rights, liberties and immunities of
natural born Englishmen, (3) none of which was
lost by emigration ; (4) representation in their own
legislatures and taxation by them only; (5) enjoy
ment of the benefits of the common law of Eng
land, trial by jury, and (6) the English statutes in
existence at the time of colonization and applicable
to their condition; (7) the immunities and privi
leges granted in the charters and secured by the
codes of provincial laws ; (8) the right to assemble,

26 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

to consider grievances, and to petition 5(9) that it is
against law to keep a standing army in the colonies
in time of peace; (10) and that it is destructive
of the freedom of America for legislative power
to be exercised by a council appointed to hold office
during pleasure of the crown. An enumeration of
the thirteen specific laws in which these rights and
privileges are infringed follows, with the demand for
their repeal if harmony is to be restored. Submis
sion to them is declared out of the question, and to
ensure their repeal an agreement for non-importa
tion, non-consumption and non-exportation is to be
entered into, and addresses to the people of Great
Britain and America, as also a loyal petition to the
King to be prepared.

The place of the address to Parliament of the
Stamp Act Congress, was now taken by the address
to the people of Great Britain, (the work of John
Jay), and illustrates the point adverted to before re
specting the development of the controversy. What
aim it was hoped to further by this address is
not quite clear, for the addressers were as familiar
as we now are with the little influence the people
at large had upon England's politics. But it was
thought well to cherish the fiction that the people
were responsible for the character of the Parlia
ment they supposedly elected, as the assemblies
represented the people of the colonies. And they

THE POPULAR UPRISING 2/

were, therefore, appealed to in the hope " that the
magnanimity and justice of the British nation will
furnish a parliament of such wisdom, independence,
and public spirit, as may save the violated rights
of the whole empire, from the devices of wicked
ministers and evil, counsellors, whether in or out
of office ; and thereby restore that harmony, friend
ship, and fraternal affection, between all the inhabit
ants of His Majesty's kingdoms and territories so
ardently wished for, by every true and honest
American."

The address to the people of the colonies, the
handiwork of Richard Henry Lee, served as an ex
planation and justification of the proceedings of the
Congress, and is a remarkably calm and well-written
recital of rights and grievances and of the proposals
for redress. The humble though firm petition to
the King, bearing the impress of Dickinson's able
mind, was an admirably conceived document, and
might have impressed a more obstinate king had he
been open to reason. The address to the people of
Quebec was an attempt to draw them into the con
troversy, but had no better success than the more
energetic measures of the spring of I776.1

Naturally, the revolutionary measures that had
been adopted met with the disapproval of large
numbers of people, who now voiced their dissenting

1 See pp. 83-84.

28 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

views in the public prints. They saw that if per
sisted in, civil war would be the end, and while
they were willing to follow the leaders to the verge
of the precipice, they stopped in horror at the sight
of the chaotic abyss beyond. An opposition party
now sprang into existence, destined to have a
serious influence upon the conduct of affairs within
as well as without the Congress.

Spirited and outspoken as were the resolutions of
the Congress of 1774 in stating their demands,
there is no sign among them all that can rightly be
interpreted as indicating a wish for the establish
ment, even remotely, of an independent government.
Nor could there have been. For the instructions
to the delegates, and their credentials as well, were
practically unanimous in expressing the desire that
such measures as were passed, should be not less in
the interest of the restoration of harmony and union
than for the redress of grievances.

It is questionable, also, whether such avowed
radicals as John and Samuel Adams, Jefferson, and
Patrick Henry, would have advocated independence
in earnest at this time, had the opportunity been
favorable. To speak loosely as they did, to the
effect that if matters did not take a turn for the
better, independence was the inevitable outcome, was
far different from establishing a definite concerted
plan having that aim in view. They were too

THE POPULAR UPRISING 2Q

skilled as politicians to be the upholders of a
policy that would have damned at the outset the
cause into which they had thrown themselves body
and soul. Many months had to pass, and many
irritating events occur during the year following the
adjournment of the Congress of 1774, before we
find the tide changing, and the country drifting at
first, and then guided skillfully, into the swift cur
rent of independence.1

Having performed the functions for which it was
called into being, the Congress dissolved on October
26, to meet again, if occasion required, in May of
the following year.

1 See in this connection Sparks' Washington, II, Appendix
X, and Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, VI, 248-251,
255.

CHAPTER II
THE CONGRESS FINDING ITSELF

Practically the same men who had separated
in October of the previous year, and represent
ing the same politically organized bodies, found
themselves once more entrusted with the affairs of
America, when they reconvened at Philadelphia on
May 10, 1775. They had used the interval to good
purpose, and throughout the colonies had been in
strumental in having the acts of the previous Con
gress supported by resolutions of assemblies, conven
tions, and committees. So that they were reassured,
if any reassurance were needed, that so far as they
had gone, they had properly given expression to the
desires of their electors. But they were now face
to face with new and far different problems. By
the accident of circumstance, the clash at arms at
Lexington and Concord, duties and reponsibilities
were thrust upon them that none had given thought
to a few months before. And in undertaking these
new activities, the Congress had no precedent to
guide it, nor any instructions even from its con
stituents to follow as before. It was, therefore, free
and untrammeled so long as it kept within the
bounds of popular support.

30

THE CONGRESS FINDING ITSELF 31

All the country was drifting about hopelessly,
looking for some pilot to show the way. For now
that the controversy had been pushed to the break
ing point, real parties were forming. Many who
were willing to follow so long as peaceful measures
alone were resorted to, became hearty conservatives
as soon as they saw civil war imminent. Others,
seeing the consequences of the denial of parliamen
tary authority staring them in the face, had not made
up their minds which side to join. These two
groups formed probably a majority of the inhabit
ants, and in some districts of New York and Penn
sylvania were greatly in preponderance. But their
influence was weakened since they lacked not only
an organization, but seemingly, even the power to
organize,1 though they were not backward in keep
ing their pens busy writing pamphlets and taking
active1 part in the heated discussions in the gazettes.
Consequently the well-organized revolutionary party,
represented for America at large by the Congress,
controlled affairs. The Congress, therefore, was
compelled to assume the directing hand and provide
the rule of conduct, the more so as the revolu
tionary organizations, in colony after colony, were
looking to it for advice and direction, especially in
all that concerned military affairs. This dependence
on the Congress and the authority it derived there-

1 See Van Tyne, Loyalists in Am. Revolution, 85, 87.

32 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

from, carried with them a gradual development of
a spirit of subordination to its will, on the part of
those controlling the revolutionary movement. The
Congress thus grew, from an impotent body with
vague powers designed at first to prepare petitions
and addresses, into one having practically complete
control of the affairs of a people engaged in a war
of revolution, with all that such control implies.
Though this evolution is the most important civil
and political phenomenon of the period, it was a
perfectly natural development, since the leading
spirits and ablest men were in Philadelphia, and
they saw to it that the new power assumed its au
thority with caution and wielded it with skill.

For the understanding of the events of the next
year it is all-important that the growth of the power
and authority of the Congress, the manner of their
exercise, and the method of enforcing its decisions
upon points of policy, be clearly held in mind. Ac
tually the creature of the colonies, representing the
united sentiment of them all, the Congress was much
stronger than any one colony. It stood for union
and was, therefore, compelled to pursue every meas
ure looking to the tightening of the chains. By
so doing and by frowning upon every individual
action that might lead to disunion and consequent
weakening of its own powers, it succeeded in ever
strengthening itself. So that by the time it reached

CONGRESS FINDING ITSELF 33

its highest point of authority (July 4, 1776) we
have unfolded before us the phenomenon of a polit
ically organized body, the creature of individual
political organizations, deriving all its strength and
sanction from them, dependent for its existence
upon their good will, yet with no limits to its au
thority other than those of the reason and good
sense of its members. Gradually it procured so
much power as to be able to dictate to the colonies
how to shape their own administrative organiza
tions, and finally was able to advance to the extreme
point of declaring them independent of the govern
ment that had always controlled them. The suc
cessful manner in which this was consummated is
demonstrated by the support given to its acts
throughout the colonies. In all this the Congress
relied on and fostered the democratic elements of
which, in large measure, it was the revolutionary
outcome. Without so doing the revolution would
never have attained so much of success as it did
before outside aid was called upon. It suited the
purposes of those who fostered the revolution to
emphasize the natural rights to which they believed
themselves entitled. This very emphasis aroused
the minds of " the multitude," (as it was generally
termed) to a knowledge that they too had rights
which had been denied them hitherto, — that by the
restrictions upon the franchise, upon representation,
3

34 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

and by other means, they had been deprived of par
ticipation in the government. It required many
years of agitation before they finally came into
full possession of their own, but the beginnings
were made now. The Congress saw plainly that
if it was to rely on the democracy to fight its bat
tles in the field, the democracy must be shown
certain favors in return. Only the first moves
had been made toward the creation of a con
tinental army, when the Congress pronounced as its
policy this reliance on the people for support. In
its most definite form it was embodied in the advice
given, in November and December, 1775, to the col
onies of New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Vir
ginia, respecting the creation of new forms of gov
ernment. In each instance the Congress recom
mends the calling of " a full and free representation
of the people,"1 to establish the form of government
by which they are to be controlled. This is far dif
ferent in character from the earlier advice given to
Massachusetts,2 when she was simply told to nullify
the act abrogating her charter, and to organize
government on the old familiar lines " until a gov
ernor, of his Majesty's appointment, will consent to
govern the colony according to its charter." The
Congress could take the more advanced attitude in

1 Journal of Congress, November 3, 5, December 4, 1775.

2 June 9, 1775, ibid.

THE CONGRESS FINDING ITSELF 35

the later instances because it had the experience of
nearly five months to aid it in outlining a policy, and
because it regarded itself as the chosen agency of
the people, with authority derived from them " ac
cording to the purest maxims of representation."1
Moreover, with each enlargement of the powers
of the Congress, the common aim of a firm union
was more nearly consummated. Every increase of
the continental army, every act enforcing the Asso
ciation or regulating trade, every issue of bills of
credit, every means toward getting into relations
with a foreign power, in short, every one of the
countless instances by which it extended its own
authority and made it more complex, by so much
increased the necessity that this should be done in
such manner as would be supported throughout the
colonies, and consequently strengthen the union.
The political acumen required was of a high order,
in that it was necessary not alone to conduct the
Congress so as not to get too far ahead of popu
lar opinion, but to keep a guiding hand on the
course of events in the colonies as well. This
was done through correspondence between the dele
gates and their constituents, by resolutions of the
Congress, and, when the occasion demanded, by
personal visits of the members of the Congress.2

1 Declaration of Congress, December 6, 1775, Journal.

2 Notably in the case of sending a committee to New Jersey
on December 4, 1775. See below, pp. 45-46.

36 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The union sentiment was greatly fostered by one
principle in the conduct of affairs which the Con
gress followed out with consistent purpose to the
end. This was never to perform an act of conse
quence, nor issue a document designed to influence
the popular mind, without stating the causes for it.
Statements were invariably so framed as to put the
acts of Great Britain always in the wrong, and to
make it appear plausible that the course pursued by
the Congress was rendered necessary by specified
instances of British aggression, coercion, or infringe
ment of what were believed to be undoubted rights,
and was the only one possible under the circum
stances. Naturally the British side gained nothing
by the manner in which it was stated by the Con
gress. Amid all the vacillation that characterized
the earliest period of the activity of the Congress,
that is, until the beginning of 1776 (often caused by
the very necessity of yielding a little here and a little
there, to unite the wishes of individuals and localities
in order that the larger movement might not be
stayed), this is one point of policy that was carried
through with absolute consistency. Consequently,
if we search deeply enough, the causal origin of
every important resolution or series of resolutions
affecting the continental concerns may be found in
some previous British action. By carrying out
this deep-laid design, confidence was inspired in the

THE CONGRESS FINDING ITSELF 3/

minds of the supporters of the Congress, and they
were made to believe in its ability and rectitude.

Inseparable from the growth of the authority of
the Congress and the resultant strengthening of the
union, was the advance toward independence. Be
fore November, 1775, though many acts had been
committed that assisted in making the separation
inevitable, the Congress can hardly be considered as
working consciously to bring about that end. There
was too great a want of uniformity of design in its
acts, too much of profession of loyalty to Great Brit
ain and denial of any planning for independence, side
by side with the passage of resolutions that appear
now as having no other possible ultimate conclusion.
But this was due to the large conservative element
in the Congress, which held the small radical minor
ity strongly in check and forced through concessions.
The period between May 10 and November I, 1775,
was one, therefore, which taxed the ingenuity of the
members of the Congress to the utmost. For they
had to steer a middle course between the desires
of the small, aggressive, minority body of radicals
on the one side, and those of the large number of
conservatives on the other. If they yielded to the
former they were in danger of dashing to pieces on
the rocks of civil war, if to the latter they might
be stranded on the shoals of indecision. There
is, therefore, at this time no evidence of a conscious

38 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

determination to achieve independence, though
many acts were adopted — notably those relating to
military affairs — which led inevitably in that direc
tion. The conservatives insisted on sending an
other petition, in spite of the failure of the first.
This was a wise move, though the full wisdom of it
was not seen even by many of its promoters and op
ponents. If the conservatives could, at the price
of agreeing to send another petition, be got to
acquiesce in all the other measures of the Con
gress, many of them warlike in the extreme and
casting reflection upon all their professions of
loyalty and allegiance to the crown, the cost was not
too great to pay. If the petition failed, as the rad
icals all believed it must, and was therefore use
less, it was good policy none the less; for it put
the Congress in position to say that it had left no
stone unturned to bring about a peaceful solution
of the controversy, and that no other course was
open except war, for every overture had been re
jected. With the rejection of the petition in
hand the Congress was far stronger before the
country than if none had been sent and no oppor
tunity for rejection given.

Having agreed to send the petition,1 whatever else
was done, a due and proper period had to be given
for answer to be made. During the four months

ajuly 8, 1775.

THE CONGRESS FINDING ITSELF 39

that elapsed before the reply was received, a waiting
policy had to be pursued, and the conservatives saw
to it that no act out of keeping with this policy was
committed. But this did not prevent the Congress
from fostering the union sentiment in every way
possible. The most important opportunity for doing
this arose out of the indecision of the colonies as
to the course to pursue respecting Lord North's
plan of conciliation and concession.1 Three col-
•onies2 had transmitted the plan to the Congress with
the request for directions as to their conduct re
specting it, while the remainder waited, before tak
ing any action, to hear what the Congress would
advise. The reply of the Congress, the last impor
tant act before taking a recess during the month of
September, was an unequivocal rejection, and,
though it contained no new thought, was a forcible
statement in denunciation of submission to parlia
mentary taxation and parliamentary legislation. The
latter point was now carried to its farthermost ex
treme, and by implication, England's right even
to control the commerce of the colonies upon the
terms stated by the first Congress, and repeated in
the address to the inhabitants of Great Britain,
agreed to on the same day as the petition to the

1 February 20-27, 1775- Lord North's motion is to be found
in Journal of Congress, July 31, 1775.

2 New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

4O THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

King, was renounced.1 No colony gave the resolu
tion further consideration so that this attempt to
break up the union had no other result than to
strengthen it.

The adjournment for the month of August served
the double purpose of enabling the members to re
turn among their constituents, and so keep in
touch with them, and of consuming time while wait
ing for the reply to the petition to arrive. When
they reconvened in September2 no answer had yet
come, and the policy, therefore, had still to be a
waiting one. The next six weeks are mainly de
voted to a consideration of the commerce and trade
of the colonies, and to military affairs, which still
have a defensive cast. The non-exportation part
of the Association went into effect on September 10.
Appeals to the Congress from various quarters
necessitated some interpretation of its provisions.8
No colony would act on its own responsibility. On
no other point, except in directing military affairs,
was there such general acquiescense in allowing the
Congress a full and free hand. There was need,
too, that the Congress should express its opinion of

^uly 8, 1775.

2 September 5, 1775.

8 See Journal of Congress, September 15, 27, 1775; John
Adams' Works, II, 451 ; Diary of Richard Smith, Am. Hist.
Rev., I, 290, 292.

THE CONGRESS FINDING ITSELF 4!

the Restraining Acts1 of March and April, since
four colonies2 were favored as against the rest, and
if they took advantage of their exception, they could
break up the union. Though no disposition to do so
was shown, this was a matter of continental concern
and a word from the Congress was awaited. Some
of the radicals would have had the ports opened
to trade with the world at large.3 But as such a
proposition meant virtual independence it found few
followers. The debate had about run its course
when the announcement was received, on the last
day of October, that not only had the petition been
given no consideration, but that on the very day
when the King was to have received it, he had is
sued a proclamation declaring the colonists in re
bellion. The first reply made by the Congress was
issued the next day. All exportation without the
permission or order of the Congress was to be
stopped until the first of the following March ; even
the export of rice, allowed by the provisions of the
Association to be shipped to Great Britain, was pro
hibited. Further, the four colonies exempted from
the provisions of the Restraining Acts were told not
to avail themselves of the benefits to be derived

1 The provisions of these acts are given in Chapter XI.

2 New York, Delaware, North Carolina, and Georgia.

3 John Adams' Works, II, 451-484.

42 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

therefrom and were thanked for not having pre
viously done so.1

Dating from November first, we can discern the
beginning of the conscious movement having inde
pendence as its aim. There was from that time
no further talk of petitioning, but there were many
expressions within the Congress and many more
without that no other course was left, than either
to work for independence, or to adopt the impossible
alternative of absolute submission and renunciation
of all that had been striven for during the past
fourteen years. But in proceeding along the road
toward independence as much caution and skill were
required as previously had been shown in steering
the middle course. It was necessary never to go
a step further than popular opinion could be made
to take, and on this account many concessions had
to be made to the large body of conservatives
within and without the Congress. In the latter,
though their numbers from now on began to de
crease, they still held the upper hand and continued
to for months to come.

The policy of always putting Great Britain in the
wrong and making the acts of the Congress appear
as still defensive or retaliatory had to be continued.
Though the Congress was unable to go forward with
the rapidity that would have pleased the radicals, no

1 Journal of Congress, November i, 1775.

THE CONGRESS FINDING ITSELF 43

backward step was taken. For the next month gave
the opportunities for stirring up the democracy
already adverted to,1 which were eagerly seized upon
as likely to aid the forward movement. The radicals
were for going much further.2 They would have
taken advantage of the application of New Hamp
shire, for advice respecting establishing her govern
ment, to recommend a general abolition of the old
forms. Fortunately for the success of the revolu
tionary movement they were not sufficiently strong
to make their opinions prevail, for the Congress as a
body saw that the ground was not yet prepared for
it to act except when appealed to directly. But it
was certainly due to the radicals, and probably as a
concession to them, that the advice given during the
months of November and December had so markedly
a democratic character.

Even so much of progress caused a reaction in
the colonies where the conservative spirit had the
upper hand. The numerous radical expressions,
favoring independence and the adoption of measures
leading thereto, which now (November to Decem
ber) began to appear in the public prints, caused the
conservatives who still believed there might be some
other way out, to attempt to frustrate the designs of
the radicals. The Pennsylvania conservatives, with

1 See pp. 33-35.

2 John Adams' Works, III, 19, 20.

44 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Dickinson at their head, were actively supporting
the moderate attitude, all the more because of the
sympathies with the democracy displayed by the
Congress. The salvation of the conservative party
in Pennsylvania depended upon keeping the people,
" the multitude," from getting control of the gov
ernment there. The old-line conservatives believed
in all sincerity that if the people were allowed to
come into power, nothing short of anarchy would be
the outcome. Dickinson and his followers, control
ling Pennsylvania politics, advocated united action
by the colonies, and even fighting for their rights, but
did not favor an aggressive policy. Great as was his
interest in the affairs of the continent, they were to
him secondary to the necessity for preserving the
management of Pennsylvania politics in the hands of
those who had always governed. So much of a de
sire for independence as was in existence in his
colony at this time was confined, with a few excep
tions, to the radicals, who had little share in political
affairs. If they should acquire control, they would
not only overturn the whole fabric of government,
but, by sending representatives of their own views
to the Congress, greatly strengthen the independence
party. This was to be prevented at all hazards, and
one means to this end was to issue new instructions
to Pennsylvania's delegates in the Congress which
would keep them from taking part in any of the

THE CONGRESS FINDING ITSELF 45

schemes of the radicals, especially such as would
change the existing form of the Pennsylvania gov
ernment.1 It was fully appreciated, too, that as
Pennsylvania led, the other middle colonies where
the conservatives were in control, would follow, so
that within two months after Pennsylvania's2 in
structions against independence were passed, similar
instructions were issued to their delegates by the
governing organizations of New Jersey, New York,
Delaware and Maryland. One element aiding in the
establishment of this attitude, was the hope of the
leaders in these colonies that despite the rejection of
the petition and the King's proclamation of rebellion,
some pressure might still be brought to bear on
Parliament to reverse its position. Though the like
lihood was not great that such a change of purpose
would prevail, the conservatives were for giving a
chance of embracing it to the new Parliament, that
was to assemble in October.

But the Congress, compelled to listen to instruc
tions against independence, would not sit idly by,
if a colony brought up again the idea of sending a

1 See Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania,
Chap. XII ; Reed's Life and Corr. of Joseph Reed, and Stille's
Dickinson.

2 Pennsylvania's instructions were issued on November 9 ;
New Jersey's, November 28 ; New York's on December 14,
1775, and Maryland's, January n, 1776, though the committee
to prepare the last was appointed on December 9, 1775.

46 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

petition to the King. This was no time for further
petitioning, and no such proposition had been made
in the Congress since the last had proved so barren
of results. Therefore, when New Jersey took up
the matter, there was serious business. By force of
circumstances it had been necessary to keep hands
off when New York sent her petition some months
back, and for her pains was rewarded by being ex
empted from the effects of the Restraining Acts.
But now the face of things had changed and a solid
front must be presented at all costs. A resolution
was passed expressing the view that it would be
" dangerous to the liberties and welfare of America,
if any colony should separately petition the King or
either house of parliament,"1 and a committee was
appointed to confer with New Jersey on the subject.
Care was taken to put Dickinson, the author of the
last petition of the Congress, at its head. His com
panions were Wythe and Jay, a radical and a con
servative, and their efforts were so successful as
to cause New Jersey to abandon all thought of send
ing a new petition. If New Jersey had not yielded
so promptly to this gentle persuasion, there is no
doubt that stronger measures, even to the employ
ment of force, would have been resorted to to over
throw its government.2

1 Journal of Congress, December 4, 1775.
a New Jersey Archives, ist Series, X, 677-678, 689-691;
Force, 4th, III, 1871-1874,

THE CONGRESS FINDING ITSELF 4?

Almost a month had passed since the Congress
had obtained official information of the failure of its
petition, and no statement had been issued in reply.
It was time, therefore, to speak out, the more so
as Lord Howe had also published a proclamation
prohibiting the people of Boston from leaving the
town without permission. The answer to these was
made on December 6, in a proclamation sent forth
in the name of " the delegates of the thirteen United
Colonies of North America," and the most defiant
of all the documents so far emanating from the Con
gress. All allegiance to Parliament is specifically
disavowed, even that to the King is brought into
question somewhat in the argument. And in reply
to that part of the King's proclamation announcing
the punishment to be meted out to those caught aid
ing and abetting the rebellion, the Congress boldly
announces that it will retaliate in kind and degree.
All this is done " in the name of the people of the
United Colonies, and by authority, according to the
purest maxims of representation." No convention
or committee is to intervene to aid in carrying out
this threat, Congress itself assumes the burden and
will bear it. This is the highest point of authority
which the Congress had yet reached, but, since in
the last resort military force would be invoked, it
could thus speak out without exciting the jealousy
of any colony.

48 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The last two months of the year 1775 saw many
acts committed by the Congress that occasioned an
increase of its power, and at the same time strength
ened the union and made for independence. The
beginnings were made in three points of sovereign
policy that ultimately had far reaching consequences.
These were the initial attempts at suppressing the
loyalist sympathizers ; the first steps toward inviting
foreign intervention; and those toward laying the
foundations of a continental navy.1 Along with
these is to be noticed a far stiffer tone in military
affairs, and less talk of acting only on the defensive,
the while actions were belying professions. All
these acts paved the way for the more vigorous pol
icy that was to be ushered in with the New Year.
After November there begins a gradual weakening
of the power of the conservatives, and we see devel
oping the conscious aim toward independence. The
end of the waiting policy that had characterized the
proceedings of the previous five months was at hand.
For two months at least the advance is not rapid,
but after that it gets full headway and goes forward
with a rush that nothing can stop. Every act that
can foster it is committed, and every opposition to
it is borne down, by gentle means if possible, by force
if necessary. By each step the authority of the

1 The issuance of bills of credit may also be regarded as
tending in this direction.

THE CONGRESS FINDING ITSELF 49

Congress is increased, the necessity for united action
made more urgent, and the sentiment for declaring
independence so aroused, that he who is not for it
is made to appear as an enemy of his country.

CHAPTER III

THE IDEA OF INDEPENDENCE TAKES ROOT, AND
THE CONGRESS PREVAILS

At the opening of the most notable year in Ameri
can history, though the radical advocates of an inde
pendence policy had made much progress in per
fecting the revolutionary organization, they had not
succeeded in winning to their support any consid
erable numbers in the Congress. But a scant third
of the thirty-five or forty men, controlling the
political destinies of the colonies, were as yet open
advocates of measures leading to a definitive break
with the home government. So strong was the
conservative spirit still prevailing that of them all
one colony alone, Virginia, could at a roll call muster
a majority of her delegates on the side of an avowal
of independence.1 The conservative majority, still
favored a waiting policy, with military movements
mainly of defensive character ; a course rendered the
more necessary by the failure of several colonies2
to keep delegations in Congress sufficiently large
to enable them to cast a vote. But the current be-

1 See pp. 84-85.

2 North Carolina and Georgia were not represented at this
time, nor South Carolina for a brief period a little later on.

50

THE IDEA OF INDEPENDENCE TAKES ROOT $1

gan to set more strongly in the direction of inde
pendence as each day passed. The public prints
throughout the colonies were beginning to contain,
more and more, arguments favoring it, while in
their private correspondence the leaders of thought,
who were also prolific contributors to the gazettes,
were more outspoken than they dared be in public.
At the same time, there is discernible a constant
increase in the power and authority of the Congress,
made necessary by the more offensive character
which the war gradually assumed, and the resultant
change in the nature of the struggle. The Con
gress came to be accepted generally as the directing
head of affairs, " the supreme superintending
power,"1 and each extension of jurisdiction was so
skilfully managed as to meet with welcome as the
logical outcome of events.

The time was ready for some event that would
give impetus to the thought that independence was
inevitable, and, by playing into the hands of the Con
gress, give the opportunity to direct affairs with the
purpose of achieving independence in mind, to be
carried through by the constant extension of its own
authority. To the good fortune of the revolutionary
movement, the uprising in America had led the
King to call Parliament to meet on October 26, 1775,
to consider the situation. In his brief speech on

1 Rhode Island Col. Records, VII, 448-449.

52 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

opening the session he left no doubt as to the force
of his determination. The colonies were in rebel
lion, he declared, and were conspiring, in spite of
their outspoken protests to the contrary, to establish
an independent government. To prevent this all
the resources of the British empire would be drawn
on if necessary, and as a first step the army and navy
had been increased. Also " most friendly offers of
foreign assistance " had been received, and his
Electoral troops had been sent to the garrisons
of Gibraltar and Port Mahon, in order to free the
British troops of these garrisons for service else
where. In closing he made reference to the inten
tion to give power to agents on the spot, to grant
pardons and to receive the submission of such
provinces and colonies as were disposed to return
to their allegiance.1 Though rumors were current
in America before the year 1775 was out, that a
speech of this nature had been delivered by the
King, the speech itself did not reach Boston until
the fourth of January, and Philadelphia until three
days later. On the eighth it was known by every
man in the Congress, as also that large reinforce
ments to the British army had arrived, and that
Norfolk had been destroyed by Lord Dunmore.
On the next day Paine's Common S'ense made its
appearance.

1 Force, 4th, VI, i.

THE IDEA OF INDEPENDENCE TAKES ROOT 53

Such a favorable concurrence of historical acci
dents was of inestimable value to the radical side.
The King's speech and the burning of Norfolk were
welcomed as grist for their mill, for which Common
Sense furnished the much needed propelling force.
No arguments from the leaders were so convincing,
as the sight of a substantial town in ashes, the news
that the British redcoats would overrun the land,
and that a British navy would invest it from the
sea. But even these, in view of the King's proposal
to send agents to America with power to act, might
have failed to stir up the dissatisfied elements, if
Common Sense had not made its appearance. It is
no longer necessary to enter into details respecting
its vast influence. All scholars are at one in giving
this unusual pamphlet credit for a large share in the
popularization of the newly arisen ideas of inde
pendence, and, in a measure, for shaping the whole
movement. But its influence would not have been
so great had it not been published at so opportune
a time.

And the thought therefore arises, is it likely that
such a pamphlet, which was a considerable time in
preparation, and with whose author many of the
men of the Congress were on terms of familiar rela
tion, was sent out on its message at this precise time
by grace of providential dispensation? We know
well that the men who were controlling the revolu-

54 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

tionary movement were far-seeing statesmen, many
of them, unaccustomed and unwilling to trust vital
affairs to the uncertain favors of fortune. They
were naturally keen to take advantage of every
means that might aid them, for their lives and for
tunes were staked with their reputations. So far,
on the part of the Congress in its official documents,
there had been a distinct disavowal of any purposed
striving for independence, though its acts were
hardly always in keeping with its avowals. The
conservatives, still in control, saw to it that no other
policy was pursued. But in the aggressive minority,
among whom Franklin was an active spirit, were
those who were working to influence public opinion
in the direction of independence, thereby aiming to
react on the Congress itself. For it was perfectly
understood that, though the Congress should be al
ways kept a little ahead of the trend of the popular
ideas, and outline the course of action, it must do
this in so subtle a manner as never to appear actu
ally to lead, merely to direct. Since the early part
of November the more radical spirits had decided
that independence was the goal to strive for. Par
ticularly with the view of breaking up the old con
servative party in Pennsylvania, it is altogether
probable that Franklin, with the connivance of
others of his way of thinking, made preparation to
further their side of the cause by having a pamphlet

THE IDEA OF INDEPENDENCE TAKES ROOT 55

written which could be used to counteract the effects
of the King's speech, or any measures that Parlia
ment might adopt, in the unlikely event that they
would be conciliatory, and to fan the flame of dis
content if they were of the character they proved
to be. The date of the meeting of Parliament was
well known in America, as also the fact that it took
about two months for information to reach from
the other side. Paine was accordingly employed,
in the autumn of 1775, to write a pamphlet which
might be issued at nearly the same time as the first
news of the proceedings in Parliament was made
known, and thereby aid those who were now the
avowed advocates of an independence policy, and
who still had the inertia of the conservatives to
overcome. The preparation of Common Sense was
conceived with deliberation, and for a definite object.
It would have appeared about this time had there
been no speech from the King. But the large meas
ure of its success, was due to the careful foresight
that caused its preparation for publication at the
psychological moment best calculated to give it cur
rency, and render it of most effect in shaping
opinion.1

Its appearance, too, was intimately associated
with the contest going on in Pennsylvania, in whose

1 For the details respecting the negotiations with Paine see
Conway's Life of Paine.

56 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

affairs the Congress found opportunity to take ever
greater and greater part. The radicals by reason of
the share they were having in raising troops, were
gaining largely in power though still unable to direct
affairs. Franklin had allied himself with them, and
was a powerful factor on their side. They were
now making such rapid strides as to be held in check
with ever increasing difficulty. Unquestionably,
because of his desire to influence opinion in Penn
sylvania in favor of the moderates, James Wilson,
on the very day that Common Sense appeared, made
his motion that the Congress issue an address in
reply to the King's speech, wherein denial should
be made that the colonies were aiming at independ
ence, and should " declare to their constituents and
the World their present intentions respecting an
Independency."1 His motion, though strongly sup
ported, was under the rules postponed, and another
day assigned for its consideration. When taken up
again on the twenty-fourth, it was passed, and a
conservative committee2 was selected to prepare the

1 Diary of Richard Smith, January 9, 1776, American Hist.
Rev., I, No. 2, 307. For a lucid account of the complex po
litical struggle in Pennsylvania, see Lincoln's The Revolu
tionary Movement in Pennsylvania.

2 The committee consisted of Dickinson, Wilson, Hooper,
Duane, and Alexander. The Address as reported is among the
Papers of the Continental Congress, and is entirely in Wil
son's handwriting. It has been printed in Am. Hist. Rev., I,
684-696.

THE IDEA OF INDEPENDENCE TAKES ROOT 57

address. And, as if wishing to make display of the
ultimate futility of such procedure, its opponents
were on the very same day sufficiently powerful to
have a committee appointed to consider the equally
important matter of the propriety of establishing a
war office. Three weeks passed before Wilson was
ready with his address, which Richard Smith de
scribes as " very long, badly written, and full against
Independency." x

But in these three weeks events had moved
rapidly, and the Congress was now in no mood to
listen to, much less adopt and issue such a document
as expressing its attitude. The military measures
made necessary by the fall of Quebec and the death
of Montgomery; the general quickening of mind
and act that they had brought about ; the resolutions
adopted to suppress Tories ; the rumors that foreign
troops were to be engaged by Great Britain for
service in America; the constantly recurring argu
ments in the gazettes favoring independence, all
combined to render it unlikely that the Congress
would now stop to issue any pronouncement on the
subject of independence, and least of all one putting
it in opposition to a course which it was tacitly
favoring on every possible occasion. But an ele
ment aiding in the defeat of Wilson's proposal that
must not be ignored, was the arrival of two new

1 Diary, February 13, 1776.

58 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

delegations from New England, and of Chase of
Maryland. Fresh from home they could tell of the
spirit animating the people, and in their journeying
to the Congress had the opportunity to get in touch
with public sentiment from Boston to Baltimore.
Sherman, Wolcott, and Huntington of Connecticut
arrived on January 16, Chase about February 3,
and John Adams and Gerry of Massachusetts on
February 9. The last two together with Samuel
Adams now formed a majority of the Massachusetts
delegation, and could therefore completely control
the vote of that colony. As the Connecticut dele
gates were not less ardently radical in their views
than those of Massachusetts, together they had great
weight in determining the course of events, both
by argument and by the example of their vote,
winning over a majority of the colonies. They
opposed all measures that obstructed independence,
and though as yet unable to dominate completely
the actions of the Congress, they of course stood in
the way of the adoption and issuance of Wilson's
proposed address. Able support was received, too,
from Franklin and Chase, who, though bound by
instructions against voting for independence, worked
to further every measure that might bring it about.
As the result of their combined activities and ex
ertions, the address, after its report to the Congress,
is not heard of again. If the radicals could not force

THE IDEA OF INDEPENDENCE TAKES ROOT 59

the Congress to advance, at least they could prevent
any backward step from being taken. And the
noticeable stiffening of the attitude of the Congress,
which dates from this period, is in large measure
due to the influence exerted by these two new dele
gations, whose persistency in turn brought about
a gradual accession of numbers to their ranks.
Both the Adamses were working strenously also,
without the doors of the Congress, to make converts
to their views. Samuel Adams bent his energies
upon arousing the democracy of Pennsylvania, and
began to contribute arguments favoring independ
ence to the Philadelphia newspapers. These were
much needed, particularly in Philadelphia, where in
spite of the presence of the Congress a strong con
servative element still held predominance.

A further insight into the increasing strength of
the more advanced party is obtained, from a view of
the incidents happening about the same time and
attending the oration delivered by the Reverend
Doctor William Smith on the occasion of the public
services, held by order of the Congress, in memory
of the death of General Montgomery. Smith's ora
tion, breathing throughout its length the spirit of
loyalty and allegiance to the King, was little to the
liking of the majority of the Congress who, while
not seeing their way clear to announcing independ
ence, listened with scant patience to a preaching

60 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

about their duty as loyal subjects of King George.
Accordingly, when a few days later William Living
ston moved that a vote of thanks be extended to
Doctor Smith with a request that he print his ora
tion, it was objected to because the " Dr. declared
the sentiments of the Congress to continue in a
Dependency on Great Britain which Doctrine the
Congress cannot now approve."1 To every one
approving Livingston's proposition two voices spoke
against it, and so strong was the opposition, that fore
seeing failure, he withdrew the motion. The main
value of this occurrence lies in the light it throws
upon the attitude of the Congress as a body toward
independence. The leading speakers and writers
were advocating the adoption of measures leading to
it at every opportunity, and so unimportant an epi
sode as the introduction of Livingston's motion, was
not allowed to pass before Chase, John Adams,
Wythe, Edward Rutledge, Wolcott, and Sherman
had given expression to their views against it. The
nature of the instructions of five colonies to their
delegates, however, acted as an estoppel upon their
assenting to any open avowal in favor of independ
ence. Until they were withdrawn or revised, these
delegations could not vote for any measure having
independence as its object. But this did not prevent
them as individuals from speaking and working

1 Diary of Richard Smith, February 21, 1776.

THE IDEA OF INDEPENDENCE TAKES ROOT 6 1

for it, so long as they halted short of casting the
vote of their colony contrary to instructions.

In the six or seven weeks that intervened between

v

the arrival of the King's speech and the two occa
sions on which the Congress uttered its opposition
to taking any action that would stand in the way of
ultimate independence, Common Sense was being
disseminated throughout the land, ably supported
by productions of lesser distinction, many taking
their cue from it. The people were growing fa
miliar gradually with the thought of an independ
ent government, and the Congress, marvelously in
touch with every phase of this development, kept
pace with it. So that by the end of February, the
question in the minds of many of those in the Con
gress who are still to be classed as conservatives,
was not one of the advisability or inadvisability of
independence, but of the means and measures by
which it should be brought about; of the prepara
tions that should be made in advance of its declara
tion, and above all of the readiness of the people for
it. For without the support of the democracy the
whole of the revolutionary organizations would
collapse. These, it is true, were being strengthened
with every increase in the continental army, but
even the lengths which the Congress could go in
adding to it, depended entirely upon the extent to
which the populace would follow in enlisting for

62 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

the armed struggle. The Congress had thus all the
while to feel its way and, by keeping in careful
touch with the people, to know how far it might
advance.

Yet, notwithstanding the many arguments that
had appeared favoring independence, and the almost
equally frequent advocacy of opening the ports of
the country to trade with the world, as a preliminary
step, many still had misgivings, and until these
were overcome any too radical action might com
pass the downfall of the whole movement. Com
bined with the natural disinclination from the over
turn of a constitutional authority that had always
been recognized in some form, and which, even the
most radical admitted, conferred mutual advantages
of no mean order, was that other deterring element,
of aversion at the thought of the cost at which inde
pendence of England might be procured. Would
not after all more be lost thereby than by continuing
the attempt at obtaining the desired reforms within
the empire ? What guarantees could be offered that
they would have more liberty under a new order
than under the old? Would they ever be able to
stand alone ? Was there not danger, if they brought
about a separation from England, that another
power, France, the traditional enemy, might step in
and take advantage of their weakness for her own
aggrandizement ? As has been well said, " so strong

THE IDEA OF INDEPENDENCE TAKES ROOT 63

was the love for the old country, so great was the
pride of being a part of the British dominion, and
entitled to the glories of her history, that many
shrank from an explicit recognition and declaration
of the fact that the colonies were indeed independent
States, no longer a part of their old country." 1
Thoughts such as these coursed through the minds
of many, giving them pause, and were as often the
considerations blocking hasty action in Virginia and
South Carolina, as in more conservative Pennsylva
nia and New York. Numbers were unwilling to
take the final leap until they had carefully gone over
the ground on which they would alight, and were
assured that it was not sown with pitfalls.

The vague mention in the King's speech, of his
intention to send to America agents with indefinite
power to accommodate the differences, and this too
in despite of the not uncertain character of the re
mainder of the speech, fostered markedly this re
luctant sentiment, both within and without the
Congress. There was a very wide diffusion of the
idea that all radical measures should halt until the
opportunity was given to learn something definite
about these " commissioners," as they were very
generally called.2 The discerning Joseph Reed
could not fail to wonder at the " strange reluctance

1 McCrady, Sotith Carolina in the Revolution, 175-176.

2 Stevens' Facsimiles, 890*.

64 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

in the minds of many to cut the knot." " Though
no man of understanding expects any good from the
commissioners, yet they are for waiting to hear their
proposals before they declare off." This was par
ticularly the case in Pennsylvania " and to the south
ward."1

That a bill embracing the clause authorizing the
appointment of such a commission was under con
sideration and likely to pass, was known in America
in the early part of February. Some of the very
persons active in perfecting the revolutionary or
ganizations were influenced by the possibilities for
reconciliation that might lie with these commission
ers. Wordy discussions respecting their aims and
their powers for good and evil, rilled the gazettes
during the months of March and April. One of the
principal arguments hurled against waiting to hear
the propositions that they might have to make, was
that they would be similar to Lord North's con
ciliatory motion of the year before, designed merely
to divide the colonies by playing off one against the
other. The correspondence of every man of im
portance contains some reference to these expected
agents of conciliation, and they are all in agreement
upon their effect in blocking the independence move
ment. Washington had no patience with the
thought of waiting for them and considered the idea

2 Reed's Reed, I, 163, March 3, 1776.

THE IDEA OF INDEPENDENCE TAKES ROOT 65

as insulting as Lord North's motion.1 Reed was
more in fear of them than of the British generals
and armies. He was fearful " if their propositions
are plausible, and behaviour artful," that they would
" divide us." " There is so much suspicion in Con
gress," he informed Washington, " and so much
party on this subject, that very little more fuel is
required to kindle the flame."2 John Adams of
course placed no store by them, " a messiah that will
never come," and he " laughed, . . . scolded, . . .
grieved and . . . rip'd " at the story of their com
ing, and stormed against what he termed " as arrant
an illusion as ever was hatched in the brain of an
enthusiast, a politician, or a maniac.'3 The views of
the more conservative members of the Congress
are well expressed in a letter of Thomas Stone,
of Maryland. " If the Commissioners do not arrive
shortly and conduct themselves with great candor
and uprightness," he wrote towards the end of April
to Jenifer, " to effect a reconciliation, a separation
will most undoubtedly take place." He wished " to
conduct affairs so that a just & honorable reconcilia
tion should take place, or that we should be pretty
unanimous in a resolution to fight it out for Inde
pendence. . . ."4

1 Reed's Reed, I, 170. 2 Ibid., I, 173.

3 Letters to his Wife, I, 98.

* Journal and Corr. Md. Council of Safety, 383.

5

66 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Anxiously on the lookout for any sign that might
indicate a show of a conciliatory spirit on the part
of Great Britain, all those not already committed to
independence pinned their hopes to these commis
sioners. But as days and weeks went by and their
arrival was delayed, and rumors about them still
remained indefinite and conflicting, even those most
sanguine in the expectation of the good they would
accomplish gradually lost confidence, and listened
to the persuasive oratory of those who placed no
trust in either the commissioners or their mission.
After the momentous month of March those who
still had faith in commissioners were inconsiderable
in numbers and devoid of influence. After the sixth
of May,1 until independence was already more than
two months old, no attention was again given to
them. And when they finally arrived and negotia
tions with them were begun, the unsatisfactory
powers with which they were clothed, and the new
spirit infused by the fact that independence had been
declared, rendered the negotiations abortive.

But no one influence was of such effect in silenc
ing those who still advocated further temporizing,
and in convincing them that longer delay on the
score of prospective commissioners was useless, as
the information which reached America early in
May, that Great Britain had actually engaged for-

1See Journal of Congress, May 6, 1776.

THE CONGRESS PREVAILS 6/

eign mercenaries, then on their way over sea, to fight
her battles in America.1 Up till now there had been
many vague rumors floating about respecting Eng
land's bid for Russians and Hessians and Hanove
rians, but nothing specific had been learned. The
thought that England would be forced to seek out
side aid was of early origin,2 and that application
had been made to Russia with no success was known
in America early in December. In January informa
tion more definite was obtained from the reference
to offers of foreign assistance in the King's
speech. And throughout the next three months
the pamphleteers let pass no opportunity to harp
upon this additional witness to England's cruel
intentions. When, therefore, on May io,3 unques
tioned evidence was put before the eyes of the
Congress that 12,000 Hessians were about to be
sent on their way, nay, were even then at sea, the
effect in vivifying the acts of the Congress was, in
its intensity, unequaled by any occurrence since the
arrival of the King's speech four months before.

In order to preserve a continuity of narrative, it
has been necessary to run a little ahead and pass

1 The story of the British negotiations for foreign assistance
has been often told ; the details can be found in Bancroft,
Chapters L and LVII.

2 See Force, 4th, III, 819, 944, 1592.

8 Journal of Congress. Thos. Cushing's letter conveying the
intelligence is to be found in Force, 4th, V, 1184.

68 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

by some affairs in which the constantly increasing
authority of the Congress is displayed. Of these
none is more important than the regulation of the
colonial commercial relations. From the day that
the Articles of Association went into effect, the
Congress was the recognized interpreter for the
continent in all affairs having to do with its foreign
commerce. The view was general that this affair
was the Congress's ; that its importance to the wel
fare of America was such that no colony could act
solely on its own responsibility; that all must con
duct themselves in this respect in accordance with
the rules laid down by the general body. Because
of this the power and jurisdiction of the Congress
were extended, and its influence came to be felt far
and wide. Where so many were merchants and
traders, when such numbers found the advance of
their interests, even their means of existence, de
pendent upon a word from the Congress, that body
found it could keep in close touch with the economic
life of the continent, by the control of its trade.
The influence, therefore, was reciprocal : the people,
acting through the assemblies, the conventions, the
committees of safety, looked to the Congress for
direction; the Congress in turn gave this in accord
ance with the best light it had. And by a judicious
permission granted now here, now there, to break
its own rules, it did much to relieve the severity of

THE CONGRESS PREVAILS 69

the non-intercourse agreement and to establish itself,
not as a mere autocratic dictator, but rather as the
mild ruler acting for the good of all, upon con
sultation with all, and after careful consideration
of all interests involved. When the day came finally
for declaring the ports open to trade with all parts
of the world,1 the Congress with one stroke abolished
one of the most potent means it had established for
maintaining dominance in continental affairs. By
that time there was no need to adopt measures de
signed merely to increase its power. It was strong
enough to do practically anything it willed, short of
declaring independence. And the energies of all
the aggressive members were henceforth bent upon
forcing through independence and creating a mili
tary organization that could support it when de
clared.

The ink was scarcely dry on the trade compromise
of November first2 when exceptions to its general
provisions were found to be necessary, and during
the next four months these increased with the pass
of every day. But however much these infractions
of its rules, made under the Congress's own au
thority, differed in character, they had all the same
end in view : to procure arms, ammunition, and other
much-needed warlike supplies.3 Throughout, the

1 April 6, 1776.

2 See pp. 41-42.

3 Journal of Congress, November 22, December n, 14, 1775.

7O THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

attitude of the Congress is far bolder than is as
sumed on other occasions, and a dictatorial tone is
adopted repeatedly. Though it left the enforcement
of its resolutions to the assemblies, conventions, and
committees of safety, the Congress fixed the terms
under which individuals might be permitted to
export; the amount and character of the bonds to
be entered and to whom to be given; the tonnage
of the cargoes, and the destination of the vessels ; the
time and place of sailing, and the period within
which, as evidence of good faith, return must be
made to some friendly American port. Unless these
stipulations were complied with in advance, no per
mits to trade were issued. And the Congress was
careful to state, in several cases, that the permission
was by reason of particular circumstances, and was
not to be " drawn into precedent," thus leaving open
the door for refusal when it deemed such action
wise.1

But the time was approaching (March i) when,
unless some other action was taken, the ports under
the terms of the Articles of Association would be
opened, and trade with Great Britain might be re
sumed. The first two months of the new year saw
consideration given to this knotty problem when
ever the other multifarious questions which so en-

1 Journal of Congress, December 15, 1775, January 27,
February 2, 1776.

THE CONGRESS PREVAILS /I

grossed the attention of the Congress allowed.
Earnest and serious discussion of the question be
gan in the middle of February. By that time the
public prints were teeming with all manner of argu
ments favoring and opposing independence. And
the reiterated advocacy of open ports and free
trade with all parts of the world, now in conjunc
tion with independence, again as a precedent to it,
did much to reassure those in Congress who favored
the most radical measures. It was well understood
that open ports and independence were inseparably
connected, but the conservatives were not yet ready
for this step. For such action meant the nullifica
tion by act of the Congress of the various trade laws
enacted by the Parliament of England.

Towards the end of February, it was seen that no
conclusion could be reached before the first of
March, and inasmuch as merchants in Philadelphia
and elsewhere were preparing to make the most of
their opportunities beginning with March first, re
course was had to another temporary expedient.
On the twenty-sixth of February it was resolved
that no vessel laden for Great Britain, Ireland, or
the West Indies should be permitted to sail without
further order of the Congress, and the committees
of inspection and observation were called on to see
to the enforcement of this resolution. The very
next day Robert Morris came into the Congress

72 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

bearing in his hand the " very long and cruel "* act
prohibiting trade and intercourse with America,
which had been signed by the King on December
22, 1775. This put a new face on affairs. The
first reply was issued on the fourth of March, when
the resolution of the twenty-sixth of February was
rescinded, and trade with Great Britain and Ireland
and the British West Indies was legalized, if en
gaged in for the purpose of procuring arms and
ammunition.

These were the days, it will be remembered, when
there was still much talk of commissioners and the
good that might flow from them. But when the
very act which made provision for their appointment
was found to contain clauses which authorized the
British officers and seamen to share in the prizes
which they captured, and to seize and force to serve
under the British flag all persons found on board
these ships, a resentful desire to retaliate in kind
took the place of the patient waiting upon the hoped-
for chance of reconciliation with Great Britain.
The next few weeks were big with events of the
greatest importance to America. The radicals were
growing more and more aggressive, and as each suc
cessive act was disclosed, showing the unconcilia-
tory spirit of Great Britain, the conservatives had
the ground more and more cut from under them.

1 Diary of Richard Smith, Am. Hist. Rev., I, 506.

THE CONGRESS PREVAILS 73

^

On the twenty-third of March the first real reply
to the Prohibitory Act was made in the resolutions
authorizing the equipment of privateers. Almost
immediately the details providing how these resolu
tions were to be carried into effect were passed, the
Congress in every particular demonstrating its au
thority over those who would take advantage of the
privileges now allowed. Within a few days there
was general exultation throughout the land over the
evacuation of Boston, and almost equal dejection
was occasioned by the news that foreign troops
were being hired by England for service in America.
The Congress, taking advantage of the general and
widely diffused enthusiasm aroused by Washing
ton's success, felt that the time had come when,
without losing prestige among the people, it could
adopt a measure that from the point of view of inde
pendence was the most important yet passed.
Therefore, on April 6, the ports of the colonies were
thrown open to trade to all parts of the world, ex
cept Great Britain. But in so doing the Congress
also reserved the right to enact any commercial
regulations that future necessity might require, re-
enacted those parts of the Association not incon
sistent with the new resolutions, made recommenda
tions to the colonies as to the manner of enforcing
these regulations, directed the seizure of all goods
imported from British dominions, and prohibited

74 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

absolutely the importation of slaves.1 Thus was
ended the contest that had been on for three months.

The extent of the power and authority which the
Congress had acquired, is demonstrated by the pass
ing and the general support accorded this act,
whereby virtually one of the most powerful means
for controlling general continental affairs was given
up. Its jurisdiction in respect of trade had till now
been maintained, and through it the Congress could
influence colonial action and keep in touch with the
condition of public thought throughout the country.
But the question henceforth was not one of acquir
ing additional powers, but of forcing through a
unanimous resolution of independence.

The while this discussion over the issuance of
some public announcement respecting trading with
foreign countries was under consideration, the Con
gress was secretly planning to carry on such trade
on its own account, intent upon procuring from
abroad, notably from France, all manner of warlike
supplies, though it veiled its intentions under the
guise of procuring articles suitable for the Indians.2

As early as the nineteenth of February a contract
had been entered into with Silas Deane to engage in
an enterprise of this nature, to carry out which two

1 Journal of Congress, April 6, 1776.

2 Deane Papers (N. Y. Hist. Soc.), I, 116; Journal of Con
gress, January 27, 1776.

THE CONGRESS PREVAILS 75

hundred thousand dollars was put at the disposal
of the committee having the matter in charge.
From them Deane received his instructions upon the
first of March. Within the next two days the Com
mittee of Secret Correspondence gave him credentials
to go to France " there to transact such Business,
commercial and political as we have committed to
his Care, in Behalf and by Authority of the Con
gress of the thirteen united Colonies," and provided
him with elaborate instructions how to enter into
negotiations with the French government.1

If we examine the personnel of the committee
having charge of the relations of the colonies with
foreign countries, the Committee of Secret Corre
spondence as it was called, we discover one of the
most interesting facts that a close study of any of
the affairs of this period discloses. Of the five
members composing the committee, three, Franklin,
Dickinson, and Morris, were from Pennsylvania.
Harrison was from Virginia, and Jay represented
New York. Strangely enough, no New England
member was added to the committee until many days
after independence had been declared. Moreover,
of this committee Franklin was the only openly
avowed radical. Harrison, to say the least, had
decided conservative proclivities, while Dickinson,
Morris, and Jay were the most forceful leaders on

1 Deane Papers, 117-119, 123 et seq.

76 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

the conservative side. They were the ardent op
ponents of every measure that appeared to have in
dependence for its object, and until the restrictions
which their respective colonies had placed upon their
actions respecting independence, were removed, their
voice and vote were always in opposition. And yet,
in secret, they were willing to make themselves
parties to a policy that had as its aim the nullification
of British laws respecting the colonies, a policy that
was more nearly allied to actual independence than
anything previously undertaken by act of the Con
gress, and to do this a month in advance of the time
when the Congress adopted the first of its most rad
ical resolutions. This discloses their real attitude,
therefore, not only to independence, but to the col
onies which they represented. Moreover it demon
strates how necessary it was, before independence
could be made an accomplished fact, to have the in
structions against independence repealed. Perfectly
willing to do secretly what they dared not do openly,
the actions of these men have the appearance of in
consistency. But they become quite comprehensible
when we bear in mind the local conditions which
colored all their public acts.

CHAPTER IV
THE CONGRESS AND THE DEMOCRACY

The Congress was the representative of the col
onies, in a way having some of the attributes of our
Senate. The members were elected, not directly
by the people, but by what then corresponded to the
legislatures of our day — the conventions or pro
vincial congresses or assemblies. They were, there
fore, under the control of these revolutionary polit
ical organizations and responsible to them. When,
therefore, an election to the Congress was accepted,
the delegate was of necessity bound by whatever in
structions it was thought meet and proper to give
him. Until these were withdrawn they must be
followed, no matter what individual opinions were
held. It was consequently impossible for the
delegations representing New York, Pennsylva
nia, Delaware, Maryland, or New Jersey, to cast
their votes in favor of independence until new
instructions were issued to them rescinding the
old.1 In fact it was with difficulty that they
could be persuaded to support the resolutions for
issuing letters of marque and reprisal2 and open-

1 For prior reference to these instructions see p. 45.

2 March 23, 1776, Journal of Congress.

77

78 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

ing the ports, for their radical character was well
appreciated. But for doing this they could plead
extenuation in the harsh terms of the Prohibitory
Act, and they took the chances that their action
would meet with the support of their constituents,
now flushed by the success at Boston, though the
delegates had many misgivings as to the nature of
the reception their decidedly conservative commu
nities would accord such radical measures.

During the next three months,1 the aggressive
radicals bent their energies toward compelling the
colonies to withdraw their anti-independence instruc
tions, and lost no opportunity to further their ends.
With the possible exception of New York, no colony
had been more persistent in maintaining the old
order than Pennsylvania, and into the political up
heaval going on in that colony the Congress was
about to project itself with vigor, knowing full
well that if Pennsylvania could be brought into line,
the cause was won, for she still controlled the policy
of the middle colonies.

John Jay, not less than John Dickinson and
Robert Morris, represented the old-line aristocrats
whose ascendancy in New York, as in Pennsylvania,
was being undermined by the rise to power of the
democracy. These men were not a whit less patriots,
in the sense current at that time, than Franklin or

1 April, May, and June.

THE CONGRESS AND THE DEMOCRACY 79

the Adamses or Jefferson. But independence meant
to the former the overthrow of the administrative
organizations with which they had always been
allied, and which saw to it that the democracy was
held in check. They had been among the leaders
in disseminating ideas of the rights of man and of
the equality of men, and in so doing were perfectly
consistent. These abstract theories, as they viewed
it, were to serve as a basis for stating the American \
attitude in the controversy with England. Little
thought had been given to their possible application
to conditions in the colonies, and to their destructive
effect upon conservative traditions. But when the
people at large had been fed for ten years and more
upon such a diet, and, moreover, were called upon to
enlist and fight for the rights which they had been
led to believe were theirs, what more natural than
that they should demand their full share when the
time came for distribution? Upon their shoulders,
in large measure, rested the burden of the war, and
they would dictate how it was to be carried.

Consequently, in an especial degree in the middle
colonies, but to no less an extent in South Carolina,1
political revolutions were taking place side by side
with the larger struggle, in which all were concerned

1 See the notable study of Dr. Wm. A. Schaper on Section
alism and Representation in S. C. in Rep. Am. Hist. Assn.,
i9po, Vol. I, especially pp. 338 et seq. and 354 et seq.

8O THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

alike. The democracy was fighting there not only
for the general cause, but for itself, and the peaceful
clashes between radicals and conservatives, though
little less frequent and determined, are not heard in
the din of the rattle of musketry and the roar of
artillery. But unless they be taken into account a
full appreciation of the motives underlying the
retarding influences on independence cannot be ob
tained. The contest for independence in its later
stages, that is just before July 4, 1776, in Pennsylva
nia, New Jersey, North and South Carolina, and to
almost an equal extent in New York, Delaware,
and Maryland, became virtually not less one be
tween the people and the aristocrats for control,
than one between the United Colonies and Great
Britain for the establishment of a separate govern
ment. In all of these contests the influence of the
Congress, whenever possible, was cast on the side
of the democracy. The early sympathy displayed
with it in November and December, in the resolu
tions advising New Hampshire, South Carolina, and
Virginia to establish governments by calling a " full
and free representation of the people," though not
going so far as a few extreme radicals desired,1
went too far for the conservatives. In the reaction

1John Adams would have had the Congress issue instruc
tions to all the colonies to form new governments. See pp.
34-35, 43, supra.

THE CONGRESS AND THE DEMOCRACY 8 1

that followed (in bringing about which Dickinson
was the prime mover) instructions were issued to
the delegations of five colonies preventing them
from assenting to any resolutions favoring independ
ence. These were designed as much to prevent the
overthrow of the existing governmental machinery
still in conservative control, as to bind the hand
of the Congress. For it was well understood that
if independence were declared, each colony would
of necessity have to devise a new form of govern
ment. In this process the conservatives feared that
the democracy might gain the upper hand, and over
turn the old established order, and the wisdom of
their caution was justified by subsequent events.

But the Congress, a revolutionary organization,
itself in large measure the creature of the demo
cratic revolutionary organizations, had no occasion
to stand in fear of the people. In fact the radicals
in the Congress saw clearly that dependence must in
the main be placed upon them. And as the con
servatives could control the votes of only five
colonies (the votes being always taken by colonies
and not by individuals), they could not hold the
radicals in check when there was a full representation
of the colonies in the Congress.1 Accordingly the

xThe Congress was always a fluctuating body, and in the
last months of 1775 and the first months of 1776, when affairs
at home were of extreme importance, members came and
went constantly, so that frequently a colony was not repre
sented.
6

82 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Congress took advantage of every occasion that
offered to stir up the democracy, and this phe
nomenon of a representative body taking more
radical action than a number of its constituent parts
would have had it, is one of the interesting develop
ments of the time. It serves also to show the com
plex nature of the controversy.

The measures the Congress resorted to in order to
accomplish its ends were various. Perhaps that of
most consequence was the increase of the continental
army, judiciously distributed throughout the colo
nies, now by request, again as the exigencies made
requisite. Through it the Congress made its own
existence a real entity, and supported the often weak
revolutionary organizations. Philadelphia was a
great distance from the seat of many of the colonial
activities, and news traveled with painful slowness.
The presence, therefore, of the army, the outward
demonstration of the majesty and power of the Con
gress, had an effect in overawing the opposition to it
that is not now easily discernible, though not less
potent on that account. When the Congress saw fit
to take measures to support the weak credit of its
issues of paper money,1 to promote the signing of
associations, or to suppress the activities of Tories,
the continental army was ready to hand to assist,
if the committees of safety were inclined to call

1 Journal of Congress, January n, 1776.

THE CONGRESS AND THE DEMOCRACY 83

upon it.1 When, by taking part in the Pennsyl
vania-Connecticut dispute at Wyoming, it could let
the dissatisfied elements of the western counties of
Pennsylvania know that their interests were being
guarded by it, the Congress did not hesitate to pro
ject itself into this controversy, even though it
thereby aroused the resentment of the Pennsylvania
Assembly. But the Congress, bent on establishing
itself with the people, cared little for this Assembly,
controlled as it was by the aristocrats who could be
moved only by force, and ignored its existence con
sistently from the day that the Pennsylvania Com
mittee of Safety came into power. When the com
mittee was sent to Canada in the hope that the people
of that country might be induced to join their forces
in the struggle, they were authorized to explain
the " method of collecting the sense of the People,
and conducting our Affairs regularly by Committees
of Observation and Inspection in the several Dis
tricts, and by Conventions and Committees of
Safety in the several Colonies." And they were
further to " press them to have a complete repre
sentation of the People assembled in Convention,
with all possible expedition, to deliberate concern-

1 Ibid., January 2, 3, 5, 30, February 5, 8, March 8, 9, 14.
In one instance this was done, however, without any reference
to any committee of safety, assembly, or convention. The
Tories of Queen's County, New York, were moved against by
direct action of the Congress by means of the continental army.

84 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

ing the establishment of a Form of Government,
and Union with the United Colonies."1 And, finally,
when the Congress was sufficiently strong to permit
privateering, it adopted one of its most popular
measures. For, though the risks were great, the
returns were so large as to interfere seriously with
enlistments in the army — the pomp, and circum
stance, and glory of war seemingly making weaker
appeal to the patriots of those days, than the for
tunes to be gained by the less poetic, but more re
munerative preying upon England's commerce.

The carrying through of the resolutions outlined
above was made possible only by the never-tiring
aggressiveness of the radical minority, who made
up for the slimness of their numbers by the stout
ness of their intellects. At the beginning of the year
1776 the outspoken advocates of independence then
in the Congress were George Wythe of Virginia,
Gadsen of South Carolina, McKean of Delaware,
Franklin of Pennsylvania, Ward of Rhode Island,
Deane of Connecticut, and Samuel Adams of Massa
chusetts. The accession of the new Connecticut
delegation, which arrived on January 16, followed
by Samuel Chase, John Adams, and Elbridge Gerry
shortly after, gave strength to their ranks, by
way of ability, far in excess of their numbers.
There were some losses as well, for Gadsen left

1 Journal of Congress, March 20, 1776, Bradford edition.

THE CONGRESS AND THE DEMOCRACY 8$

about the middle of January to take part in the
affairs of his own colony, and Ward died on March
25. But the loss of the latter was more than made
good by the arrival of Richard Henry Lee, in the
second week of March. Until the end of April
they had no important additions to their numbers.
Upon the shoulders of these few men rested the
burden of the fight for independence in the Con
gress, and that it was carried on with such skill and
with ultimate success, was due to the inexhaustible
resourcefulness of their sharp wits. Largely
through their exertions the Congress had established
itself. For the next two months (May and June)
they bent their energies to forcing their way through
to their ultimate goal — a unanimous declaration of
independence.

But with all their aggressiveness and alertness
and ability, in spite of the great encouragement they
were giving to the popular party in Philadelphia,
and the pressure they could bring to bear on indi
vidual members, they had not been able to make
any impression on the Pennsylvania Assembly as a
whole. The local fight, now of several months
duration, to have that body agree to a material in
crease in the representation of the western counties
and of the city of Philadelphia, and to an extension
of the suffrage qualifications, proved almost barren
of result, except to incense further the popular party.

86 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Yet the Assembly was so blind as not to see the ex
tent and force of this popular uprising ; and sitting
in the room above that in which the Congress held
its sessions, on the very day that the Congress was
opening the ports of the country, the Assembly was
obstinately voting, by a large majority, not to alter
the instructions to the delegates on the subject of
independence.1 But the Congress, grown some
what arbitrary by the rapid advances toward inde
pendence it saw making elsewhere, would not sit
idly by without taking some measure to show its
sympathy with the disappointed democracy of Penn
sylvania. To the much dissatisfied elements in the
western counties it had been responsive on a pre
vious occasion,2 as if to let the people there know
that, though the Assembly was against them, the
stronger arm of the Congress would be raised in
their behalf whenever expedient. The border war
fare between the Pennsylvania and the Connecticut
settlers at Wyoming still continued, and an oppor
tunity arose in the middle of April for the Congress
again to take a hand.3 It did this now with the
more readiness, because it could thereby make
known that the welfare of no part of the country
was being overlooked, and that the inhabitants of

1 See Lincoln, op. cit., Chap. XIII.

2 Journal of Congress, December 20, 1775.
8 Journal of Congress, April 15, 1776.

THE CONGRESS AND THE DEMOCRACY 8/

the western counties in their dispute with the Penn
sylvania Assembly would continue to find a sturdy
advocate before the Congress.

In the full flush of its new-found strength the
Congress went further afield and seeing, as it
thought, an opportunity to advance fkt inierests of
the independence party in Maryland, proceeded
to attempt to lay down the rule of conduct for that
colony. The conditions were in some respects not
dissimilar from those in Pennsylvania, and the pres
ence of a most amiable, respected^ and popular gov
ernor, Eden, still exercising some of his functions,
served to complicate matters. He iiad been able, in
great measure, to keep control of tie Convention and
Council of Safety, though the Baltimore Committee
had not proved so tractable. It was largely due to
his influence that Maryland had taken her stand
against independence, and though hid authority was
waning at this time (the middle of April) it was as
yet far from gone. When, therefore^ the Congress
had put before it, by the Baltimore 'Committee, a
batch of Eden's correspondence with the home au
thorities, it immediately responded by calling upon
the Maryland Council of Safety to seize and secure
the governor and have his papers relating " to the
American dispute, without delay conveyed safely to
Congress."1 But the Congress had reckoned with
out its host.

1 Journal of Congress, April 16, 1776.

88 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Without delay, it is true, the Council of Safety
took up the cause, but in a manner far different from
what had been anticipated. Its members considered
their dignity offended by the Congress acting at
once: upon the information provided by the Balti
more Committee, without first referring the matter
to the Council of Safety. They denounced the
Baltimore Committee, and especially its president,
for exercising an authority which went far beyond
the bounds to whiUi it was considered they should
have been limited-* and the echoes of the controversy
resounded in the, halls of the Maryland Convention
when it met a fe\/ weeks later.1 Instead of seizing
Governor Eden, tfciey considered his case for several
weeks, and finally advised him to depart in peace
with his possessions.2 When, therefore, the resolu
tion of the Congress on the subject of forming new
governments and putting an end to all authority
derived from* the crown,3 came before them, they
were still smarting under what they believed to be
the insult put upon them by the Congress. Despite
that they, had less than a week before absolved all
persons ^lom taking the usual oaths to the govern
ment, upon assuming office, they now not only passed

xMay 8, 1776, Proc. of Md. Conventions, Baltimore, 1836,
125.

2 May 24, 1776, Ibid., 150-152.

3 See pp. Qi-94-

THE CONGRESS AND THE DEMOCRACY 89

long resolutions expressing their opinion that the
necessity had not yet arisen for suppressing the
exercise of every kind of authority under the crown,
and in its place having all the powers of government
exercised under the authority of the people, but went
further, and specifically notified the delegates in
the Congress to follow the old instructions directing
them not to vote for independence, " in the same
manner as if the said instructions were particularly
repeated."1 In this instance the intrusion of the
Congress into Maryland's affairs had retarded in
stead of advanced the cause of independence, and
the effects of the friction engendered between the
Congress and the Convention, and between Mary
land's delegates and the President, Hancock, and
other delegates, did not wear off before six weeks
had passed away.

But a set-back of this nature did not daunt the
radicals, who were now finding popular support
throughout the colonies. The measures that the
Congress had so far adopted were looked upon
everywhere as warranted by the necessities of the
situation. From all sides information was coming

* »• V

in that the popularity of independence was growing
apace. The correspondence of the time, the
gazettes, the resolutions of local committees, all
were viewing with marked favor the idea that six

1 Proc. of Md. Conventions, May 21, 142.

9<D THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

months before had found scarcely an advocate.1
These gave courage to the radicals in the Congress,
and furnished the incentive to pursue bolder meas
ures still. The inertia of the conservative middle
colonies had to be overcome, and if they would not
of themselves withdraw the instructions against
independence, the Congress would give them the
occasion. This reasoning applied with particular
force to Pennsylvania, whose Assembly still stood
as a stone wall against all pressure brought to bear
on it, for as has been well said, " Pennsylvania was
the battle-ground of the movement at this time." 2
Some direct appeal must be made which if not re
plied to by the conservatives in a manner satis
factory to the independence party in Pennsylvania,
as elsewhere, would result in the overthrow of the
old order.

As if to provide the radicals with a lever with
which to raise out of their depths of doubt and hesi
tation the many still hoping for commissioners or
other means of reconciliation, came the definite
news, early in May,3 that great numbers of Han
overian and Hessian soldiers were being sent over.
The cry against resorting to the aid of foreign mer
cenaries, who could have no interest in the contest,

lSee Austin's Gerry, I, 179.

2 John Adams' Works, III, 45, note.

3 See p. 67.

THE CONGRESS AND THE DEMOCRACY gi

and would, therefore, be certain to carry on the
war with a cruelty not to be expected of those
speaking their own language and having much in
common with them, resounded through the land;
and while serving to give pause to many who halted
at the thought of the seeming impossibility of with
standing such an overwhelming force, aroused the
spirit of a far greater number to meet the oncoming
hosts with all the strength and determination within
them.

John Adams, always ready for some bold stroke,
now came forward and sought to force matters.
He would have had the colonies that had put
limitations upon the actions of their delegates, re
quested to repeal their instructions, giving as rea
son the present state of America and " the cruel
efforts of our enemies " which rendered it necessary
that a perfect union be formed to preserve and es
tablish our liberties.1 But largely because of the
feeling that prevailed in the minds of the more con
servative that this was going too far for the time,
and that the ultimate aim might be attained the
better in another way, this motion in the form finally
adopted was toned down considerably. It made
a recommendation to the assemblies and conven
tions, " where no government sufficient to the
exigencies of their affairs hath been hitherto estab-

1 Probably on May 6, 1776. See Works, II, 489.

92 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

lished, to adopt such government as shall in the
opinion of the representatives of the people best
conduce to the happiness and safety of their con
stituents in particular and America in general."1
And this was followed by the selection of a radical
committee to prepare a preamble intended to state
the reason for advising such action.

In the interval between their appointment and the
adoption of the preamble which they reported, two
important incidents occurred, which could not have
been without influence in shaping the course of the
Congress' action. On the day before the final vote
on the preamble was taken, Jefferson, fresh from his
labors in Virginia, took his seat in the Congress,
from which he had been absent for more than four
months ; and Ellery arrived from Rhode Island
bringing with him new instructions, but just issued to
her delegates by that colony, permitting them to vote
for independence if joined by others.2 Though Jef
ferson bore no new instructions, he was perfectly in
touch with affairs in his own colony, knew how
county upon county was demanding that the recently
called convention should renounce allegiance to Great
Britain, and was therefore ready to aid in every way
in furthering such views. The Rhode Island in-

1 Journal of Congress, May 10, 1776.

2 These instructions are in Journal of Congress, May 14,
1776.

THE CONGRESS AND THE DEMOCRACY 93

structions, though not mentioning independence (be
cause in the phrasing of the astute governor of that
colony, " dependency is a word of so equivocal a
meaning, and hath been used to such ill purposes,
and independency, with many honest and ignorant
people carrying the idea of eternal warfare ")/ were
so general in their character as to give the delega
tion full powers to do or vote as they wished. With
two such accessions to the ranks of the radicals in
the Congress the preamble was carried through with
a rush.

As usual, the occasion for giving the authority of
the Congress to the recommendation now made to
the colonies is sought in some British acts of aggres
sion or shortcoming. These are stated to be the
exclusion by the King, in conjunction with the
Lords and Commons, of the colonies from the pro
tection of his crown ; the failure to answer the peti
tion, and the use of the full force of the kingdom,
combined with foreign mercenaries, to accomplish
the subjugation of America. Under such circum
stances " it appears absolutely unreconcilable to rea
son and good conscience, for the people of these
colonies now to take the oaths and affirmations neces
sary for the support of any government under the
crown of Great Britain." Instead, every kind of
authority under the crown should be totally sup-

1 Staples, Rhode Island in the Continental Congress, 68.

94 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

pressed, and all the powers of government exerted
by authority of the people of the colonies " for the
preservation of internal peace virtue and good or
der, as well as for the defence of their lives, liberties
and properties, against the hostile invasions and
cruel depredations of their enemies."1

To stay the passage of this preamble, to them more
offensive even than the resolution for which it fur
nished the pretext, Duane of New York, and Wilson
of Pennsylvania uttered loud and earnest protest.
They were fully cognizant that the intent of its
clauses was to compass the overthrow of the totter
ing Pennsylvania Assembly, and bring pressure to
bear upon the conservative elements of New York
and the other hesitating colonies. This could be done
only by an appeal to the people, and the Congress
had not dared as yet to go so far in proclaiming
its reliance upon them. But it was foreseen that
an appeal of another sort must shortly be made to
them to come forth in large numbers to fight the
greater future battles for liberty, compared with
which all the clashes that had already occurred were
as preliminary skirmishes. And to ensure the success
of its extensive plans the Congress was more than
willing to give the democracy, whenever it might,
some show to procure the rights which it was
clamoring for in louder and ever louder degree.

1 Journal of Congress, May 15, 1776, Aitken edition, 1777.

THE CONGRESS AND THE DEMOCRACY 95

Having been instrumental in accomplishing so
much, John Adams could with good grace unbosom
himself to his wife to this effect : " Great Britain has
at last driven America to the last step, a complete
separation from her; a total absolute independence,
not only of her Parliament, but of her Crown, for
such is the amount of the resolve of the I5th, . . .
This is effected by extinguishing all authority under
the crown, Parliament, and nation, as the resolu
tion for instituting governments has done, to all in
tents and purposes."1 In those few words John
Adams touched upon the salient point of the
resolution — the renouncement of the jurisdiction of
the crown. Hitherto this had not been brought
seriously into question, in any of the public docu
ments of the Congress.2 And the form this now
took but foreshadowed the terms in which would be
couched the definite Declaration of Independence
itself.

The latter end of the month of May and the first
week of June had crowded into these few days
events, the bigness of which by far transcended any
thing that had gone before. The Congress was
approaching rapidly to the highest point of its au
thority. It had already assumed to give a com
mittee full power, in carrying out its investigations,

1 Letters to his Wife, I, 109-110.

2 See Chapter VII.

96 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

to send for persons and papers.1 This was an ex
tension of jurisdiction that would not until now have
been acquiesced in for a moment. The arrival on
the twentieth of May of Button Gwinnett and Ly-
man Hall from Georgia, bringing with them broad
instructions to agree to any of the acts of the Con
gress, was an important accession to the ranks of the
radicals, even though these two represented few
more than a handful of the revolutionists of Sa
vannah. Thus strengthened, the Congress could,
with the greater complacency, studiously ignore
Maryland's reactionary resolutions, which were read
in the Congress on the twenty-fourth.2 Within a
few days the consideration of plans for retrieving
the miscarriages and blunders in Canada, and carry
ing on the war with determined energy was entered
upon with enthusiasm. For this purpose Washing
ton and Gates were called to the councils of the Con
gress from New York, where they were awaiting
and preparing to meet the expected reinforcements
to the British arms.

Under these circumstances, the instructions laid
before the Congress by the North Carolina and Vir
ginia delegates on May 27, proved welcome read
ing. North Carolina's provincial Congress had
passed the resolution empowering her representa-

1 Journal of Congress, May 8, 1776.

2 See p. 89 supra.

THE CONGRESS AND THE DEMOCRACY 97

tives to join with the delegates from the other
colonies in declaring independence, on the twelfth
of the month preceding. For some reason, not
fully to be accounted for, its presentation had been
thus long delayed. It was probably not sent off
with promptness, and when received was held back
by Hewes who, unaided, had born the brunt of
guarding North Carolina's interests in Philadelphia,
for several months past. Before presenting it he
had thought well to wait a while in the hope that
another delegate might arrive to share with him
the heavy responsibility of taking so momentous a
step. But no such considerations weighed with the
Virginia delegation. Their instructions were more
explicit than any hitherto passed. They were not
merely to join with others in declaring independence
when the Congress saw fit to adopt such a measure,
but were to make the first move by presenting a
specific proposal to that end. Only the multiplicity
of affairs receiving consideration at this time, pre
vented the Congress from at once giving a hearing to
Virginia's proposition.

The Congress was now on the point of making a
call for greater numbers of troops than any hitherto
sent out. Some attempt must be made to retrieve
the miscarriages and disasters in Canada, and a
bold front must be put on to meet the serious situa
tion in New York.1 To do this without stating

1 Journal of Congress, June i, 3, 1776.
7

98 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

publicly the reasons, so that all might be made famil
iar with them would arouse criticism, might even
cause dissension. To avoid this possibility, it was
decided to have the call for troops accompanied by a
stirring address that would " impress the minds of
the people with the necessity of now stepping for
ward to save their country, their freedom and prop
erty."1 Moreover it was well understood that in
dependence was now a question, at most, of only a
few weeks, and once declared, the Congress must
be in a position to sustain it by force of arms if need
be. For none appreciated better than the members
of the Congress, the necessity of being prepared to
suppress with determination the dissenters from the
measures for which it stood sponsor, from the day
when it renounced all connection with Great Britain.
The time was at hand when all must declare either
for the Congress or against it — and those who fol
lowed the latter course must be ready to pay the
full cost of their tenacity of opinion.

1 Secret Journal of Congress, Domestic, May 29, 1776. The
address intended was never issued, as the Declaration of In
dependence more than took its place.

CHAPTER V
INDEPENDENCE IN THE MAKING

A brief survey of the status of the independence
sentiment throughout the colonies at the opening of
the month of June, as mirrored in the instructions
to the delegates in the Congress, discloses the fact
that but one colony, Virginia, had given unequi
vocal expression to its views. Excepting only that
colony, none had directed that a definite proposal
upon the subject of independence should be made;
the five middle colonies had not rescinded their reso
lutions against it, and the instructions of only one
other, North Carolina, mentioned the word. But
throughout New England, the resolutions of the
towns spoke as with one voice in favor of a declara
tion by the Congress. Massachusetts, carrying out
her policy, laid down nearly two years before, had
not officially come forward to demand what was the
overwhelming desire of her inhabitants. She had
made so many advances in the past, had seen so
many of her grievances taken up and made common
issue of, that she thought it well to let the great
renouncement take its origin elsewhere. She would
be content to show her mettle after the die was cast.

99

IOO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The middle colonies had not yet spoken; but they
were in a ferment of discussion, and the day for de
ciding the all-important question could not long be
put off. Of the southern colonies, the action of
South Carolina alone was doubtful. The instruc
tions to her delegates, issued by the revolutionary
organization, which had overthrown the old form of
government and substituted a new in its place,
were comprehensive. But scarcely half a dozen
of the men who were the leaders in the local revolu
tionary movement favored independence. The in
structions could not, therefore, accurately be con
strued as authorizing a vote for independence. At
most the delegates could use their best judgment as
to the right course to follow.1

Such was the situation when on June 7, in accord-
/ ance with the terms of Virginia's instructions, Rich
ard Henry Lee, speaking for his colleagues, intro-
Y duced the resolutions, written in his own hand and
reading : " Resolved, That these United Colonies
are, and of right ought to be, free and independent
States, that they are absolved from all allegiance
to the British Crown, and that all political connec-
tipn between them and the State of Great Britain
is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

" That it is expedient to take the most effectual
measures for forming foreign alliances.

1 McCrady, S. C. in the Revolution, Chapter VI.

INDEPENDENCE IN THE MAKING IOI

" That a plan of confederation be prepared and
transmitted to the respective Colonies for their con
sideration and approbation."1 That Virginia's dele
gation would propose the adoption of some such
statements, was foreseen ten days before when the
Congress had listened to the formal reading of the
resolves of the Virginia Convention. And if any
thing more were needed to strengthen the conviction
that it was useless to hope for a change of policy on
the part of Great Britain, and that Virginia's move
was, therefore, timely and appropriate, this was
furnished by the King's brief answer, just to hand,
delivered in reply to the address and petition of the
Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London on March
22. 2 But even with the action of Virginia's dele
gation fully expected, and with the determined
words of the King before them, there must have
been something at least approaching a shock in Inde
pendence Chamber when this " hobgobling of so

1 The original MS of these resolutions is among the Papers
of the Continental Congress recently transferred from the
Department of State to the Library of Congress. The sheet
on which they are written has had added to it, partly in the
hand of Benjamin Harrison and partly in that of Charles
Thomson and another not identified, the determination of
Congress thereupon, as afterwards entered in the journal.
It also bears an endorsement in Thomson's hand. A facsimile
is in Force, 4th, VI, facing 1700.

2 See Force, 4th, VI, 462-463.

IO2 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

frightful a mien "l actually stalked into their midst.
This may account for the unsatisfactory entry on
the Journal of Congress, which fails to inform us
who were the mover and seconder, though it duly
records that the resolutions obtained a second, and
from other sources we learn that it was John Adams
who thus spoke out.

For all that they had been long demanding action,
even the radicals entered upon the discussion of this
momentous subject not unmindful of the seriousness
of the consequences involved. They were aggres
sive and persistent still, had advocated a reckless
course in times past, and were eager that a con
clusion should be reached, but above all they per
ceived the necessity for unanimity, now more than
ever. They were entirely willing, therefore, that
consideration should be postponed for a day, the
members being enjoined to attend punctually at ten
o'clock the next morning. As if to foreshadow
the great part he was to play in fashioning the
document in which independence is proclaimed,
Jefferson, and he alone, made notes of the great
debates held on the eighth and tenth of June, and
on July i.2 The main burden of the opposition fell
upon the shoulders of Wilson, Robert R. Living
ston, Dickinson, and Edward Rutledge, all but the

1 John Adams.

z Works, Ford edition, I, 18-28.

INDEPENDENCE IN THE MAKING IC>3

last representing the middle colonies. They held
that, though friendly to the measure, with them it
was a question of its opportuneness ; there had
always been delay in taking any important step
until the voice of the people demanded it ; the mid
dle colonies were " not yet ripe for bidding adieu to
British connection, but they were fast ripening and
in a short time would join in the general voice of
America," and the dissensions created by the resolu
tion of May 15, demonstrated this; that some dele
gations had not the authority to consent to such a
declaration, and certainly the delegates of the other
colonies had no power to answer for them; that
as the assembly of Pennsylvania, and the New York
convention were then in session, and conventions
would meet in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey in a few days, and would probably take up
the question of their attitude toward independence,
they should wait until they could be heard from ;
that there was danger if such a declaration was
made now, the instructed delegates must retire, and
possibly their colonies might secede from the union.
Taking up the matter of foreign alliances, they
argued that it would be best to wait until they
learned from the agent sent to Paris as to the dis
position of the French court ; that by waiting, if the
ensuing campaign was successful, they could make
an alliance on better terms, and that they should

IO4 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

agree among themselves upon the terms on which
to form an alliance, before declaring to form one at
all events. It is probable, too, that some stress was
laid, at least by Dickinson, upon the desirability of
forming a confederation before declaring independ
ence, as this was a point on which he is reported
to have laid particular emphasis during the preced
ing months.1

Against these contentions " the Power of all New
England, Virginia and Georgia " was thrown,2
though the principal spokesmen were John Adams,
Wythe, and Lee until his departure for Virginia on
June 10. They held that the arguments of the
opposition were not against the proposition itself
but its timeliness ; that the question was not one of
announcing something new, but by a declaration of
independence of announcing a fact which already

1Stille's Dickinson. On July 21, 1775, Franklin brought
forward his plan of a confederation, which appears to have
been read in Congress but received no further consideration.
Secret Journal, Domestic, 283 et seq. A plan was considered
by the Congress, January 16, 1776 (Diary of Richard Smith),
but was opposed by Dickinson and Hooper among others.
This was probably a modification of Franklin's original plan,
which he had transmitted to various colonies for examination.
In all likelihood this was the plan published in the Penna.
Evening Post, for March 5, 1776, and it may have been pub
lished then in order to answer the objection that confedera
tion should precede independence.

2 Jefferson's Works, I, 19, note.

INDEPENDENCE IN THE MAKING IO5

existed; they had never acknowledged the domi
nance of the people or Parliament of England, and
the restraints which they had imposed on trade,
derived effect only from acquiescence in them ;
their allegiance to the King was now dissolved by
his assent to the late act of Parliament declaring
them out of his protection and by levying war upon
them; that James II had not formally declared the
English people out of his protection and " yet his
action proved it & the parliament declared it," and
this was their position. They argued that the
prohibitory instructions, particularly of Pennsyl
vania, were drawn a long time back, when condi
tions were different; that the people were waiting
for the Congress to lead the way, and were in favor
of the measure though some of their representatives
were not. Attacking the " proprietary powers "
(in which we hear the voice of John Adams) as
responsible for this backward attitude of Pennsyl
vania and Maryland, they held that the conduct of
some colonies from the beginning gave rise to the
suspicion that it was their policy to lag behind the
rest in order that " their particular prospect might
be better, even in the worst event," that the colonies
which had come forward in the beginning and
hazarded all must do so now, and " put all again
to their own hazard." As to secession, they had
no fears, and even if the dissatisfied colonies seceded

IO6 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

(and here again the sound of John Adams's voice is
unmistakable) " the history of the Dutch revolution
proved that a secession of some colonists would not
be so dangerous as some apprehended." Respect
ing foreign alliances, no nation of Europe would
treat with us or receive an ambassador from us
unless we were first independent, that they might
not even afterward, but we should never know with
out trying ; that the ensuing campaign might prove
unsuccessful, and that an alliance had better be pro
posed " while our affairs wear a hopeful aspect."

It becomes clear from an examination of these
debates, (which took place in committee of the whole
with Harrison of Virginia in the chair), even in the
fragmentary form in which they have come down
to us, that all energies had to be concentrated on
the middle colonies if they were to be won over to
acquiesce in the determination reached by the seven
other colonies, and that the opposing conventions and
assemblies must be informed of the attitude of the
majority of the Congress. A compromise involving
delay was, therefore, a welcome proposal. So that
when Edward Rutledge, on behalf of his colony,
moved on the tenth that the consideration of the
first resolution be postponed for three weeks, it was
passed with the proviso that in order that no time
might be lost in case the Congress finally agreed
thereto, a committee should be selected to prepare

INDEPENDENCE IN THE MAKING 1 07

a declaration which should serve as a preamble to
the resolution.1 On the next day Jefferson, John
Adams, Franklin, Sherman, and R. R. Livingston
were chosen as the committee to have charge of pre
paring this important document. And in the hope
of influencing Dickinson and Morris, who contended
for the making of foreign alliances and a confedera
tion in advance of declaring independence, commit
tees to prepare a plan of treaties to be proposed to
foreign powers, and to draft articles of confedera
tion, were selected on the twelfth. Significant of the
great awakening in the Congress that these debates
occasioned, as of the necessity for a more orderly
conduct of military affairs, which passing events dis
closed, is the institution on this same day of the
most important permanent organization within the
Congress, the board of war and ordnance — a pro
posal for the creation of which had laid on the desk
unacted upon for nearly two months.2

Turning now to what was happening in the mid
dle colonies, we discover everywhere discussion of
and action on the great question. The resolution
of the Congress of May 15 had proved, as was in
tended, of immediate effect in Philadelphia in spur
ring on the elements dissatisfied with the unchanged

1 Journal of Congress, June 10, 1776.

2 The Committee on establishing a War Office had reported
on April 18, Journal of Congress.

IO8 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

attitude of the Pennsylvania Assembly. On the
twentieth of that month a general gathering of the
inhabitants of the City and Liberties, to the num
ber, it is said, of 7,000, presided over by one of the
most disgruntled and influential of the radicals,
Col. Daniel Roberdeau, protested against the Assem
bly's competency to form a new government, and
resolved that a convention should be chosen by the
people for that purpose.1 These resolutions were
sent out to the committees of the counties of the
province, and June 18 was named as the day
on which a provincial conference should meet
in Philadelphia to determine upon the method of
electing members to a convention to establish the new
form of government, recommended by the Con
tinental Congress. The tottering Assembly in the
meantime was having difficulty in getting a quorum
together, though this was finally obtained on May
22. They did little more for the next few days
than listen to elaborate addresses presented by the
radical and conservative inhabitants respectively, the
one demanding that no action be taken upon the
resolution of the Congress of May 15, and the other
that the old instructions to the delegates against in
dependence be adhered to. On the fifth of June
they listened to the reading of Virginia's resolu
tions transmitted by the convention of that colony,

1 Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania, 255.

INDEPENDENCE IN THE MAKING I Op

and, by a large majority, decided to appoint a com
mittee, with Dickinson as chairman, to prepare new
instructions to the delegates in the Congress. These
were adopted on the eighth, but not signed by the
speaker until the day, June 14, on which the old
Assembly passed forever out of existence, by reason
of the impossibility of reconciling the conservative
spirit of its members with the revolutionary ideas
prevailing among large numbers of the people, who
had taken affairs into their own hands. The in
structions tried to effect a compromise when the
time for compromises was long past, and conse
quently displeased the conservatives who thought
they went too far, and were unsatisfactory to the
radicals, because they did not go far enough. While
specifically authorizing the delegates to enter into
a confederation and to make treaties with foreign
powers, they dodged the main issue, independence,
by merely bestowing the power to concur in adopt
ing such other measures as were judged necessary.
In such a crisis plain speaking was required, and no
resort to subterfuges would answer. Accordingly,
when the Conference of Committees came together
on the eighteenth of June, under the presidency of the
active Thomas McKean, a member of the Congress,
though having no power to instruct the delegates,
they unanimously expressed the willingness to con
cur in a vote of the Congress declaring the colonies

HO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

free and independent states.1 Thus ended the
struggle for authority to declare independence in
Pennsylvania, as a result of which the colony was
so rent asunder that it took many years to recover
from the effects.

We miss from this record the familiar name of
Franklin, who throughout the first six months had
been as much the leader of the radicals as Dickinson
of the moderates. He was not now holding aloof
from choice, but fallen a victim to the racking
twinges of the gout, was kept from " Congress &
Company " for nearly all of the first three weeks of
June. If the void left by his absence could have
been filled, Thomas McKean was at hand for this.
Not content with taking a leading part in fashion
ing Pennsylvania's affairs, he went through the
counties of Delaware and by his personal exertions
swung her into line for independence on June I4,2
the wording of the Philadelphia conference, with
which he had so much to do, being used. It must be
remembered, when we wonder how a Pennsylvanian
could have been permitted to interfere in Delaware,
that Pennsylvania men and measures were not then
so separated from Delaware's politics as now.

Some measure of the extent of the changes
wrought in New Jersey by the revolution, is revealed

1 Force, 4th, VI, 963.

2 Life and Correspondence of George Read, 165; Force, 4th,
VI, 884; Frothingham's Rise of the Republic, 523.

INDEPENDENCE IN THE MAKING III

by the fact that of the men who met in Provincial
Congress at Burlington on June 10, but six had
been members of the assembly of that colony which
had met for the last time in November of the prev
ious year. There as in Maryland, matters were
complicated by the presence of a popular governor,
William Franklin, who, though out of touch with
the Provincial Congress, still had the support of a
large body of the population. To deprive him of
further influence to delay agreement upon inde
pendence it was thought best to get him out of the
colony, but he and his party were so strong that the
Provincial Congress were not willing to undertake
his banishment without the authority and assistance
of the Continental Congress, as " the countenance
and approbation of the Continental Congress would
satisfy some persons who might otherwise be dis
posed to blame " them.1 The Congress, on the look
out for a chance to shape the course of events, es
pecially in a colony that had not yet rescinded its
old instructions against independence, responded im
mediately upon the receipt of this appeal. Direct
ing the examination of the governor, if as a result
it was decided that he should be confined, the
Congress stood ready to name the place, " they con
curring in the sentiment . . . that it would be

1 Letter of the New Jersey Congress to Continental Congress,
June 1 8, 1776, Force, 4th, VI, 1624.

112 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

improper to confine him in that colony." Before
another week went round, Governor Franklin was
ordered, by the Congress, to be sent to Connecticut.1
Four days after New Jersey's first appeal, the
Provincial Congress — having, one June 21, declared
itself in favor of forming a new government pur
suant to the recommendation of the Congress —
voted new instructions to the delegates in the Con
gress, by which they were authorized to join in de
claring independence, in making a confederation,
and in contracting foreign alliances. In all this
the hand of Jonathan D. Sergeant is visible. He,
like McKean, was also a member of the Congress
and knew well the temper of the majority of that
body, though he had not for some weeks been in
his place in Independence Chamber. His person
ality looms almost as large in the events that brought
about the adhesion of New Jersey to the new doc
trine, as McKean's in Pennsylvania and Delaware,
Jay's in New York, and Chase's in Maryland.

Chase returned from the mission he was sent on
to Canada too late by one day to take part in the de
bates held in the Congress. But this enforced silence
served to make his pen all the more active when he
learned how necessary it was for the cause of inde
pendence, to turn Maryland about. The Convention
of that colony had adjourned on May 25, in angry

1 Journal of Congress, June 19, 24, 1776.

INDEPENDENCE IN THE MAKING 113

mood at the Congress for its interference in her
affairs, and was not to reassemble until the follow
ing August. But the requisitions for troops, made
by the Congress, rendered it necessary for the Coun
cil of Safety to call the Convention to meet at An
napolis on June 21. That same day they instructed
their deputies in Philadelphia to ask for leave of
absence to attend the Convention, and at the same
time to make an agreement to postpone considera
tion of the questions of independence, foreign
alliances and confederation until their return.1 The
Congress, however, would not listen to any proposal
for deferring the vote, as it was public property
that this would take place on July I, and the country
was expectant.2 Meantime, Chase, as he put it,
had " not been idle." He had appealed in writing
to every county committee, and one after the other
they were directing their representatives in the Con
vention to vote for new instructions to the delegates
in the Congress. And in winning over the members
of the Convention to his way of thinking he received
able support from Charles Carroll, of Carrollton,
his companion on the mission to Canada. Just a
week after the Convention met, the fruit of their
toil was manifested in the unanimous resolve,
passed late at night, directing Maryland's delegates

1 Proc. Md. Conventions, 166.

2 John Adams' Works, IX, 413.

8

1 14 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

to join with the other colonies in voting in favor of
independence.1 Immediately after this decision was
reached, Chase wrote to John Adams, in triumph :
" I am this moment from the House to procure an
Express to follow the Post with an Unan : vote of
our Convention for Independence etc. etc. — see the
glorious effects of County Instructions — our people
have fire if not smothered."2 Without his oppor
tune exertions it is safe to say that Maryland would
have lagged behind many weeks longer.

Excepting only New York, each of the middle
colonies, spurred on by the persistent agitation of
some member of the Congress, before the month
was out, in one way or another had given to its
delegates the authority that was so much desired,
and which was all important, if independence was to
bQ proclaimed as the unanimous act of the colonies.
As for the remainder of the country there was
doubt about only one other colony, South Carolina.
For in response to the repeated demands of their
delegates, Connecticut and New Hampshire had
taken action on June 14 and 15 respectively3 And,
though the assemblies of Massachusetts and Rhode
Island4 had not instructed in precise terms, the

1 Proc. Md. Conventions, 176.

2 John Adams' Works, III, 56.
8 Force, 4th, VI, 868, 1030.

4 See p. 92 supra.

INDEPENDENCE IN THE MAKING 11$

voice of the people within their borders was calling
so loudly for the proclaiming of independence, that
none could have any doubt how the votes of their
representatives would be cast. All knew, also,
how stood Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia.
But a question in the minds of many as the fateful
day approached, was " How would South Carolina
and New York decide ? " No more definite word
had issued from the former than that spoken more
than three months before, when her delegates were
empowered to join with a majority of the other
colonies in executing such measures as would pro
mote the best interests of that colony in particular,
and America in general. None familiar with the
political situation in South Carolina at the time these
instructions were passed by her Provincial Congress
can, in fairness, construe them as an authorization
to vote for independence.1 But in the three months
interval the aggressive, efficient, local minority favor
ing independence had been as active in beating down
the opposition (or at least in gaining control of the
administrative machinery), as had been that other
minority, with success so marked, in the Continental
Congress. If her instructions had not been rend
ered more explicit, the conditions had certainly un
dergone a change, and it was for South Carolina's

1 See McCrady, South Carolina in the Revolution. Also
p. 100 supra.

Il6 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

delegates in the Congress to determine whether
these were so altered as to serve as warrant for
joining their vote to that of the majority.

New York, much divided in her counsels by local
political and religious dissensions of long standing,
as by the presence of a large body of Tory sym
pathizers, the effects of which had colored all her
acts in the past, had shown as yet no inclination to
make haste in reaching a decision. It would well
repay us to go into the history of the complex condi
tions in that colony, but we would thereby be car
ried too far afield.1 And, though there was anxious
waiting to hear what would be her attitude, it must
be remembered that she occupied not nearly so large
nor so critical a place as Pennsylvania, nor wielded
so much influence. Therefore, after it was known
how Pennsylvania would in all probability vote,
New York's position was not so important in the
councils of the Congress, so far as independence
was concerned, as it would have been had there
still been doubt of Pennsylvania. Reliance, too, was
placed upon the influence that the large increases
in the army soon to be gathered about New York,
would have in shaping opinion in favor of the

1 For the details of New York's complex political affairs
see Flick, Loyalism in New York, passim, Van Tyne's Loyal
ists in the Am. Rev., Chapter V, and for the earlier period,
Dr. Becker's valuable studies in Am. Hist. Rev. and Pol. Sci.
Quarterly.

INDEPENDENCE IN THE MAKING 1 1/

Congress's decrees. Suffice it, therefore, for our
purposes to record that on May 31 resolutions were
passed by her Provincial Congress respecting the
recommendation of the Congress of May 15. They
were to the effect that having doubts as to the
authority of the Provincial Congress to deal with so
important a subject as instituting a new form of
government, the people were to be given the oppor
tunity of determining this matter. The electors in
the several counties of the colony were recom
mended to hold a special election of deputies
(in the manner and form prescribed for the election
of the existing Congress) to a Congress that should
meet in New York on the second Monday in July.
The deputies thus elected were to be understood as
being thereby authorized to form a new government
if they deemed it wise, which was " to continue in
force until a future peace with Great Britain shall
render the same unnecessary."1 There was nothing
in this that could seriously offend the sensibilities
of those still conservatively inclined, for in spite of
the declaration that the people should determine the
question, the ultimate decision was left in the hands
of the Provincial Congress.

Immediately after the vote in the Continental
Congress on independence, on June 8, four of the
New York delegates then in Philadelphia, sent an

1 Force, 4th, VI, 1352.

Il8 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

express to their Provincial Congress telling them
that a vote on independence could be expected to
be had soon and asking for instructions. Three
days later the Provincial Congress passed resolu
tions recommending the electors and freeholders
to instruct the representatives, for whom they were
to vote at the ensuing election, respecting the atti
tude they should hold on the question of independ
ence. But at the same time, with striking incon
sistency, they voted not to publish these resolutions
until after the election had taken place.1 Desiring
to explain this paradoxical action to the delegates
at Philadelphia, the letter in which the information
was conveyed served only to confuse them the more.
They were told that the Provincial Congress was
unanimously of the opinion that the instructions
did not authorize them " to give the sense of this
colony on the question of declaring it to be, and
continue, an independent state," — a fact that was
so well understood by the delegates as not to need
affirmation by the unanimous opinion of the Pro
vincial Congress. Further, they said they did not
feel inclined to instruct on that point, as the
majority held they had no authority so to do;
and they were fearful to ask the opinion of the
people at that time, lest it might interfere with the
elections that were to determine the question of a

1 Force, 4th, VI, 1396.

INDEPENDENCE IN THE MAKING IIQ

new form of government.1 In plain words, they
wanted to insure their own reelection to power, did
not want to take any steps that might put this re
sult in jeopardy, nor add to the numerous complica
tions that already had arisen, and had, therefore,
decided to postpone action on independence until
the new convention met. The perplexed delegates
in Philadelphia were thus left suspended in mid-air.
And to add to their difficulties, they had doubts
how to vote after independence was declared,
when measures, the outcome of such action, were
up for consideration.2 In the meantime, the ap
proach of the British army to New York caused the
Provincial Congress to adjourn, on June 30, to meet
at White Plains on July 8, so that at this crucial
period, the delegates in Philadelphia were left with
out an authority to whom they might appeal for
directions, until the vote on independence had taken
place. On the tenth of July the deputies, just elected
under the terms of the resolution of May 31, met at
White Plains, resolved themselves into a convention
and listened to the reading of the Declaration of
Independence. The question of taking some stand
was thus forced upon them, and a committee with
Jay as chairman was selected to suggest suitable
action. Since the discovery of Tryon's plot against

1 Force, 4tli, VI, 814.

2 Ibid., 1212.

I2O THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Washington a considerable change of opinion had
come over enough of the members to form a ma
jority, and they saw that only radical measures
could counteract the influence of the Tories, and
the presence of the British army. Therefore,
on the afternoon of the same day they reported
resolutions, which were unanimously adopted, ap
proving the declaration of the Continental Con
gress and pledging themselves to support it; the
final act being played on July 15, when these resolu
tions were read before the Continental Congress,
thereby rendering it possible to give the engrossed
copy the title of " The unanimous Declaration of
the thirteen united States of America."

CHAPTER VI
ADOPTING AND SIGNING THE DECLARATION

While the colonies were thus preparing for the
final day, the committee, to whom had been entrusted
the difficult and exacting task of framing a declara
tion suitable to serve as introductory to and in justi
fication of the resolution of independence, had con
cluded its work. On Friday, the twenty-eighth
of June, the document in Jefferson's handwriting,
after being read before the Congress, was laid on
the table. Had Jefferson alone, without opportunity
to consult his associates, received the mandate of
the Congress to draw up such a paper, it would have
differed in no essential detail from that handed in.
For not only was it the product of his pen, but it
bears the stamp of his master mind in every phrase.
At the first meeting of the committee he had been re
quested to undertake the preparation of the docu
ment. Upon its completion he submitted it sepa
rately to Adams and Franklin, who made only a
few verbal alterations, and it was then reported to
the full committee. Sherman and Livingston ap
parently performed no service beyond lending their
approval.1 As chairman of the committee it was

ll have followed Jefferson's account (Works, I, 24-27) as
the only nearly contemporary version. It is but fair to add,
121

122 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Jefferson's right to draw up the report, and his col
leagues' request overcame any reluctance he may
have had to enter upon so important an undertak
ing.

The last two days of June happened to fall on
Saturday and Sunday. As the Congress had decided
a short time before, to hold no sessions on these days,
in order that the hard pressed committees might have
some leisure in which to consult upon the work given
over to them, consideration of the Declaration went
over until the next session, on July I. At nine
o'clock the Congress met, and, as if these events had
been predesigned to render the day more solemn
still, it heard from New Jersey's Convention that
Howe was at Sandy Hook, and that some fifty Brit
ish sail of the line had been sighted; and learned
from Washington of the unearthing of a serious con
spiracy instigated by the Mayor of New York and
Governor Tryon. With his accustomed reserve,
Washington intimated by no word that the danger
to himself was of any consequence, though we may
gather from other sources that nothing short of his
own assassination was aimed at. But some slight re
lief was obtained from reflecting upon such de-

however, that Adams in his autobiography, written many years
later, differs as to details. Naturally, as a result of the
greater clamor that by that time surrounded the Declaration,
he exaggerated the part he had played in its preparation. See
Works of John Adams, III, 512 et seq.

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION 123

pressing intelligence, when the welcome resolution
of Maryland's Convention was made known to all,
disclosing that another vote was sure to be added
to the majority favoring independence.1

After reading the order of the day, the considera
tion of the resolution upon independence was pro
ceeded with in committee of the whole, with Harri
son of Virginia in the chair. The Declaration was
referred to this committee also, but was not under
discussion until the following day, July 2, when the
resolution had been disposed of. As Hancock was
the permanent president of the Congress, so Harri
son may be regarded as its permanent chairman of
the committee of the whole. He had served in that
capacity for many months, the Congress by this
means aiming to restore to Virginia her weight of
prominence in the colonial balance, that had been
lost to Massachusetts by Hancock's election to the
presidency. Great debates were on once again, and
for the final time, and engrossed the attention of the
Congress for the entire day (July i). Relying as
we must, upon accounts written many years after
ward, when memories proved treacherous, it would
appear, nevertheless, that John Adams and John
Dickinson again stepped forth as principal cham
pions for and against the adoption of Lee's reso
lution declaring independence.

1 Journal of Congress, July i, 1776. See p. 113 supra.

124 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

John Adams tells us that he made his speech for
the benefit and at the desire of the newly arrived
New Jersey delegates, who had not been present on
the seventh and eighth of June, and had therefore
missed the earlier debates.1 But of the words he
then uttered no trace remains. In these circum
stances we can only state that he recapitulated argu
ments made " twenty times before," all of which, he
thought, was " an idle misspence of time, for noth
ing was said but what had been repeated and hack
neyed in that room before, a hundred times for six
months past."2 That he delivered a speech, how
ever, of unusual force and brilliancy is certain, and
that it had considerable influence upon the minds of
some who still were undecided how to act, is quite
beyond doubt.

For the precise contribution of Dickinson on this
important occasion, we are equally at a loss. But
if there is no record of his words, we have by way
of substitute the opinions he held at that time, set
down by his own hand six years and a half later,
which Bancroft has taken the liberty of dressing up
to give them the appearance of the speech he is
known to have delivered. Dickinson would have us
believe that his opposition was based on the inad-
visability of issuing a declaration of independence

1 Works, III, 58.

2 Ibid., IX, 415.

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION 125

at that time. " The right and authority of Congress
to make it, the justice of making it I acknowledged.
The policy of then making it I disputed." He would
have had the Congress await the result of some de
cisive battle, upon which, and not upon the Declara
tion, would depend procuring foreign aid; and he
believed that " the formation of our governments,
and an agreement upon the terms of our confedera
tion, ought to precede the assumption of our station
among sovereigns." To his mind the logical order
was, first, the creation of local governments, to be
followed by a confederation, and then independence.
The importance of a confederation rested on the
security it would give to the weaker colonies, against
the dangers of having disadvantageous terms im
posed on them by the stronger. These are the main
points on which he based his arguments, as contained
in the elaborate vindication of his career contributed,
appropriately enough, to Freeman's Journal in I783.1
It is altogether probable that others participated
in the discussion on this day, for the sitting was
protracted until late in the afternoon, but we have
no authentic statements of anything that was said.
The debate having run its course, and the vote being
taken, it was discovered that all New England, New
Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and

Vindication is to be found in Stille's Dickinson, Ap
pendix V.

126 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Georgia favored the resolution, and South Caro
lina and Pennsylvania voted against it. Delaware's
ballot went for naught, since McKean favored and
George Read opposed it, and New York's delegates
decided that the only course they could pursue was
to refrain from voting. Nine colonies thus regis-
/ tered themselves as willing to cast off the yoke, an
overwhelming majority to be sure, yet far from the
unanimity which had been hoped for and worked
for. As soon as Harrison, in his capacity of chair
man of the committee of the whole, reported the
decision to the Congress, Edward Rutledge of South
Carolina again exercised the privilege of having the
final determination postponed, which he had made
use of on June 10. The members, however, were
now so eager to conclude the consideration of this
momentous subject that delay was voted but for a
day.

The position of the South Carolina delegates
was extremely embarrassing. That a majority of
them, under Rutledge's guidance, favored inde
pendence, there can be no question. The issue now
before them, however, was not that of giving ex
pression to individual opinion, but of casting the
vote of the colony of South Carolina as the major
ity of her people would have desired. If the view
of the most recent historian of that state be correct,
there was not only a decided opposition to inde-

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION

pendence in that colony, but there was nothing in
the history of the relations between South Carolina
and the home government to create a sentiment in
its favor.1 On the other hand, the South Carolina
delegates in the Congress were confronted with the
probability that when the final vote was taken no
colony, unless it be their own, would be found vot
ing in the negative. They were naturally reluctant
to incur the responsibility of thus marking theirs as
the only colony to stand in the way of practical
unanimity. Therefore they took ready advantage
of the opportunity for another day's delay, which
the rules allowed. It would appear that Rutledge
was the most forward among them and the boldest,
that he bent the others to his will, and made them
willing to cast in their lot with the rest and brave
the consequences at home. Fortunately for them,
we are told, " a battle had been fought, a British
fleet had been repulsed, a British army held in check,
and a victory won in Charlestown harbor, before the
news of their action in Congress," was known
among their fellows. All this changed the condi
tion of parties and affairs, and gave welcome recep
tion to the intelligence of the part the delegates had
played in the drama at Philadelphia.2

During the day's interval, McKean of Delaware

1 McCrady, 5". C. in the Revolution, 1 72.

2 Ibid., 173-174.

128 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

had been active in his endeavor to get an additional
delegate from his colony to counterbalance George
Read's opposition. He tells us that he sent an ex
press-rider at his own expense for Caesar Rodney
to Dover. Riding the eighty miles at post-haste,
Rodney was met by McKean at the State House
door and brought into Congress in his boots, just
before the vote was taken.1 At least three of Penn
sylvania's delegates, Dickinson, Morris, and Wilson,
were in as sore perplexity as those of South Caro
lina. Bearing credentials from the Pennsylvania
Assembly, they had seen its authority diminish
gradually, until a quorum could no longer be ob
tained, and it had now passed out of existence. In
its stead a revolutionary organization, with which
they had no sympathy, had assumed control of Penn
sylvania's affairs. The Conference of Committees,
just organizing into a convention to prepare a form
of government, had given authority to vote for in
dependence, but to Wilson, Dickinson, and Morris,
this Conference had not itself the authority which
it was conferring upon others. On the other hand,
as far-seeing men, it was plain to them that the old
order was overturned, its vitality gone, with little
likelihood of its revival. Under these circum
stances, but one of them, Wilson, rose to the occa
sion. As Dickinson and Morris stayed away from
1 Buchanan's McKean Family.

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION I 2Q

the Congress when the vote was taken, Wilson
decided to go with the majority. His decision
was all-important, for without his vote Pennsylva
nia's delegation would have been equally divided
and her vote would have gone for naught. Dick
inson in spite of his services in the field did not for
many years recover the prestige which he lost at this
time. Robert Morris, notwithstanding that he was
in opposition to the popular desires, is the only mem
ber who was returned to the Congress. He was
thus given the opportunity to serve his state and his
country in so signal a manner in after years, as al
most to obliterate all memory of his antagonism to
independence.1

Thus, when the final vote was taken on the reso
lution on the morning of July 2, but three votes, so
far as we know, were cast against it — those of Will
ing and Humphreys of Pennsylvania, and Read's of
Delaware. But Wilson, Franklin, and Morton out
voted Willing and Humphreys, and McKean and
Rodney set Read's opposition at naught. All the
other colonies, excepting only New York, whose
delegates abstained from taking part, voted without
a dissenting voice for the resolution.

This out of the way, the Congress now for the
first time undertook to consider, in committee of the

1 See, for Morris's own statement of his views, his letter
to Joseph Reed, July 20, 1776, Reed's Reed, I, 201.

I3O THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

whole, Jefferson's Declaration which was to serve as
justification for the resolution just adopted. For
the remainder of that day and most of the next two,
beginning at the early hour of nine o'clock, this the
most picturesque and interesting of all of America's
state documents was under consideration, paragraph
by paragraph, what time the flying camp was ordered
out both to protect New Jersey and stand ready
to Washington's call, and rations of rum were being
voted to shipwrights on Lake Champlain. The prin
cipal changes resolved upon by reason of this
discussion are thus described by Jefferson : " The
pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England
worth making terms with, still haunted the minds of
many. For this reason those passages which con
veyed censures on the people of England were struck
out, lest they should give them offence. The clause,
too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of
Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South
Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to
restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the
contrary still wished to continue it. Our Northern
brethren also I believe felt a little tender under these
censures ; for though their people have very few
slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty consider
able carriers of them to others."1

The first of the paragraphs he had in mind when

1 Works, I, 28.

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION 13!

penning these words, reads : " and when occasions
have been given them, by the regular course of their
laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers
of our harmony, they have by their free election re
established them in power. At this very time too
they are permitting their chief magistrate to send
over not only soldiers of our common blood, but
Scotch and foreign mercenaries to invade and de
stroy us. These facts have given the last stab to
agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to re
nounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must
endeavor to forget our former love for them, and
hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies
in war, in peace friends. We might have been a free
and a great people together ; but a communication of
grandeur and of freedom it seems is below their
dignity. Be it so since they will have it. The road
to happiness and to glory is open to us too, we will
tread it apart from them. ..." These sentences
were intended to be inserted in the paragraph just
before that beginning " We, therefore, the Repre
sentatives," and were to follow the sentence, " They
too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of con
sanguinity." Their excision displays no pusillan
imity, as Jefferson would have it, but rather a better
appreciation of the necessity for the retention of
essentials and the discarding of dispensable details.

132 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The other paragraph had reference to the slave-
trade and was more denunciatory of the King than
any of the remainder. It read : " he has waged cruel
war against human nature itself, violating its most
sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a
distant people who never offended him, captivating
and carrying them into slavery in another hemi
sphere, or to incur miserable death in their trans
portation thither. This piratical warfare, the op
probrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of this
CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain determined to
keep open a market where MEN should be bought
and sold. He has prostituted his negative for sup
pressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or re
strain this execrable commerce. And that this as
semblage of horrors might want no fact of distin
guished die, he is now exciting those very people to
rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty
of which he has deprived them, by murdering the
people upon whom he also obtruded them : thus pay
ing off former crimes committed against the liberties
of one people, with crimes which he urges them to
commit against the lives of another." This is un
questionably one of the most forcible clauses that
issued from Jefferson's pen, and its rejection, for the
reasons which he ascribes, served to promote con
sistency of action on the part of the colonies, and
prevent the forcing of an issue which the country

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION 133

was not yet in a position to face. But its omission
was a serious blow to Jefferson, who all his days
was a firm advocate of the suppression of the slave
trade and of slavery.

The remaining changes that the Declaration under
went, were for the most part verbal and slight, and
all tended in the direction of greater precision and
terseness of expression. Thus concluded in com
mittee of the whole on the afternoon of the fourth,
it was reported to the Congress by Harrison, was
read again, and received the final sanction of the
Congress as the justification for the act that estab
lished a new nation among the powers of the world.

But1 three of the many state documents that issued
from the Continental Congress, during the nearly
fifteen years of its existence, were regarded as of
sufficient importance to have the signatures of the
members appended : the Articles of Association, the
Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of
Confederation. Together they form the funda
mental acts of union previous to the Constitution.
The first two were of the nature of pledges on the
part of the colonies to support one another in the

1Much information has been derived in the preparation of
the following pages, from Judge Mellen Chamberlain's essay
on the Authentication of the Declaration of Independence in
the volume, "John Adams, etc.", Boston, 1898. But the
results have been arrived at by independent researches as
well.

134 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

fight against the common enemy, and the last was
designed to be an instrument by which the federal
relations of the states were to be regulated. Re
specting the dates on which the Association and the
Confederation were signed no question has ever
been raised. It is to be regretted that the same
statement does not hold regarding the Declara
tion of Independence. Ever rising in pictur
esque importance as the most familiar, and per
haps the most significant of the acts of the
time, a wealth of tradition has grown up about
its signing and promulgation. Unfortunately much
of this is false and meaningless, notably that which
connects the so-called Liberty Bell with the events
of the day.1 For the diffusion of the popular mis
conception respecting the signing there is ample war
rant, in that the two principal sources of information
which should be authoritative, are misleading.

1 With the rehabilitation by which Independence Hall
profited from the Centennial year, went the elevation of the
bell to the position of unwarranted prominence which has
since that time become more marked still. There is no
shadow of authority even for associating the ringing of the
bell with the announcement of the agreement upon independ
ence. The mythical legend of the blue-eyed boy waiting out
side the door to give the signal to the man in the bell tower is
the product of the fertile imagination of one of Philadelphia's
early romancers, George Lippard, who first gave currency to
it in his appropriately called " Legends of the Revolution, — •
The 4th of July, 1776," 391 et seq.

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION 135

They are an incorrectly printed journal of the pro
ceedings of the Congress, and a carelessly composed
heading to the engrossed document.

To understand how the errors crept in and what
they signify, it is necessary to have before us the
paragraphs of the printed Journal. And it must also
be borne in mind that the proceedings of the Con
gress for the year 1776 were first printed, by order
of the Congress, by Robert Aitken, in the spring of
1777. After recording that the Declaration had
been agreed to in committee of the whole, and was
reported to the Congress, this sentence occurs in the
Journal for July 4 : " The declaration being read
was agreed to as follows." The declaration is then
printed in its proper place, but in larger type than
that used for the remainder of the entries. After its
conclusion and in the ordinary type, we find the sen
tence, " The foregoing declaration was by order of
Congress engrossed and signed by the following
members," followed by fifty-five names, headed by
Hancock's, the remainder being arranged in single
column,1 in geographical order beginning with New
Hampshire and ending with Georgia. This entry
has been the occasion of most of the confusion of
subsequent years. Though the statement is not made

1 This is the arrangement in the Aitken edition of the Jour
nal, Philadelphia, 1777. In some of the later editions the
signatures were in double columns.

136 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

that the members signed on the date under which
their names are entered, and it is a well-known fact
that more than a fourth of the members whose names
appear were not present on that day, some of them
not even being members at that time, none the less
the fact that the names appear with the proceedings
of July 4, has caused the popular error to creep in
which couples the signing and the adoption of the
document as events of the same date.

For a full elucidation of this matter, it is neces
sary to reproduce the subsequent entries bearing
upon the signing and official promulgation of the
document. On the same day (July 4) the printed
Journal informs us that a resolution was adopted
to send copies of the document to the several as
semblies, conventions, and committees or councils of
safety, to the commanding officers of the continental
troops; and to have it proclaimed in each of the
United States1 and at the head of the army. On
the i Qth, four days after it was made known to the
Congress that New York had given her tardy as
sent to the wishes of the remainder, it was deter
mined to have the Declaration " passed on the 4th,
. . . fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title
and style of 'The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America'; and that the

1 This is the first use of the phrase " United States " after
the Declaration.

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION

same, when engrossed, be signed by every member
of Congress." On the second of August the Jour
nal records that " The Declaration of Independence,
being engrossed, and compared at the table, was
signed by the members." These last two entries
appear in print only in the Secret Journal, first pub
lished in 1821, as if it was the intention thereby to
protect for a time the members who subscribed their
names to an act that would have rendered them
liable to trial for treason, if the revolution had been
suppressed by the British government. And, fur
ther, the first official reference to signing the De
claration, coming as it does two weeks after its
adoption, would seem to indicate, also, that the idea
of thus consummating the act was an afterthought.
On the 8th of January of the following year,
when the approach of the British to Philadel
phia had rendered it necessary to transfer tem
porarily the scene of activities to Baltimore, the
Congress agreed for the first time to have an au
thentic copy of the Declaration printed with the
names of the members who had subscribed it, and
to send one to each of the states with the re
quest " to have the same put upon record."1 The

1 This was the first issue of the Declaration giving the
names of the signers. It was printed at " Baltimore in Mary
land, by Mary Katharine Goddard." Copies of this broadside
are very rare, the only k~own copies being in the New York
Public Library (Lenox), the Boston Public Library, and
among the archives of the state of Massachusetts, cxlii, 23.

138 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

records as reproduced above are the only references
to the Declaration in the printed Journal subsequent
to July 4.

Turning now to the original manuscripts, we find
in the entry for July 4 a significant disagreement
with the printed Journal. In the first place there
are two manuscript Journals among the volumes of
the Continental Congress papers, now deposited in
the Library of Congress, covering the proceedings
of that day. One is known as the Rough Journal,
and the other as the Transcript. From the latter,
as indicated by a note in the handwriting of Charles
Thomson, the Journal was printed. But in neither
is to be found a copy of the Declaration with the
signatures of the members appended, nor any copy
of the signatures. In the Ivough Journal, we find
a blank space over which has been placed a printed
broadside of the Declaration, attached to the page by
red wafers. Following this, on the next page, we
read: "Ordered that the Declaration be authenti
cated -and printed. That the committee appointed to
prepare the Declaration superintend and correct the
press." This entry occurs in no other manuscript
nor in any printed Journal, and its omission is to be
explained only upon the supposition that in copying
the proceedings of the day for the printer these sen
tences were overlooked by the usually careful Sec
retary, Thomson. For, had there been any desire

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION 139

to withhold them from publication, they would have
appeared upon the pages of the Secret Journal, upon
which they are not to be found. In the other manu
script, the Transcript, the Declaration is copied out
in full in its proper place in Thomson's handwrit
ing. From this it would appear that a copy of the
manuscript of the Declaration was sent to Dunlap,
the printer, immediately after the adoption of the
resolution providing for its authentication and print
ing, and that performing his work with all possible
alacrity, he had copies struck off not later than the
day following that on which it was received, namely
on the 5th. The authentication of this broadside, as
required by vote of the Congress, was accomplished
by affixing the signatures of Hancock, President, and
Charles Thomson, Secretary, the words " by Order
and in Behalf of the Congress," being added.

With this evidence both from print and manu
script before us, we are now in position to enter
upon an examination of the question of the date of
the signing. And if we are to arrive at anything
approaching accuracy, all statements not strictly
contemporary with the actual event must be disre
garded. Nothing but additional confusion has re
sulted from placing reliance upon the recollections
of the participants, as embodied in letters written
more than forty years after the occurrences to which
they refer. The memories of the Fathers are not

I4O THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

to be trusted for details, after the lapse of so long
a period, any more than those of ordinary mortals.
In attempting to marshal the evidence of real weight
then, we are at once struck by the fact that there are
extremely few statements of value on which reliance
can be placed. And the further point is revealed,
that diligent search has not discovered any account
of the signing which we know took place on August
2, except the formal record in the Journal.

We have seen that the authority of prime im
portance, the original manuscript Journal, contains
no reference to any act of signing on July 4. The
only entries respecting such an act are those bear
ing date of July 19 and August 2, as given above.
Next in importance may be considered Jefferson's
entry in his autobiography (written certainly within
a very short time after the events which he makes
note of, and perhaps even as he states " whilst these
things were going on ") wherein he records that
after the Declaration had been agreed to it was
" signed by every member present except Mr. Dick
inson."1 This is the only direct statement to be
found that the signing took place on this day, and
as will be shown, it is manifestly incorrect. Suffice
it to state here that Robert Morris, in addition to
Dickinson, could not have signed on that day, as
he also absented himself in order that the vote of
Pennsylvania might be cast for independence.

1 Jefferson's Works, I, 28.

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION 14!

As against Jefferson's assertion we have three
contemporary references of signal importance.
Samuel Chase of Maryland signed on August 2.
On July 5, when still absent from Philadelphia for
the purpose of keeping Maryland in line, he wrote
from Annapolis to John Adams, asking, " How shall
I transmit to posterity that I gave my assent ? " To
this John Adams sent the well known reply on July
9, " As soon as an American Seal is prepared, I con
jecture the Declaration will be subscribed by all the
members, which will give you the opportunity you
wish for, of transmitting your name among the vo
taries of independence."1 Again, Elbridge Gerry,
who had left Philadelphia on account of ill-health,
twelve days after the Declaration was adopted, wrote
to John and Samuel Adams from Kingsbridge,
New York, on July 21, as follows: " Pray sub
scribe for me ye Declaration of Independency if
ye same is to be signed as proposed. I think we
ought to have ye privilege, when necessarily absent,
of voting and signing by proxy."2 These state
ments are to be interpreted in only one way, namely,
that there could have been no signing on July 4, ^
even on paper, as Jefferson contended many years
later when driven into a corner.3 No scrap or trace

JJ. Adams, Works, IX, 421, and note.

2 MS. Letter in Lenox 'Library, N. Y., Samuel Adams
Papers.

3 Works, I, 38.

142 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

of such a document has ever been discovered, nor
any reference to it except this one of Jefferson's.
As all the other documents of importance to which
signatures are attached are in existence, having been
carefully preserved by Secretary Thomson, he would
certainly not have allowed an original of such value
to have been destroyed. Taken in connection with
Chase's query and John Adams's reply, the words
of Gerry " to be signed as proposed," and " signing
by proxy " practically preclude the possibility of a
signing on July 4.

Turning now to a consideration of individual del
egates who were present and might have signed on
July 4, we are confronted by the fact that had a
signing then taken place, the list would have been
strikingly different from that with which we are
familiar. New Hampshire's interests were then
looked after by Josiah Bartlett and William Whip-
pie. Those of Massachusetts by John Hancock, the
two Adamses, Robert Treat Paine and Elbridge
Gerry. Stephen Hopkins and William Ellery rep
resented Rhode Island, while Roger Sherman and
Samuel Huntington served Connecticut. The dele
gates from New York in Congress on that day were
William Floyd, Francis Lewis, George Clinton,
Henry Wisner, John Alsop, Robert R. Livingston,
Philip Livingston, and possibly, Lewis Morris.
Those from New Jersey were Richard Stockton,

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION 143

John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, Abraham
Clark, and probably John Hart. Disturbed Penn
sylvania had to put her reliance on James Wilson,
Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, Thomas Willing
and Charles Humphreys ; and little Delaware upon
Caesar Rodney, George Read, and Thomas McKean.
Maryland had in Congress William Paca, Thomas
Stone, and John Rogers; Virginia, Thomas Jeffer
son, Benjamin Harrison, Carter Braxton, and prob
ably also Thomas Nelson, Jr., and Francis Light-
foot Lee; North Carolina, Joseph Hewes and John
Penn; South Carolina, Edward Rutledge, Thomas
Hey ward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., and Arthur Mid-
dleton; and finally, Georgia's delegation was made
up of Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, and George
Walton. It has been possible to determine definitely
that of these forty-nine men all but forty-five were
in Philadelphia on July 4. As to the remaining
four, though no evidence has been discovered to
show that they were absent, no positive statement has
been found indicating their presence. These were
the men in Congress on July 4, who voted for the
Declaration, and whose names would have been af
fixed to the paper if it had been signed on that day.
Comparing them with the list of those who signed
on or after August 2, marked discrepancies appear.
In the first place, as has already been stated, New
York's entire delegation, for lack of instructions,

144 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

even abstained from voting upon the question of in
dependence, and assuredly would not have signed a
document for which they had not voted ; and George
Clinton, John Alsop, R. R. Livingston, and Henry
Wisner, who were in Philadelphia on July 4, but not
on August 2, never affixed their signatures, though
Livingston might have done so, as he attended the
Congress later on for several terms. Secondly, on
July 20, Pennsylvania's entire membership was re
arranged, and only four of those who had repre
sented her previous to that time, Franklin, Morris,
Morton, and Wilson, were re-elected. Similar
changes occurred in many of the other delegations.
Passing over for the moment the names of those who
were not in the Congress on August 2, when the gen
eral signing took place, we are enabled to determine
that some of those whose signatures are affixed to
the Declaration, could not have signed on July 4, by
showing that either they were then not members of
the Congress, or, if members, were absent from their
posts. Thus William Williams, whose name appears
among Connecticut's signers, did not reach Philadel
phia until towards the end of July, having been
directed to repair to that city on the eleventh, by the
Council of Safety of his state.1 Of Pennsylvania's
signers, Rush, Clymer, Smith, Taylor, and Ross were

1Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., 2d Series, III, 375; Force, sth, I,
244.

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION 145

not members until July 20. l Chase and Charles
Carroll, of Carrollton, were in attendance upon the
Maryland Convention at Annapolis, and were being
re-elected delegates on the very day when some sup
pose them to have been in Philadelphia, signing the
Declaration.2 Similarly George Wythe, on that day,
was chairman of the committee of the whole of the
Virginia Convention,3 and with him was Richard
Henry Lee, who because of sickness in his family
had left Philadelphia on June 13.* Again, on July 8
Hewes of North Carolina asks solicitously about the
welfare of Hooper, whom he had expected in Phila
delphia long before.5

Attempting now to determine the names of some
of those who were present on the day officially ap
pointed for signing the engrossed document (August
2), we reach the conclusion that a far greater num
ber than has generally been supposed were not in
Philadelphia on that day either. Attention has been
repeatedly drawn to the absence of Matthew Thorn
ton and Thomas McKean. Thornton was not elected
a member until September 2, and did not take his
seat in Congress until the fourth of the following

1 Journal of Congress.

2 Journal of Congress, July 18.

3 Force, 4th, VI, 1608.
*Ibid., 834.

'Ibid., 5th, I, 117.

10

146 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

November.'1 He is differentiated from all the other
signers, in that he is the only one who took no part
in the discussion and vote on independence, and
did not arrive in Philadelphia until more than three
months after the general signing had taken place.
His signing is to be explained only by an unusually
liberal interpretation of the resolution of July 19,
which provided that after engrossment the document
should be signed by every member of the Congress.
But this resolution could not have intended that all
members subsequently elected should sign, or else a
series of extra sheets would have had to be provided
for the purpose. Colonel McKean was for a long
period absent from the Congress with his regiment,
and he is himself authority for the statement that
he signed some time in 178 1.2 And the first pub
lished list of signers, in 1777, omits his name.

But little notice has, however, been taken of no
less significant absences than these. Oliver Wolcott,
broken in health, did not remain in Philadelphia for
the final decision on independence. He knew how
his colleagues would cast the vote of their colony,
and that his continued attendance was not therefore
requisite, so he left about the end of June, and could
not have been back in Philadelphia again before the

1 Journal of Congress.

2 Buchanan's McKean Family.

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION 147

end of September.1 In the meantime William Wil
liams, his substitute, had signed, and there was in
reality no occasion for Wolcott to append his sig
nature. But having taken part in the early agita
tion and debates he was allowed to sign under the
general rule.

Elbridge Gerry, too, so important a factor in the
early days of the discussion about asserting inde
pendence, who had left Philadelphia for rest and re
cuperation on July i6,2 did not return until Septem
ber 3,3 a month after he is supposed to have signed.
On August 24, he was at Hartford, Connecticut, and
in a letter to General Gates writes that he is on his
way to Philadelphia, " from which I have been ab
sent for about a month for health."4 The two fa
mous Virginians, George WTythe and Richard Henry
Lee, we have seen, were in Virginia on July 4. They
remained there for a considerable period after that
date, and were also absent from Philadelphia on
August 2. On July 20, Jefferson mentions in a
letter that he intends to set out on his return home
not later than August n, to visit his wife who is ex
tremely ill, and adds that he hopes to see Lee and

1 He was in New York on July i and at his home at Litch-
field on July 15. Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., 2d Series, III, 374,
and Force, sth, I, 970.

z Force, 5th, I, 348.

3 John Adams, Letters to His Wife, I, 161.

4 Force, sth, I, 1146.

148 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Wythe in Philadelphia before he departs. On the
fifth of August he deplores the fact that Lee is un
able to attend until the twentieth, as it prevents his
visiting Mrs. Jefferson.1 Examining the Journal, we
find that Lee's name first reappears there on August
27, and Wythe's not until nearly a month later. Lee
after the earlier date and Wythe after September 23
are repeatedly selected to serve on important com
mittees. Had they been present before, it is entirely
probable that they would have been chosen for
similar service, as their counsel was much sought in
those days, when attendance on the Congress was
slim. Lee, therefore, must have signed some time
after the end of August, and Wythe probably a
month later, though their signatures lead Virginia's
column on the document. It is altogether likely, too,
that Pennsylvania's large delegation did not all affix
their signatures on the same day, as it was unusual
for so many delegates from one state to be in attend
ance at one time. As they came and went at inter
vals, they probably signed whenever, after the second
of August, they, happened to be in attendance on the
Congress.

The engrossed document is itself largely respon
sible for the erroneous views which have been held
respecting the date of the signing. Being headed by
the legend, " In Congress, July 4, 1776," and ending

1 Works, II, 72, 74-

^ ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION 149

with the fifty-six signatures, the natural inference to
be made, until better information was obtainable, was
that this official document was signed on that day.
It is further misinforming, not only as regards the
date of signing, but in its title, " The unanimous
Declaration of the thirteen united States," under
the date July 4. For on that day, as has been shown,
New York's delegates had no authority to vote, so
that unanimity was procured by their silence, but
twelve colonies, therefore, taking part in the final
ballot. And again, seven of the names that are
affixed are those of men who were not members of
the Congress on July 4 — Thornton, Williams, Rush,
Clymer, Smith, Taylor and Ross; while exactly the
same number were in the Congress on that date
but never signed at any time — Clinton, Alsop, R. R.
Livingston, Wisner, Willing, Humphreys and
Rogers.

With all these data before us the inference is allow
able that to but few men did the actual act of signing
assume the large importance that it has since at
tained. The unanimous adoption of the Declaration
was the important event, the signing a mere final
touch, an after-thought. But two men, Chase and
Gerry have recorded any anxiety respecting per
mission to sign. The others signed in accordance
with the resolution passed on July 19, as a matter of
course, and all except McKean, had signed when

I$O THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ^

the copies of the Declaration, with the signatures of
the members, were printed and distributed in ac
cordance with the resolution of January 18, 1777.

Finally, a word may be added respecting the loca
tion of the signatures on the engrossed document.
They are arranged in six columns in geographical
order. Beginning at the left hand, the generous
space of an entire column is given to Georgia — a
treatment quite out of keeping with the extent of
her efforts to support and advance independence at
this time. In the next are those of North and
South Carolina, followed by those of Maryland and
Virginia, Pennsylvania and Delaware, New York
and New Jersey. The representatives of these
states having all signed, but one column more was
left for all of New England, and the thirteen signa
tures from that region are crowded into the remain
ing space. When Thornton signed, there was no
place for him to write his name with the New
Hampshire delegation, so he was compelled to put
it at the very end of the document, below the repre
sentatives of Connecticut. Nor was there room to
allow for the grouping, with a space between each
state, as is the case in all the other columns, except
where great Pennsylvania's overwhelming numbers
invade little Delaware's small allotment of territory.

If, as has been shown, there could have been no
signing on July 4, this does not militate against

ADOPTING AND SIGNING DECLARATION 15 1

the fact that the men who signed, and their succes
sors in the Congress, had a full appreciation of the
importance of the day. Beginning with 1777, each
succeeding anniversary, during the whole period of
the existence of the Continental Congress, was ob
served in appropriate manner with a banquet, toasts,
fireworks and bonfires, and, much as we do in our
time, committees were always appointed to see to it
that no fitting detail was omitted that might render
the occasion one of proper festivity and rejoicing.

CHAPTER VII
THE DECLARATION AND ITS CRITICS

When Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration
of Independence he could have had little notion of
the fame that would be his in consequence. Nor
could he have had more than a slight conception,
far-seeing statesman though he was, of the ultimate
influence that it was to have, not only upon the
political ideas of America, but of the world as well.
To say that, at home and abroad it is the most
famous and familiar of our state documents, is but
to record a platitude. But to seek the explanation
of this fact is quite a different matter. Nor is it
too much to state that, in spite of the familiar terms
in which we speak of it, of the many occasions on
which it has been read in public and in private,
of the criticism to which it has been subjected on
the one hand and the honeyed words of praise that
have been heaped upon it on the other, it is within
the mark, I repeat, to say that it is the least com
prehended of all the great documents produced as
a result of our political development.

The reason for this is not far to seek. To the
people of the generation for whom it was written, it

152

THE DECLARATION AND ITS CRITICS 153

required no interpreters to make its meaning clear.
It dealt with affairs that were so much of every
day concern as to be entirely intelligible to all, to
be thoroughly understanded of the people. But as
time went by, the men to whom the Declaration made
this direct, forcible, appeal passed away, leaving no
precise interpretation of the commonplaces which
they comprehended so clearly as to lead them to
believe that all who came after must understand
with like readiness. Subsequent generations as
suming to understand what they did not, have
thoughtlessly taken it at but a part of its full value,
and even then have derived a return far in excess
of the outlay of time required for its perusal. My
task will be, therefore, to endeavor to put before
the reader of these pages something of the aspect
that the Declaration had in 1776, and the meaning
it conveyed to the men of the time; in the full
belief, that such an analysis will add largely to our
understanding of the origin of its enormous influ
ence, and greatly enhance rather than diminish our
appreciation of it.

In the words of Professor Tyler, the endeavor to
reach a right estimate of the Declaration has been
hindered by the two opposite states of mind with
which its consideration is approached : " on the one
hand, a condition of hereditary, uncritical awe and
worship of the American Revolution and of this

154 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

state paper as its absolutely perfect and glorious
expression; on the other hand, a later condition of
cultivated distrust of the Declaration, as a piece of
writing lifted up into inordinate renown by the pas
sionate and heroic circumstances of its origin, and
ever since extolled beyond reason by the blind en
ergy of patriotic enthusiasm."1

Of the criticism to which it has been subjected
there has been no lack, almost from the very day of
its publication. " It has been attacked again and
again, either in anger or contempt, by friends as
well as by enemies of the American Revolution, by
liberals in politics as well as by conservatives. It
has been censured for its substance, it has been cen
sured for its form; for its misstatements of fact,
for its fallacies in reasoning; for its audacious nov
elties and paradoxes, for its total lack of all novelty,
for its repetition of old and threadbare statements,
even for its downright plagiarisms ; finally for its
grandiose and vaporing style."2

All the strictures passed upon the Declaration,
however, meriting attention may be grouped under
the heads of want of originality ; of being but a mass
of " glittering generalities " founded upon an im
possible political philosophy, not actually believed in
by the men who gave currency to it, arid now a

1 Tyler's Literary Hist, of American Revolution, I, 498.

2 Ibid., 499.

THE DECLARATION AND ITS CRITICS I 55

" creed outworn " ; and, finally, of attacking the
King with unwarranted severity, of holding him
alone responsible for the commission of acts of
which he was but the instrument, denouncing him
without warrant as a " prince, whose character is
thus marked by every act which may define a ty
rant " desiring to establish an absolute tyranny over
the colonists.

The all-embracing reply to be made at this point
is that the Declaration has not only survived the
criticism of its enemies and the adulation of its
friends, but still lives a vigorous life capable
of influencing unknown future generations. No
document has ever been put to such severe, intimate,
popular use and service. And in that use and ser
vice, had it been incapable of withstanding the test,
had it contained inherent defects of serious conse
quence, distortions of facts as well as fallacies of
reasoning, inadequency in general and in detail, it
would long since have been relegated to the curi
osity cabinet of the antiquarians, together with
many another state paper, the product of the same
time.

By the accident of circumstance it became at one
and the same time the herald proclaiming the birth
of our nation, and the justification for that birth as
well. Combining in itself two such mighty func
tions, it could never have survived the severe test of

156 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

time had it not been provided with human elements
of a profound character. Possessing these in large
degree, — far larger than we now appreciate, —
throbbing with life in each of its nervous sentences,
it is by this inherent vitality that it has made its
appeal to the masses and the classes of men, who,
not fully understanding it, yet instinctively have a
respect and regard for it transcending all else in
American political history. The manner of teach
ing our history has had some effect in crystallizing
this sentiment, but no amount of teaching could
have produced this had the doctrine not been
worthy of its teachers. In brief, it has been put to
almost every-day use, and as yet gives no evidence
of suffering attrition from the contact, even though
temporarily injured in one of its most vital parts
as the result of the political developments of recent
years.

Considering in detail the criticisms mentioned
above, we find that as respects its claim to originality
it was first wounded in the house of its friends.
John Adams was among the earliest to find fault
with it on this ground, though he could never have
composed a document so terse and brief. In the
evening of his days, he still smarted from a know
ledge of the greater popularity of Jefferson as
compared with his own. He could never get
over that this idol of the people should receive

THE DECLARATION AND ITS CRITICS 157

so much more of the credit for his share in the
events of the revolution than himself. Accord
ingly, when the Declaration had withstood nearly
a half century of assault, and reflected something
of the lustre of renown gained by its distinguished
author during his later political career, Adams
thought to accomplish the impossible by trying to
minimize its importance from the point of view of
originality. He thought to condemn it by charging
that it contained " not an idea . . . but what had
been hackneyed in Congress for two years before.
The substance of it is contained in the declaration
of rights and the violation of those rights, in the
Journals of Congress, in 1774. Indeed the essence
of it is contained in a pamphlet . . . composed by
James Otis." 1 He was entirely unaware, that in
writing these words he had missed the point com
pletely, and was unwittingly according the Declara
tion the highest praise that has ever been bestowed
upon it. His criticism, which betrays a failing
strength, for in his earlier and more vigorous years
he could not have made so commonplace an obser
vation, is one for which we should nevertheless be
grateful, since it gave Jefferson the opportunity of
penning that dignified, comprehensive, and telling
reply in which, admitting that all that Adams said

1 The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,
1764. For Adams' letter see Works, II, 514 note.

158 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

might be true, of which he was no judge, he adds :
" Richard Henry Lee charged it as copied from
Locke's treatise on government. Otis' pamphlet I
never saw, and whether I had gathered my ideas
from reading or reflection I do not know. I know
only that I turned to neither book nor pamphlet
while writing it. I did not consider it as any part
of my charge to invent new ideas altogether, and
to offer no sentiment which had ever been expressed
before. Had Mr. Adams been so restrained, Con
gress would have lost the benefit of his bold and im
pressive advocations of the rights of Revolution.
For no man's confident and fervent addresses, more
than Mr. Adams's, encouraged and supported us
through the difficulties surrounding us, which, like
the ceaseless action of gravity, weighed on us by
night and by day. Yet, on the same ground, we
may ask what of these elevated thoughts were new,
or can be affirmed never before to have entered the
conceptions of man.

" Whether, also, the sentiments of Independence
and the reasons for declaring it, which make so
great a portion of the instrument, had been hack
neyed in Congress for two years before the fourth of
July, '76, ... let history say. This, however, I
will say for Mr. Adams, that he supported the De
claration with zeal and ability, fighting fearlessly for
every word of it. As to myself, I thought it a

THE DECLARATION AND ITS CRITICS I 59

duty to be, on that occasion, a passive auditor of the
opinions of others, more impartial judges than I
could be, of its merits or demerits. During the
debate I was sitting by Doctor Franklin, and he ob
served that I was writhing a little under the acri
monious criticisms on some of its parts ; and it was
on that occasion, that by way of comfort, he told
me the story of John Thompson the hatter and his
new sign."1

No words by way of explanation or in addition
can diminish or increase the force of this calm pres
entation of Jefferson's conception of the task before
him, nor any serve as completer answer to the
charge made. Originality of substance was the last
quality the Declaration should have had if it was
adequately to subserve its purpose.

Of the utter failure to comprehend the true signifi
cance and meaning of the Declaration, on the part of
the later generations, no better example exists than
that furnished by the renowned advocate Rufus
Choate, who in 1856 first spoke of "the glittering
and sounding generalities of natural right which
make up the Declaration of Independence/'2 This
high-sounding phrase, as rhetorical as any part of
the instrument which it seeks to criticise, has been
quoted with such constant repetition and approval

v Jefferson's Works, X, 267-268.

2 Letter to the Whigs of Maine, 1856.

I6O THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

as to have contributed an idiom to our language.
For that service alone it should be welcomed. If,
however, this characterization is to be regarded as
giving in any degree an adequate summary of the
Declaration, as is assumed by the author of the most
substantial of the recent histories of American litera
ture,1 its falsity will become apparent from a reading
of the analysis supplied in the succeeding chapters.
In the sense, however, that by the glitter of its golden
phrases the Declaration to some extent blinded the
men of the time, and prevented them from perceiving
the full magnitude of the contest in which they were
about to engage, Mr. Choate's words are measurably
true. But such was not the idea he wished to con
vey, and such is not the understanding of those who
have given his thought a currency that no counterfeit
should have procured. He viewed it from its rhe
torical side alone, overlooking the deep underlying
basis of fact that it contained. In so doing he failed
to discern that the leaders in the Congress at that
time, had other occupations than signing their names
to documents that were mere pieces of rhetoric.
That the Declaration contains rhetorical passages
none can deny, but that it is all idle vaporing no one
familiar with the history of the antecedent con
troversy, and the pointed references of each of its
clauses, can admit. Moreover, the constant use and

1 Wendell's Literary History of America, 106.

THE DECLARATION AND ITS CRITICS l6l

service to which the Declaration has been put, have
caused its fundamental concepts to assume some
thing of the nature of generalities to the masses of
men. This is the natural consequence from the
universal acceptance of maxims which at one time
had to prove their quality before obtaining standing.

By the vast advances made in recent years in scien
tific method, many old and cherished theories of past
ages have been uprooted. The political ideas of the
Fathers seem no more likely to survive than any
other part of the philosophy of their time. This is
natural, since in a dynamic society the discovery of
new phenomena must give rise to new interpretations
of them. But so far little conscious, discernible im
press has been made by the latter-day doctrines of
political science upon our political life. The whole
body of the science is as yet too new to have done
so, and until it has proved its mettle through trial,
the masses of men will continue, certainly in this
country, to adhere with tenacity to the old doc
trines that have served as inspiration to so many
generations. And just as the political philosophy of
the eighteenth century now seems outworn, and has
been supplanted by the evolutionary philosophy, so
the latter will in all likelihood prove to be no more
the final word upon the subject than its predecessor.

The answer to the charge of indicting merely the
King when Parliament was as much to blame for the
ii

1 62 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

maladministration of American affairs as himself,
has to some extent been given in the earlier pages.
To have now held Parliament, or Parliament and
King jointly, and not the King alone, responsible for
the act which they were driven to commit, would
have been to stultify the whole course of procedure
of the colonies in the controversy. From its incep
tion it was based on opposition to the ministry and
Parliament, and on the assumption that the King and
his acts were to be differentiated from the former.1
It began with the denial of the right of Parliament
to have control over the colonies, not only in matters
of taxation but in general affairs as well, except so
far as was necessary to promote the welfare of the
British empire. Fundamentally it had its origin in
the concept that the rights to life, liberty, and prop
erty, and " the rights, liberties and immunities of
free and natural born subjects,"2 were the colonists'
by inheritance, and had been guaranteed to them
" by the plighted faith of government and the most
solemn compacts with British sovereigns " — not, it
is to be noted, with the British Parliament.3 They

1 See in this connection the early attempts in Pennsylvania
to overthrow the proprietary government with the object of
having the colony converted into a royal province under the
crown. Sheperd, Hist, of Prop. Govt. in Penna. passim,
Lincoln, op. cit., Chapter VI.

2 Declaration of Rights, 1774.

8 Address to People of Great Britain, Oct. 21, 1774.

THE DECLARATION AND ITS CRITICS 163

held further, that the " foundation of English liberty,
and of all free government, is a right in the people
to participate in their legislative council : and as the
English colonists are not represented, and from their
local and other circumstances, cannot properly be
represented in the British Parliament, they are en
titled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in
the several provincial legislatures, where their right
of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases
of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the
negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has
been heretofore used and accustomed." But from
the necessity of the case, they would submit to the
regulation of their external commerce " for the pur
pose of securing the commercial advantages of the
whole empire, to the mother country . . . excluding
every idea of taxation internal or external, for rais
ing a revenue on the subjects in America, without
their consent."1

This then was their theory: the social contract
idea of the origin of government, on which their
relations with the British empire were based; the
right to representation, and through their represen- /
tatives the control of their property, subject only to
a limited, vague, ill-defined, parliamentary super
vision. A considerable number of the more logical,
among them notably Jefferson, prior to the meeting

1 Declaration of Rights, 1774, Article 4.

164 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

of the Congress of 1774, had gone further, and dis
claiming the authority of Parliament to bind the
colonies in any respect whatever, spoke of the " acts
of power, assumed by a body of men, foreign to our
constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws."1
But since they admitted that full allegiance was
owing to the crown, by reason of solemn compact,
this was not seriously called in question in any docu
ment, except in one paragraph of the address to the
colonies of October, I774,2 — and this may be as
sumed to be a slip. Going further, they stated ex
plicitly in their first petition that they desired no
diminution of the royal prerogative. Though how
they could reconcile this with some of the passages
in the address to the colonies of 1774, is not quite
clear. However, entire consistency was never a
characteristic of any revolution.

On the other hand the " legislature," " parlia
ment," " the ministry," and " administration," are
repeatedly denounced and held responsible for the
ills from which they are suffering.3 As has been
shown, the first occasion on which official expression
was given to the grounds on which the United Col-

1 Summary View, Ford's Jefferson, I, 439.

2 Journal, October 21, 1774. The sentence begins, "By or
der of the King."

8 Address to People of Great Britain, and Address to Col
onies, 1774. Declaration of Causes of Taking up Arms, July
6, 1775, etc.

THE DECLARATION AND ITS CRITICS 165

onies would base their contentions, and the lengths
to which Parliament was to be allowed to go in ex
ercising control, was in the Declaration of Rights
of 1774. The very fact of determining then to issue
addresses to the King, and to the people of Great
Britain and America, with studied care ignoring Par
liament from now on, except to denounce it, was in
itself a renunciation of parliamentary supremacy
more bold than any of the Congress' other measures.
Nine months later, after again professing a willing
ness to submit to the acts of trade and navigation
passed before 1763, the position of Congress was re
stated in the very words used before.1 In the official
answer to Lord North's motion, in the main the
handiwork of Jefferson,2 made a few weeks later,
such paragraphs as this are found : " As the colonies
possess a right of appropriating their gifts, so are
they entitled at all times to inquire into their applica
tion. ... To propose, therefore, as this resolution
does, that the moneys given by the colonies shall be
subject to the disposal of parliament alone, is to pro
pose that they shall relinquish this right of inquiry,
and put it in the power of others to render their
gifts ruinous, in proportion as they are liberal."
Again : "We conceive that the British parliament has

1 July 8, 1775, Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain.

2 Works, I, 1 8, 476. See p. 39, supra. Journal of Congress,
July 31, 1775.

1 66 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

no right to intermeddle with our provisions for the
support of civil government, or administration of
justice. . . . While parliament pursues their plan of
civil government within their own jurisdiction, we
also hope to pursue ours without molestation." And
a little further on in the same document we find an
enumeration of the acts which can never be sub
mitted to since they evince a desire for " the exercise
of indiscriminate legislation over us."

Side by side with these disclaimers of parlia
mentary supremacy went protests of the most abso
lute loyalty to the King.1 And as if to render them
the more forcible, they are accompanied by un
equivocal denials that their conduct is actuated by
a desire to separate from the British union and estab
lish an independent government.2 The unprepared
condition of the country for war, is the best proof
of the truth of these assertions, as well as the strong
est answer to those who maintain that the whole agi
tation was but a veil to cloak a movement having as
its ultimate object the establishment of independence.
The country was not more prepared for independ
ence than it was for war, at this time, a year before
the final act was consummated, and had any idea of
separation from the mother country been definitely
announced, it would have wrecked the whole revolu-

1 Petitions of 1774 and 1775.
"Journal, July 6, 1775.

THE DECLARATION AND ITS CRITICS l6/

tionary organization. Scarcely half a dozen of the
members of the Congress favored it, and they were
the radicals among radicals, and their weakness was
demonstrated by the overwhelming manner in which
their opposition to sending a second petition was
brushed aside.

The definite renunciation of all idea of parlia
mentary control of any kind came in December, 1775,
in answer to the King's proclamation of August 23*
— the sole reply ever accorded to their last petition.
In this we find also the most definite statement of the
colonial view of the relations between the crown and
the colonies, as yet put forward. Moreover, the
wager of battle thrown down by the King is taken
up, and now for the first time the rights of the crown
are seriously called into question. In the King's pro
clamation the colonists were accused of " forgetting
the allegiance which they owe to the power that has
protected and maintained them." To this the reply
is made : " What allegiance is it that we forgot ?
Allegiance to parliament? We never owed — we
never owned it. ... We condemn, and with arms in
our hands, a resource which freemen will never part
with, we oppose the claim and exercise of unconsti
tutional powers, to which neither the crown nor par
liament were ever entitled. . . . We know of no
laws binding on us, but such as have been trans-

1 See p. 47.

1 68 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

mitted to us by our ancestors, and such as have been
consented to by ourselves."

The time had arrived, now, to take a further step
in the enunciation of the theory on which the opposi
tion to the British contentions was based. This was
done in the document cited above in the following
specific and thoroughly adequate terms from the
point of view of English constitutional history:
" We view him [the king] as the constitution repre
sents him. That tells us he can do no wrong. The
cruel and illegal attacks, which we oppose, have no
foundation in the royal authority. We will not on
our part lose the distinction between the King and
his ministers; happy would it have been for some
former princes, had it always been preserved on the
part of the crown."1 And in thus emphasizing the
view that Parliament and the ministry were distinct
from the crown, they were but giving voice to the
doctrine of the separation of powers first announced
by Locke, and more recently made familiar in the
well-known work of Montesquieu, which every po
litical thinker of this time had at his elbow.

Thus, having constantly drawn the distinction
between the King on the one hand, and the ministry
and Parliament on the other, and having already
repudiated the ministry and Parliament in the terms

1 This remarkably strong paper was drawn up by R. H. Lee,
Wilson, and W. Livingston.

THE DECLARATION AND ITS CRITICS 169

recorded in the last few pages, there was nothing
left for the colonies but to renounce, at the
last stage, their allegiance to the crown. This was
done for the first time in the resolutions of May
15, I776,1 and finally, and for all time, in the
Declaration of Independence. By way of conclud
ing the discussion of this point the words of Daniel
Webster, who has so clearly interpreted the colonial
position, may well be reproduced here : " The in
habitants of all the colonies, while colonies, admitted
themselves bound by their allegiance to the King;
but they disclaimed altogether, the authority of Par
liament; holding themselves, in this respect to
resemble the condition of Scotland and Ireland, be
fore the respective unions of those kingdoms with
England, when they acknowledged allegiance to the
same King, but each had its separate legislature.
The tie therefore, which our revolution was to break,
did not subsist between us and the British govern
ment, in the aggregate ; but directly between us and
the King himself. The colonists had never admitted
themselves subject to Parliament. That was pre
cisely the point of the original controversy. They
had uniformly denied that Parliament had authority
to make laws for them. There was, therefore, no
subjection to Parliament to be thrown off. But
allegiance to the King did exist, and had been uni-
1 See p. 91.

a

I/O THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

formly acknowledged; and down to 1775, the most
solemn assurances had been given that it was not
intended to break that allegiance, or to throw it
off. Therefore, as the direct object, and only effect
of the Declaration, according to the principles on
which the controversy had been maintained, was to
sever the tie of allegiance which bound us to the
King, it was properly and necessarily founded on
cts of the crown itself, as its justifying causes. . . .
Consistency with the principles upon which resist
ance began, and with all the previous state papers
issued by Congress required that the Declaration
should be bottomed on the misgovernment of the
King; and therefore it was properly framed with
that aim and to that end. The King was known
indeed, to have acted, as in other cases, by his
ministers, and with his Parliament; but as our an
cestors had never admitted themselves subject
either to ministers or Parliament, there were no
reasons to be given for now refusing obedience to
their authority. This clear and obvious necessity
of founding the Declaration on the misconduct of
the King himself, gives to that instrument its per
sonal application, and its character of direct and
pointed accusation." *

To so much as concerns the charges in the
Declaration respecting the establishment of an ab-

1 Speech in Faneuil Hall, Boston, Aug. 2, 1826.

THE DECLARATION AND ITS CRITICS

solute tyranny, and of a conduct, " marked by every
act which may define a tyrant," but few words, in
passing, are necessary. If the charges against the
king had any basis in fact, they assuredly displayed
a desire to establish a tyranny, as that term is under
stood in English constitutional history, and as it is
defined by Locke. And the personal dominance
which George III established over his Parliament
and ministers, dating from 1768, by the most cor
rupt methods debauching the whole of the ruling
classes for his own purposes,1 was marked, if not
" by every act which may define a tyrant," at least by
sufficient to warrant recourse to that rhetorical char
acterization, when the exigencies of the occasion
made requisite.

1 See Lecky, Hist, of England in i8th Century, and Green,
Short Hist, of English People. Also Donne's Correspondence
of George III with Lord North.

CHAPTER VIII
THE PURPOSE OF THE DECLARATION

Consideration having been given to the erroneous
conceptions respecting the Declaration, that have
arisen as the result of approaching it with inade
quate preparation for its proper understanding, it
is necessary at this point to give attention to the
purpose it was intended to subserve, and to regard
it from the point of view of the success with which
this was attained. For the accomplishment of this
object it is requisite that so far as possible it be
interpreted, not in terms of twentieth century phi
losophy or politics, but from the standpoint of the
men who had a share in the events from which the
Declaration arose, and of which it was, to an ex
tent, the outward expression. No part of the writ
ing of history is more difficult than that which aims
to put ourselves in the place of the men participating
in great historic movements, and to attempt to view
the results of their achievements from their own
attitude of mind, to penetrate the well-springs of
their motives. Yet, unless this be undertaken, no
substantially correct results can be achieved. Ac
cordingly it is for us to consider now the motives
172

THE PURPOSE OF THE DECLARATION

actuating Jefferson's selection to prepare the Dec
laration, and the nature of the task put before
him.

The stupendous magnitude of the work was ap
preciated by none so well as by him, and might
readily have caused even a greater man to hesitate
long before engaging in it. Yet the choice of the
Congress, and of the committee fell upon him, with
singular unanimity, as the one best fitted by his
attainments to produce a document of the character
desired. This was no mere chance, for, though
his voice was silent, his pen had given full expres
sion to his thoughts. He was no orator, but, " a
silent member in Congress," yet " prompt, frank, ex
plicit, and decisive upon committees and in con
versation."1

Among all the countless disquisitions upon the
rights of the colonies, and the wrongs to which
the colonists believed they had been subjected, pro
duced during the previous fifteen years of contro
versy, one, written in 1774, and given the title A
Summary View of the Rights of British America,2
stood out in especial prominence, marking its au
thor as a greater among great men. Jefferson de
signed it to serve the double purpose of furnishing
instructions to the Virginia delegates to the first

1J. Adams' Works, II, 514, note.
2 Ford's Jefferson, I, 421 et seq.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Continental Congress, and to give that body a com
mon ground on which to establish its statement of
grievances and demands for redress. That in some
of its contentions it was too advanced to be suitable
to the exigencies of the time and failed of its object,
is not of importance in this connection. But it is
to the point, that it displayed a scholarly knowledge
of the history of the various colonies, a depth of in
sight into the essentials of the controversy, framed
withal with a felicity and lucidity of expression,
such as was possessed by none of his contempor
aries. In the brief twenty-three pages of this essay
he touched upon every phase of the colonial conten-^
tions, and thereby established his reputation as a
forceful, sagacious, philosophical thinker.1

To prepare a Declaration of Independence, how
ever, was a far different task. That document, in a
few lines, had to cover not only all the ground
of the Summary View, but to recapitulate as well
the rapid developments of the two/ full years that
had elapsed since its production. As it was de
signed to appeal to all the colonies, it had to
treat not only of the grievances common to all, but
of those that bore most heavily upon any particular
colony, were peculiar to that colony, and conse
quently of transcending importance to itself. Yet

1 See also his proposed constitution for Virginia, Works, II,
7 et seq.

THE PURPOSE OF THE DECLARATION 1/5

in so doing the balance of the whole had to be
carefully preserved, that no single part might rise
to undue prominence by the over-weight of any
other. But it could not stop here. It had to be
couched in such terms as would serve as justifica
tion, to the world at large no less than to the in
habitants of the colonies, for the act which it pro
claimed. Dealing with things familiar to every
frequenter of the taverns, to every reader of the
gazettes and pamphlets, it had to make its appeal to
the thoughtful as well as to the unthinking, to the
philosophers as well as to the groundlings, and in
such a manner that they would not be wearied by
its perusal, but stirred to enthusiasm as they pro
ceeded. It had to include the best of the pre- .
vious productions, but only their essentials. Not
less a party platform of national scope than a polit
ical manifesto, the warmth of its phraseology must
win over the wavering and fire the more advanced
with a desire to come forward to enlist and fight
for their rights and liberties, since troops were at
this time much more needed than wordy rhetoric.
As such it took the place of the " animated address,"
resolved upon at the end of May, which was " to im
press the minds of the people with the necessity
of now stepping forward to save their country, their
freedom, and property," but which never saw the

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

light, since the issuance of* the Declaration made
this unnecessary.1

All these qualities it must have and more besides.
It must foster the rapidly advancing though far from
strong sentiment of union, so that those who once
gave assent to it would support each other no matter
what the future had in store for them. And it must
needs do this in such manner that no other course
should appear practicable. It was to be the expres
sion of a minority party, but of so well-organized
a minority, that it could hope ultimately to effect the
conversion of that party, by accessions to its ranks,
into an unquestioned, dominating majority. It
could not, therefore, be non-partisan, yet it must con
vince by argument as well as drive by force of its
inherent power. And no slight portion of its
strength was to be gained from couching it in a
phraseology made familiar during the fifteen years
of controversy, and having a basis in the whole of
English and colonial constitutional development. It
had to make charges, but none that could not be
reasonably supported ; and in indicting a King and a
nation it had to word this indictment in such terms
that it would not be thrown out of court by the coun
try and the world. The position of the revolutionists

1 Secret Journal of Congress, Domestic, May 29, 1776. The
committee to prepare this address consisted of Jefferson,
Wythe, S. Adams and Rutledge.

THE PURPOSE OF THE DECLARATION I7/

had to be fortified so that it could withstand attack,
and, having the choice of situation, it had to make
the most of the enemy's weakness, nor yet disregard
its strength.

Since it was to be, as has been well said by Pro
fessor Tyler, " an impassioned manifesto of one
party, and that the weaker party in a violent race
quarrel ; of a party resolved, at last, upon the ex
tremity of a revolution, and already menaced by the
inconceivable disaster of being defeated in the very
act of armed rebellion against the mightiest power
on earth," it " is not to be censured because being
avowedly a statement of its side of the quarrel, it
does not also contain a moderate and judicial state
ment of the opposite side; or because, being neces
sarily partisan in method, it is likewise both par
tisan and vehement in tone."1 Jefferson's position
was that of advocate, and he so regards himself, and
it was his duty, therefore, to present his case in the
strongest possible terms, leaving his opponent to take
care of himself.

But above all, had the Declaration comprised all
the qualities which have been mentioned as necessary
to its fulfilling the objects for which it was designed,

it would never have survived as it has, and attained

\

to its vast influence upon our political life, had it
been lacking in three essential characteristics. These

1 Literary Hist, of American Revolution, I, 509.
12

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

are its underlying philosophy, its human elements,
and its literary form. Of the philosophy more will
be said presently. Suffice it now to call attention to
the fact that it had been preached to such an extent,
that through the Declaration it could make its appeal
direct to the mind of even the most unthinking. The
human element of the Declaration appears in almost
every phrase, from the first respecting the refusal
of assent to laws most wholesome and necessary for
the public good, to the last of exciting domestic
insurrection and endeavoring to bring on the in
habitants of the frontiers, the merciless Indian sav
ages. Had it not been possible thus to address the
emotions of the individual and make him feel that his
all was at stake, and had it not been done in such
forceful, stirring, convincing manner, the revolu
tion could never have been carried to a successful
conclusion.

No one is better qualified to speak of the literary
form of the Declaration than Professor Tyler. The
praise he accords it is of the highest, but none famil
iar with his scholarly attainments will regard it as
undiscriminating or lavish. " Most writings," he
holds, " have had the misfortune of being read too
little. There is however a misfortune — perhaps a
greater misfortune — which has overtaken some liter
ary compositions, and these not necessarily the
noblest and best, of being read too much. At any

THE PURPOSE OF THE DECLARATION

rate, the writer of a piece of literature which has
been neglected, need not be refused the consolation
he may get from reflecting that he is, at least, not
the writer of a piece of literature that has become
hackneyed. Just this is the sort of calamity which
seems to have befallen the Declaration of Independ
ence. . . .

" Had the Declaration of Independence, been, what
many a revolutionary state paper is, a clumsy, ver
bose and vaporing production, not even the robust
literary taste and the all-forgiving patriotism of the
American people could have endured the weariness,
the nausea, of hearing its repetition, in ten thousand
different places, at least once every year for so long
a period. Nothing which has not supreme literary
merit has ever triumphantly endured such an ordeal,
or ever been subjected to it. No man can adequately
explain the persistent fascination which this state
paper has had, and which it still has, for the Ameri
can people, or for its undiminishing power over
them, without taking into account its extraordinary
literary merits — its possession of the witchery of
true substance wedded to perfect form : its massive-
ness and incisiveness of thought, its art in the mar
shalling of the topics with which it deals, its sym
metry, its energy, the definiteness and limpidity of
its statements, its exquisite diction — at once terse,
musical, and electrical; and as an essential part of

180 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

this literary outfit, many of those spiritual notes
which can attract and enthrall our hearts, veneration
for God, veneration for man, veneration for princi
ple, respect for public opinion, moral earnestness,
moral courage, optimism, a stately and noble pathos,
finally, self-sacrificing devotion to a cause so great
as to be herein identified with the happiness, not of
one people only, or of one race only, but of human
nature itself."1

If the Declaration be adjudged as reaching the
high standards, and fulfilling the variety of pur
poses here set forth, with success even measurable,
it will be admitted that few other public documents
can be subjected to such a trial and emerge in tri
umph. Yet as the attempt is being made to view it
from the aspect of the men to whom it was intended
to appeal, so their opinion of it is of primary value.
Amid the general chorus of approval with which it
was acclaimed by the leaders, not less than by the
rank and file of the party to whom it was directed,
but one voice of strength in opposition is raised
sufficiently loud to be heard. Robert Morris, in a
letter to his friend Joseph Reed, gave as his reason
for voting against and opposing the Declaration
that " it was an improper time, and will neither
promote the interests nor redound to the honor of
America ; for it has caused division when we wanted

1 Tyler, I, 519-521.

THE PURPOSE OF THE DECLARATION l8l

union, and will be ascribed to very different prin
ciples than those which sought to give rise to such
an important measure." 1 And here, it may be
added, the opposition rests upon the opportuneness of
the act, rather than the manner of its consumma
tion. As against this, we may put the calm opinion
of Washington, expressed in acknowledging to Han
cock the receipt of the Declaration : " It is certain
that it is not with us to determine in many instances
what consequences will flow from our counsels ;
but yet it behooves us to adopt such, as, under the
smiles of a gracious and all-kind Providence will
be most likely to promote our happiness. I trust
the late decisive part they have taken is calculated
to that end, and will secure to us that freedom and
those privileges, which have been and are refused
to us, contrary to the voice of nature and the British
constitution." When proclaimed before all the
army under his command, the Declaration received
" their most hearty assent : the expressions and be
haviour of both officers and men, testifying their
warmest approbation of it."1 To Schuyler he spoke
of it as an act " impelled by necessity, and a repe
tition of injuries no longer sufferable, and being
without the most distant prospect of relief, they
[Congress] have asserted the claims of the colonies

1 Reed's Reed, I, 201, July 20, 1776.

2 Sparks' Washington, III, 457.

1 82 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

to the rights of humanity, absolved them from all
allegiance to the British crown, and declared them
Free and Independent States." 1 And in his orders
to the army, he spoke of it as having been impelled
" by the dictates of duty, policy, and necessity." 2
The more enthusiastic Samuel Adams declared it
" has given vigour to the spirits of the people." 3
His younger kinsman, John Adams, spoke of it as
" a Declaration setting forth the causes which have
impelled us to this mighty revolution, and the rea
sons which will justify it in the sight of God and
man," 4 and again, as likely to " cement the Union,
and avoid those heats, and perhaps convulsions,
which might have been occasioned by such a dec
laration six months ago." 5 And William Whipple
tells us that " This declaration has had a glorious
effect — has made these colonies all alive : all the Col
onies forming Governments, as you will see by the
papers." And in another letter, dated a few days
later, he writes : " This Colony6 and New Jersey are
all alive . . . men of fortune don't think themselves
too good to march in the character of private sol
diers . . . — in short the Declaration of Independ-

., 464.
'Ibid., 458.
'Force, 5th, I, 347.
4 Works, IX, 418.
6 Ibid., 420.
6 Pennsylvania.

THE PURPOSE OF THE DECLARATION^ 1^

ence has done wonders."1 Josiah Bartlett, ^L of
coming the adoption of the Declaration byifflbe.
York, rejoiced that it now had " the sanction of t-
Thirteen United States," adding, that " the unparal
leled conduct of our enemies have united the col
onies more firmly than ever."2

Such was the high esteem in which both the act
and the expression of it were held by the leaders
of the time, and if to them it seemed adequate to the
great occasion, we should accept their opinion as the
final word. True, the Declaration of Independence
and the ultimate acknowledgment of our national
existence were separated by many trying years of
weary contest, and the issue seemed more than once
suspended in the balance by a mere thread. But
this does not alter the fact that the Declaration of
Independence was regarded as an opportune and
comprehensive statement of the reasons impelling to
that act at the time, that without it open assistance
from France was not to be procured, and that after
its proclamation no overtures looking to a conclu
sion of the struggle were for a moment considered,
that were not based on public acknowledgment of
the United States as an independent nation.

1 Langdon-Elwyn Papers, Lenox Library, New York, 139-
140. The letter is dated July 22, 1776.
'Force, sth, I, 348.

CHAPTER IX
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION

" Happy is the nation," writes Sir Leslie Stephen,
" which has no political philosophy, for such a phi
losophy is generally the offspring of a recent or the
symptom of an approaching revolution."1 The phi
losophy of the American Revolution, though repre
sentative of the latter concept, has underlying it the
story of a political development that has its roots
deep down in English history of the seventeenth cen
tury. That was the age of intellectual and political
revolt in England, which attained its final fruition in
the following century in America. The Puritan
Revolution stirred the political sense of the nation
not less than its religious emotions, The intensive
study which the Old Testament received in conse
quence, reacted in marked degree upon the political
ideas of the time. As Borgeaud aptly puts it, " the
first political manifestoes of modern democracy were
formulated in England in the seventeenth century
and they were the fruit of the religious revolutions
caused by the Reformation."2

1 English Thought in the i8th Century, 3& ed., II, 131.

2 Rise of Modern Democracy in Old and New England, 105.

184

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION 18$

The theories of natural rights and the origin of
government in contract had their rise at this time.
Men were then more prone than now to seek for evi
dences of the Divine Hand in the institution of mun
dane affairs. And as ideas of government, lay and
clerical, were receiving earnest study and new appli
cation, their origins were sought for in the sacred
books. In these were to be found the earliest re
corded instances of the genesis of government. With
minds open to interpretations that fell in with pre
conceived views, the covenants recorded as made
between God and the Jewish people, were seized
upon as proof-positive of the contractual nature of
the first governmental forms.1 With circum
stances arising to give their thoughts ready employ
ment, it is not to be wondered that the contract
theory was applied on the one side by Hobbes to\
bolster up the divine authority of kings, on the
other by Locke to give warrant to the supremacy
of the legislative arm of the government as the direct
representative of the people.

If, therefore, we would seek out the immediate
sources of the political philosophy of the American
Revolution, we must look for them in the history of

1 1 am aware of the learned treatise by Dr. Sullivan (Kept.
Am. Hist. Assn., 1903, Vol. I, 67 et seq.) tracing the social
compact idea through classical and mediaeval authors. But
they did not have so immediate an effect at this time as the
Old Testament.

1 86 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

English thought in the seventeenth century, and in
the great state papers which clothed it in constitu
tional form.1 The principal expounders of the polit
ical philosophy of this period were Hooker, Hobbes
and Locke, and their very names are indicative of
the historical events to which they gave literary ex
pression. All of them based the origin of govern
ment upon a social contract, the outgrowth of a time
when life in a state of nature no more proved fea
sible. To Hooker and Ho^bbes the state of nature
was a condition of anarchy, of warfare and constant
strife, to end which men established forms of gov
ernment...-^^ Locke, efih-4he~-co»4£ar-y», it was a
" golden age," and political societies were created
to protect and secure persons and property, when
men became corrupt and no longer respected each
other's rights.

As Hobbes reflected the spirit of the Puritan Revo
lution,2 so Locke " expounded the principles of the
Revolution of 1688, and his writings became the

1 See in this connection, besides the works of Hooker,
Hobbes, Locke, Sydney, and the political writings of Milton,
the excellent and suggestive study by A. L. Lowell in his
Essays on Government, Merriam's Am. Pol. Theories, Sir
Leslie Stephens' English Thought in the i8th Century, Sir
James Fitzjames Stephens' Horcs Sabbaticce, Vols. II and
III, Bryce's Studies in History and Jurisprudence, McLaugh-
lin in Am. Hist. Rev., Vol. V, No. 3, 467 et seq., and Ritchie's
Natural Rights.

2 The Leviathan appeared in 1651.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION

political bible of the following century, the source
from which later writers drew their arguments, and
the authority to which they appealed in default of
arguments."1 And just as the events of 1688 and
the final establishment of the supremacy of Parlia- x
ment could not have occurred without the previous
period of revolution and reaction, so Locke's Treat- .
ises on Government (issued in 1690), it may safely
be said, would never have seen the light of day
had he not lived through this formative time, and
had the thoughts of Hooker and Hobbes and Sir
Robert Filmer not been set down to spur him on to
the expression of his views. Since Locke proved
the " formal expounder of Whiggism "2 in America
to a greater extent even than in England, it is to his
ideas that it will prove most profitable to devote
attention. " His chief influence," it has been well
said, " was in popularizing a convenient formula for
enforcing the responsibility of governors,"3 and his
arguments were not less familiar to every political
thinker and writer in America, than was the Old
Testament to the Old and New England Puritans.

Beginning in his second Treatise (the first being
entirely devoted to a labored refutation of Filmer's
Patriarcha) with a consideration of the state of na-

1 Sir Leslie Stephen, op. cit., II, 135.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid., 143.

1 88 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

•y

ture, he proceeds to discuss the purposes of political
or civil society and their beginnings, the forms of
commonwealths, the powers of the several branches
of governments (placing the treatment of the legisla
tive power in advance of that of the executive),
and then, after treating in order such subjects as
the prerogative, conquest, usurpation and tyranny,
he concludes most appropriately with an elaborate
chapter on the dissolution of governments.

In the state of nature/Amen are in a condition of
" perfect freedom to order their actions and dis
pose of their possessions and persons as they think
fit, within the bounds of the law of nature."
Further, " it is a state of equality wherein all the
power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having
more than another." This state, however, " though
a state of liberty, is not a state of license." " It has
a law to govern it which obliges every one, and rea
son, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will
but consult it, that being all equal and independent
no one ought to harm another in his life, health,
property, or possessions," — the " unalienable rights "
of the Declaration of Independence. The law of
nature confers upon man, therefore, all the rights of
person and property. It is not to acquire property
rights that man enters into political society, but in
order to protect and secure those he already has,
to avoid the destructive state of war that may arise

THE PHilOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION 189

at any time, and to remedy the inconveniences that
have grown up in the state of nature.

Thus " men being by nature all free, equal, and .
independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and I >
subjected to the political power of another, without/
his own consent." As soon as men agree to asso
ciate to form a political society, they enter into a
social compact with each other, and consent to be
guided by the will of the majority to make and exe
cute laws for the general good. " Property," in
Locke's conception, is used in a very extensive sense ;
it comprises all rights of any nature, especially those
of a personal character, and it is the product of man's
own labor.

As to the forms of government,' he makes the fa
miliar classification into monarchies, aristocracies
and democracies, and then gives consideration to the
various branches of government. Of these the leg- .
islative is all-important, mirroring thus the Whig
view of the supremacy of Parliament as against the
Stuart contention of the divine right of kings.?
" This legislative is not only the supreme power of
the commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in
the hands where community have once placed it."
But, though the legislative is supreme, " and there
fore all obedience, which by the most solemn ties
any one can be obliged to pay, ultimately terminates
in this supreme power, and is directed by those laws

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

which it enacts," it is none the less subject to four
limitations. First, it can not be " absolutely arbi
trary over the lives and fortunes of the people," since
" nobody can transfer to another more power than
he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbi
trary power over himself, or over any other, to
destroy his own life, or take away the life or prop
erty of another." " Secondly, the legislative or su
preme authority cannot assume to itself a power to
rule by extemporary, arbitrary decrees, but is bound
to dispense justice and decide the rights of the sub
ject by promulgated standing laws, and known au
thorized judges." For " absolute arbitrary power,
or governing without settled standing laws, can
neither of them consist with the ends of society and
government, which men would not quit the state
of nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it
not to preserve their lives, liberties and fortunes."
" Thirdly, the supreme power cannot take from any
man any part of his property without his own con
sent," since the very aim of government is to pre
serve property, and if it be taken away without con
sent " they have no property at all." This idea of
the consent to the appropriation of property as fun
damental, is elaborated with much particularity, and
in his recapitulation is re-stated thus : " They must
not raise taxes on the property of the people without
the consent of the people, given by themselves or

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION IQI

their deputies." " Fourthly, the legislative cannot
transfer the power of making laws to any other
hands, for it being but a delegated power from the
people, they who have it can not pass it over to others
. . . nor can they be bound by any laws but such
as are enacted by those whom they have chosen and
authorized to make laws for them."

Next he discusses the relations of the legislative
and the executive to the people. The executive he
makes dependent upon the legislative, and over them
both " there remains still in the people a supreme
power to remove or alter the legislative, when they
find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed
in them." The prerogative of the executive, though
necessarily extensive, has bounds set to it by the
laws made by the legislative ; since " prerogative
can be nothing but the people's permitting their
rulers to do several things of their own free choice
where the law was silent, . . . for the public good
and their acquiescing in it when so done." Having
next put limits to the right of conquest which he
calls " a foreign usurpation," he considers usurpa
tion which " is a kind of domestic conquest, with this
difference — that an usurper can never have right on
his side, it being no usurpation but when one is got
into the possession of what another has right to."
Of tyranny, he says, " whosoever in authority ex
ceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

of the forces he has under his command, to compass
that upon the subject which the law allows not,
ceases in that to be a magistrate ; and acting without
authority, may be opposed as any other man who
by force invades the right of another/'

The concluding chapter on the " dissolution of
governments " is thus led up to. For this two
causes may be assigned. The first occurs when by
the arbitrary will of " a single person or prince," the
legislative is altered, by setting up his own will in
its place, by hindering its time and place of meeting
and freedom of action, or by changing the " ways
of election . . . without the consent or contrary to
the common interest of the people." The alterna
tive cause of dissolution occurs when the legislative
and the prince act contrary to their trust, " when they
endeavor to invade the property of the subject, and
to make themselves, or any part of the community
masters or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties
or fortunes of the people." " Whenever the legis
lators endeavor to take away and destroy the prop
erty of the people, or to reduce them to slavery
under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a
state of war with the people, who are thereupon
absolved from any further obedience, and are left to
the common refuge which God hath provided for
all men against force and violence. Whenever,
therefore, the legislative shall trangress this funda-

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION 193

mental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear,
folly, or corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves,
or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power
over the lives, liberties and estates of the people;
by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the
people had put into their hands for quite contrary
ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right
to resume their original liberty, and by the estab
lishment of a new legislative (such as they shall
think fit), provide for their own safety and security,
which is the end for which they are in society."

Such is, in outline, the theory of government as
expounded by John Locke. It displays in almost
every part the doctrines made familiar by the Revo
lution of 1688. Moreover, as the political excite
ment died down in England with the settlement in
1689 of the great question that had agitated the
country for half a century, and as the Whigs, the
exponents of these ideas, were in almost constant
power until the accession of George III, contributing
so greatly to the ascendancy of the country, there
naturally ensued a period of political contentment.
During this, as the supremacy of Parliament had
been established, the theory of the social compact
and of the division of the powers of government
was gradually lost sight of, so that when a forceful
monarch like George III came to the throne, he was
able by his dominating personality and his easy con-
13

194 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

science to make himself practical dictator, within the
bounds of the British constitution.

But in America other conditions produced differ
ent results. In the nearly seventy years succeed
ing the Revolution of 1688, great problems of
government were being worked out anew. That
period saw the evolution of the legislature in all the
colonies to a position of authority greater almost
within its confined limits, than had been attained by
Parliament at home. And whereas the conditions
in England allowed of the predominance of a force
ful individual over the will of the nation, the more
democratic character of political institutions in
America saw the ever-increasing strengthening of
the will of the people through their legislatures.
During all this period parliamentary authority was
little exercised over the colonies, while, on the other
hand, much controversy arose between the King,
as one party to a compact (of which the charters
were the outward expression), and the colonists
through their legislatures as the other. The colonists
came to ignore the British Parliament in large meas
ure, to look upon their own legislatures as taking its
place in their life, and to view the crown, from
which had issued their charters and privileges, as
the connecting bond between them and the home gov
ernment. When, therefore, the attempt was made
to revive some of the lost authority of Parliament,
I

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION 195

under Grenville in 1763, it met first with remon
strance, then with opposition, and later with revo
lution. But the authority of the crown, even though
it might be thought to be abused, was not seriously
questioned. The limits to it, it was assumed, had
been set by the Revolution of 1688, and it was only
when these were believed to have been exceeded that
the final stage of opposition to what was regarded
as the unconstitutional aggression of the crown, was
entered upon.

n this contest *the theories of the origin and end
of government, and the relations of the colonies to
Great Britain were threshed over to such an extent
that every thinking man knew the value of the grain
winnowed out. Otis, the Adamses, Stephen Hop
kins, Daniel Dulany, Richard Bland, Dickinson,
Wilson, Hamilton, and Jefferson, to mention only
the more important, all lent a helping hand. And
though they differed in details and occasionally in
results, they were in substantial agreement upon the
following points. Before the time of the institution
of government men were in a state of nature, and in
possession of certain natural rights, life, liberty and
property, which are antecedent to all rights acquired
under government, and hence transcend them. In
this state each man is perfectly free and independent,
and no man is born ruler of others, but all are cre
ated free and equal in the right to rule themselves.

196 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

As certain inconveniences arise under these condi
tions, however, men enter into a social contract, by
their own consent agreeing to form governments
and give up certain of their inherent rights, that they
may thereby ensure others to themselves and to the
body politic which they institute, but especially that
they may be rendered the more secure in the pos
session of their property. As their consent is neces
sary to this action, it follows that none of their
property can be taken without this consent, given in
person or by representatives chosen for that pur
pose. Hence " taxation without representation is
tyranny." The right to representation, and of de
termination as to the disposal of property, was not
one derived from the British constitution, but is one
of the inherent rights of man which no authority can
take away. Taxation without representation was
slavery, taxation with representation was freedom.
They had grown accustomed to the latter and would
not submit to the former. Underlying the theory
of natural rights and of the consent of the governed
was the doctrine of popular sovereignty. " That
the people are the basis of all legitimate political
authority was a proposition which was little disputed
at this time. . . . The inherent and inalienable
sovereignty of the people was therefore assumed as
a political principle of incontestable validity, — a pre
mise which could not be assailed. Although fre-

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION 197

quent reference was made to this doctrine, there was
little attempt at scientific discussion of the idea : it
seemed, indeed, to be so generally recognized that
elaborate argument upon the question was super
fluous."1 Side by side with these views went that
of the sacredness of the right of revolution, which
was accepted with no less unanimity than that of
popular sovereignty. . To defend their property
against aggression was not only a right but a duty,
and if in that defense governments were overturnedA
it was but the alternative to submission and slaveryy
But brief consideration of this analysis of the
views of the Fathers is requisite to discern in how
much they breathe the spirit of Locke throughout.
By them none was more often quoted, none more
frequently appealed to, to justify the rectitude of
their convictions. To no writer was he unfamiliar,
and his very words were reproduced by many to
help make a telling point. And of no one are these
statements so true as of Jefferson, to whose meta
physical mind Locke seems to have made an especial
appeal. Hooker and Hobbes and Sydney, too, re
ceive their fair share of attention, but in no sense
to the same extent as Locke. There was a time,
now happily gone forever, when it was the fashion
sneeringly to pass by the philosophy of the Declara
tion with a brief reference to its French origin.

1 Merriam, op. cit., 53-4.

198 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

But this was the result of a superficial confusion
of apparent similarity with derivation. A year
before Rousseau's Contrat Social made its appear
ance, Otis had produced the first of his pamphlets,
and before Rousseau's work was known in this
country, had issued his Rights of the Colonists
Asserted. These two works, full of the English
political thought of the seventeenth century, were
the direct antecedents to all the polemics of the fol
lowing years, and contained the substance of the
ideas that grew to be the familiars of the people.
Montesquieu, it is true, was well-known and often
cited in their arguments, but the views he held dis
tinctly showed the influence of his visit to England
and of the philosophy of Locke. In fact, the doc
trine of the separation of powers, upon which Mon
tesquieu laid so much stress, and which is perhaps
the best known of his contributions to political sci
ence, is not much more than a reproduction of the
gist of Locke's twelfth chapter. But we search the
American pamphlets of the time in vain for any
references to Rousseau's theories. And why should
they have been resorted to when in their own lan
guage their own views were expressed to such good
purpose and effect?

But it would never have been possible to base a
revolution in large measure upon a political philoso
phy, had the principles of that philosophy not been

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION 199

so frequently reiterated as to become the common
property of the people, and if its application to Eng
lish history had not been so well understood. The
contentions of the colonial leaders of thought were
voiced in some sixty pamphlets, to mention only the
more important, produced between the years 1761 /
and 17/6. Not one failed to ground its argument
as much upon theories of natural right and social J
compact, as upon rights possessed under the British
constitution. This does not take into account the
great multitude of contributions that filled the
gazettes, from the days of Otis's stand against
Writs of Assistance to those of 1776, when discus
sions favoring and opposing independence crowded
the columns of every number of every issue. But
this was not all. Petitions and resolutions of co
lonial assemblies and committees, drawn by the very
men who were disseminating their views by means
of pamphlets, served but to echo the sentiments of
the disputants, making them resound throughout
the land. Interpretations of the British constitu
tion and of its relation to the colonies, went side by
side with the assumption of natural rights, espe-]
daily in the earlier stages, as witness the Declara
tion of Rights of 1774. ^Therefore, when the time
was ripe to state the reasons for it and to declare
independence, the popular mind had been well pre
pared for its reception. Every man knew, or

2OO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

thought he knew perfectly, what were his rights by
nature as well as those which were his by reason of
his understanding of the British constitution. And
every man knew, or thought he knew, how in the
previous fifteen years these rights had been in
fringed upon. When the time for independence
came he could therefore be appealed to for support
upon philosophic as well as upon constitutional
grounds, with the full assurance that these appeals
would fall upon welcoming ears."/

i In stating the case finally, it had to be put upon the
highest plane that the exigencies would allow, to
intermingle with a maximum of fact a modicum of
idealism. The opening paragraphs of the Declara-
» tion of Independence represent this idealistic phi
losophy. Jefferson, practical man that he was, no
more pretended to believe that the ideals which he
was giving voice to were attainable, or were at
tained, at the time he was writing the Declaration,
than he later believed that the constitution was the
most perfect instrument of government that could
be devised. But this was no reason for not setting
down the current high-minded conceptions of the
origin and end of government. When, therefore,
he wrote of the self-evident truths, " that all men are

. created equal, that they are endowed by their Crea
tor with certain inalienable Rights; that among
these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happi-

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION 2OI

ness. That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed, — That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness," he was
but giving terse expression to the widely diffused
convictions of the period. And in doing this he
sought out the best model, and repeated the con
cepts, often even the very phraseology and argu
ments, of his master John Locke.1

And as Jefferson was stating a political and not
a moral philosophy, when he wrote that all men
are created equal,2 he conceived equality iii the
sense of political equality, which was the general

1 A reading of Locke's second Treatise will show how thor
oughly every sentence and expression in it vere graven on
Jefferson's mind. Note especially paragraphs 4, 54, 220, 222,
225, 230.

z No error is more common than to quote this clause " all
men are created free and equal." In the preparation of his
careful summary, Jefferson aimed to include no terms over
which controversy might arise unnecessarily. To a slave-
holding people the inclusion of the word " free " might have
occasioned this. Accordingly we find in his original manu
script draft the words " & independent " following " equal,"
crossed out.

202 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

understanding. Not of equality in every respect,
but of equality before the law, in rights, privileges,
and legal capacities. Here again he followed
Locke, who held, " Though I have said ' that all
men by nature are equal,' I cannot be supposed to
understand all sorts of ' equality.' Age or virtue
may give men a just precedency. Excellency of
parts and merit may place others above the common
level . . . and yet all this consists with the equality
which all men are in respect of jurisdiction or do
minion one over another, which was the equality
I there spoke of as proper to the business in hand,
being that every man hath his natural freedom
without being subjected to the will or authority of
any other man."1 And Jefferson in his later life
put these theories into practice in his battles for the
u^mocracy,2 as Lincoln did in his fight against
slavery.3

It is, however, when Jefferson comes to give the
reasons for overturning the existing form of gov
ernment that we find ourselves in the immediate
presence of Locke, listening to his very voice. The
, third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph
. of the Declaration4 are, in remarkable phraseology,

Second Treatise, § 54.

2 For Jefferson's later views see Works, IX, 425, 426, and
Merriam, op. cit., Chapter IV.

* Works, I, 232.

* " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION 2O3

an epitome of the salient points of Locke's last cTiap-
ter. It was necessary to assume the establishment of
a tyranny that abolished the freedom which was
theirs by natural right, or else there was no justifica
tion for a revolution, since government should be
dissolved only by reason of the specific usurpations
already cited.

The investigation into the adequacy of the facts
which Jefferson next proceeds to submit to a candid
world, to prove the righteousness of his reasoning,
will form the subject of the next chapters. And
bound up with these facts are the colonial conten
tions respecting the constitutional relations between
the colonies and the home government, and the
rights and privileges to which by their charters
they were entitled as free-born English citizens, as
announced in the declaration of rights of 1774.

The influence of the Declaration upon our polit
ical institutions (or rather the influence of the ideas

causes ; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that man
kind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a
design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been
the patient sufferance of these Colonies, and such is now
the necessity which constrains them to alter their former
Systems of Government."

2O4 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

of which is was the summary expression) has been
profound. The concepts outlined above were the
fundamental ideas of the men who were given the
task of establishing the plans of government fash
ioned during and immediately following the revolu
tion. And inasmuch as no small part of their
preaching was that the ultimate seat of power was
in the people, to the people was given a greater
share in the control of government than the world
had ever before been witness to.1 No constitution
failed to include the philosophy of the Declaration
in some form, though it was not adopted to
the same extent by all. It appears in those of
Massachusetts and Virginia, in respect of the rea
sons for instituting governments, and in them all
in respect of the looseness of government, since it
was held that government was a necessary evil and
the less of it there was the better for the happiness
of the individual and society. This idea was given
its most striking expression in the Articles of Con
federation, which soon proved to be but the " rope
of sand " its framers designed.

Again, the separation of powers, made familiar
by Montesquieu, was characteristic of all, though
the legislature, so much exalted by Locke as the

1 See the constitutions of Massachusetts, Virginia, North
and South Carolina, and Pennsylvania, in Poore's Charters
and Constitutions.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION 2O5

exponent of the popular will, was now given as
great prominence as Parliament had acquired in
England. Coincident to this was the jealousy^^of
the executive, and his power was consequently re
stricted in many ways, and made practically sub
ordinate to the will of the legislature, the imme
diate representative of the sovereign people. Fur
ther, to render the people as nearly supreme as
possible, the frequency of elections was repeatedly
insisted on.1

But it is not to the constitutions of the period of
the revolution alone, that the philosophy of the
Declaration has been limited. It has affected
the whole fabric of our constitutional and legal
development, and to an especial degree in its social
compact phases. Notably this was the case at the
time of the formation of the constitution, when men
thought and spoke constantly of agreement and
consent in the terms of the compact philosophy.2
It has pervaded all our law,3 so that " in reading
Locke we cannot fail to be struck with the resem
blance between some of his deductions and the doc
trines of our own jurists ; and we might almost sup
pose that the ' Treatises on Government ' were in-

1 Merriam, op. cit., 74 et seq.

2 See the brilliant article of Professor A. C. McLaughlin in
Am. Hist. Rev., Vol. V, 467 et seq.

3 A. L. Lowell, Essays on Government, 155-156.

2O6 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

tended to be a commentary on the principles of
American Constitutional Law." And it is only
within comparatively recent times that the judiciary
is beginning to free itself from these concepts, funda
mental in the establishment of our political institu
tions.

The impress made by the theory of natural rights
and the social compact on our political and legal
history has been so deep, that many more years of
development will be required before these ideas can
be completely superseded. And if this is ever suc
cessfully done, it will be accomplished by an uncon
scious rather than by any conscious process. They
furnished the incentive to the revolution, as well as
the argument for the contest against slavery. The
roots of this theory are so deeply imbedded in the
political history of England and America, under
lying which is a stratum of the Old Testament teach
ing derived through the Puritan Revolution, that it
will continue to be popular until that day, when the
Declaration of Independence is no longer taught in
the schools and ceases to be read before admiring
throngs.

Nor can the evolutionary theory of the origin of
government and society, now generally accepted in
some form by teachers of political science, be made
the basis for any such popular uprisings as have
been the outcome of the older philosophy. The lat-

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE DECLARATION 2O/

ter is instinct with life and can therefore readily
be made to appeal to the emotions of men, through
which alone great movements are achieved. The
organic philosophy appeals only to man's reason,
and as yet only to that of the higher thinkers.
Upon such a foundation no great social or political
movement ever was nor ever yet can be builded.
Future generations will have recourse, in their up
risings, to the old guide, or else will seek a new, as
yet not in evidence.

CHAPTER X

( i ) THE " FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD "

BEFORE undertaking an explanation of the griev
ances recited in the Declaration, it may be well to
pass in review the method by which the British gov
ernment exercised supervision over the colonies.
The commercial policy inaugurated by Charles I in
1645, and extended in the Navigation Act of Octo
ber, 1651, was continued under Cromwell anql his
successors.1 By December, 1660, the trade of the
American colonies had become of sufficient impor
tance to induce Charles II to put its superintend
ence and management in the hands of a standing
Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations.2

1 Beer, Commercial Policy of England toward the American
Colonies, Columbia College Studies, III, No. 2, 29, 37. The
Navigation Acts are in MacDonald, Select Charters III. of
Am. Hist., 1606-1775.

2 Board of Trade Journals, I, fo. i. The copy of the min
utes of the Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, cited
in these pages under the caption, " Board of Trade Journals,"
is that recently copied for the Historical Society of Pennsyl
vania, an exact reproduction, page for page, of the originals.
The statements respecting the various councils and commit
tees, known generally as the Board of Trade, have been pro
cured from the volumes just mentioned, and from Documents
Relating to the Colonial History of New York, I, xxviii-
xxix.

208

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD

Fourteen years later, by reason of political consid
erations, the commission of the existing council was
revoked, and their books and papers were ordered
to be delivered to the clerk of the Privy Council.1
On March 12 of the following year (1675), Charles
II, by order in council, referred the affairs, of which
the old council had taken cognizance, to a commit
tee of the Privy Council consisting of the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Treasurer, Lord Privy Seal, and
others, who were to meet once a week and report
their proceedings from time to time to the King in
council. This arrangement was continued under
James II and William III, though the latter gave
to the committee the title of Board for Trade and
Foreign Plantations. The importance which the
trade of the colonies assumed, during the first few
years of the reign of the last mentioned monarch,
caused him to issue a commission, on May 15, 1696,
establishing a permanent organization for this
Board. The principal officers of state, including
the Keeper of the Great Seal, the President of
the Privy Council, and others, were created Com
missioners of Trade and Plantations. Virtually
without further change, they continued to control
colonial affairs until March II, 1752, when their
functions were extended to include the recommen
dation of persons to fill vacancies in colonial gov-

1 December 21, 1674.
14

2IO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

ernorships and other offices, and they were made
practically the sole medium for correspondence with
the colonies. On August 8, 1766, the board, which
had acquired a position of quasi-independence, had
its prerogatives somewhat curtailed by an order in
council requiring that letters of instructions should
be issued to the governors of the colonies directing
them to correspond with the Secretary of State,
sending duplicates to the Board of Trade. On
January 20, 1768, the office of Secretary of State
for the Colonies was instituted, and Hillsborough
became its first incumbent. No further change was
made in the method of carrying on official relations
with the colonies until 1782, when the secretaryship
for the colonies was abolished.

The usual procedure, during the period of the
revolutionary agitation, was for the governors to
transmit reports, the acts passed by the legislatures,
together with the journals of the assemblies and
councils, and any petitions that may have been for
mulated, to the Board of Trade. By that body they
were given careful consideration, the acts being
referred invariably to the solicitor-general for an
opinion as to their consonance with the laws of Eng
land and with the provisions of the colonial charters.
His report was usually final, and recommendations
by the Board respecting the allowance or disallow
ance of acts of the colonial legislatures, in the latter

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 211

case accompanied by the reasons therefor, with
suggestions for amendment or alteration, were
transmitted to the King in council. The King in
conjunction with the Lords of the Committee of
Council for Plantation Affairs made the final dis
position, and the results were transmitted to the
colonial governors, in the earlier period by the Board
of Trade, and later by the Secretary for the Colonies.
This elaborate machinery for the supervision of
colonial affairs worked sometimes with consider
able smoothness, at others with great difficulty,
for the control thus exercised was far from being
nominal in character. The proceedings in the col
onies were often given minute examination, and the
royal prerogative of disallowing a colonial act was
put in practice on frequent occasions. In reaching
their determinations the Board was aided by the
agents whom practically all the colonies maintained
in London to look after their affairs. These agents,
among whom Franklin and Burke were the most
noted, often represented several colonies, and ap
peared before the Board whenever they could
thereby advance the interests of the colonies. At
times they were given hearings extending over a
number of sessions. But the process of transmit
ting all laws to England was a tedious requirement
occasioning much delay, was a never-ending source
of irritation to the colonies, and caused them to
resort to various subterfuges to circumvent it.

212 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The deeds that led directly to the revolution are
easy to discover, as they lie upon the surface of
events, and are not readily to be overlooked. But
beneath these were more deep-seated causes, that
may be said to have taken their origin with the
founding of the colonies. The Navigation Acts
aimed to control the colonial commerce for the
benefit of England. By restrictions on such colo
nial manufactures as woolens, hats, and the prod
ucts of iron, it was intended to make the colonies
"the vent of England's manufactures."1 The
bounties granted for the production of naval stores
and related products, and the later concessions de
signed to render submission to taxation by Parlia
ment palatable, were by no means a compensation,
either in degree or in kind, for the unwelcome
restrictions.2 As long as the colonies were in their
infancy they stood in need of the tutelage of the
home government. As they grew to manhood they
found it possible to stand by themselves, were able
in most respects to safeguard their own welfare.
During this period of development, and largely aid
ing in it, control by the British authorities was most
lax. At the very time when the fostering care of
the home government came no longer to be re
quired, the turn in the tide of the British colonial

lBeer, op. cit., 66.
2 Ibid., passim.

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 213

policy set in under Grenville. Close supervision
then succeeded gross neglect. It was as if a parent
had allowed his offspring to attain majority with
out any serious attempt at influencing the forma
tion of his character, and then suddenly undertook
to enforce the authority that had been kept so long
in abeyance.

Again, just when this stage of development was
reached, the requirement that all laws be sent to
England for revision, and for allowance or disallow
ance, proved most irksome and worked inevitably
towards disunion. The exercise of close super
vision over practically every colonial enactment,
though recognized as a perfectly legal exaction, was
one that readily gave rise to many abuses and much
controversy.

It was not without reason, therefore, that emphasis
was put upon this serious grievance in the Declara
tion, that it was given the position of honor in the
opening paragraphs, and that in the first two |
charges against the King,1 Jefferson leaps at once }
into the thick of the controversy. In the terse
words of these two grievances he has included the

1 " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome
arid necessary for the public good."

" He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate
and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation
till his Assent should be obtained ; and when so suspended has
utterly neglected to attend to them."

214 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

whole of the great question of the constitutional
relations of the colonies to the crown, that agitated
England and America for all of a century.

Excepting only Rhode Island, Connecticut, and
Maryland, all the colonies had fully experienced
what it meant to enact laws " wholesome and neces
sary for the public good," only to have them re
peatedly rejected by the King in council. In addi
tion, the royal governors were often specifically
instructed to withhold assent from certain kinds of
legislation. Every man had felt the strong arm of
the home government interfering, not only in the
public, but in his private affairs as well. To such an
extent had this been carried, that after 1773 not
even a divorce could be granted in any of the col
onies, for the penalty was instant dismissal to the
governor who gave countenance to such a law.
That same year witnessed at least twenty important
colonial laws rejected by the King upon various pre
texts.1 The leading men in America were keenly
alive to the irritating effects of this course, and
Jefferson had already given expression to the feel
ing existing, when he wrote, in 1774, " for the most
trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable
reason at all, his majesty has rejected laws of the
most salutary tendency/'2 What Jefferson had in

1 Board of Trade Journal, 1773.

2 Works, I, 440.

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 21 5

mind, however, was the repeated disallowance of
certain laws passed by the colonies to promote their
welfare, but which came into conflict with the pol
icy of the home authorities. Such were the laws
of Virginia, and other Southern colonies, designed to
prohibit the slave-trade and the introduction of con
victs, and those of nearly all the colonies for issuing
bills of credit and for naturalizing aliens. Massachu
setts, as is well known, had her great disputes over
laws relating to the question of compensating, in
her own way, the sufferers from the Stamp Act
riots, as well as over methods of taxation and the
appropriation of money for salaries of government
officials.

Steps to restrict the importation pL slaves were
taken at an early date, but every law of this nature
was disallowed by the crown, on the ground that an
important branch of British trade would thereby be
interfered with.1 Thus fared the acts framed in
South Carolina in 1760, in New Jersey in 1763, and
in Virginia in 1772. The rejection of Virginia's
law caused particular irritation, since it was tha
latest in a long series of similar ineffectual acts, and
had been accompanied by an especial appeal to the
Kirfg that the governor might be allowed to assent
to it. A royal instruction was issued to the gover
nor of New Hampshire, upon his appointment in

1 Dubois, Suppression of the Slave Trade.

2l6 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

1761, preventing him from signing any law impos
ing duties on negroes imported into that colony, and
subsequent royal instructions required the colonists
to desist from their opposition to the slave-trade.
The strength of feeling on this subject is exhibited
in the stand taken by the Congress of 1774, which
by the Articles of Association prohibited the impor
tation of slaves, and the slave-trade after December
i, of that year. And again, on April 6, 1776, when
the ports of the country were thrown open to trade
with the world, the only qualification was the re
solve to import no slaves into any of the colonies.

The attempts to prevent the entrance of convicts,
' regarded, if possible, with even less favor than
slaves, met with no greater success. Many of this
class, under the English law which allowed those
convicted of crime the option, in some cases, between
imprisonment, death, or transportation to America,
preferred to leave England. Their arrival met
with opposition, particularly in Virginia, Maryland
and Pennsylvania, which colonies endeavored by
laws passed early in their history, to restrict the
entrance of this undesirable class. But every such
act was disallowed. Franklin spoke of this in
1768 as having " long been a great grievance to the
plantations in general/'1 and John Dickinson wrote
in the same year, " the emptying their jails upon

1 Works, Sparks' ed., II, 496, IV, 252.

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD

us and making the Colonies a Receptacle for the
Rogues and Villains: an Insult and Indignity not
to be thought of, much less borne without Indigna
tion and Resentment."1

Also, owing to the scarcity of specie, bills of
credit were then an absolute necessity in order that
the colonists might be enabled to carry on trade by
means other than those of mere barter. But the
policy of King and Parliament was against the al-
lowance of any issues of paper money. First came
the breaking up of the Massachusetts and Pennsyl
vania land bank schemes,2 by an act of Parliament
in 1751, which restrained the northern colonies from
making any new issues or reissuing old bills, except
in sudden emergencies. Then in September, 1764,
basing its action on a report of Lord Hillsborough,
president of the Board of Trade, Parliament passed
an act prohibiting any issues of bills of credit from
being made legal tender, and placing restrictions
upon them in other respects. Frequent petitions
against this act effected no result.3 In 1765, when
Governor Moore was sent to New York, he received
a royal instruction to assent to no law whatever for
striking bills of credit, though this was modified

1 Almon's Prior Docs., 224. Life and Writings of Dickin
son, II, 413. Address of Philadelphia Merchants, April 25,
1768.

2 Shepherd, Penna. under Proprietary Govt., 422.

3 Franklin's Works, VII, 429-430.

••'•

2l8 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

somewhat in the following year when permission
was granted to issue bills under certain restrictions,
and if not in contravention of the act of 1764.
Laws of New Jersey1 (1758 and 1769), of Penn
sylvania (1759), and of New York (1769 and
I77o)2 for issuing these bills were disallowed by the
King in spite of urgent petitions in their favor.

When Massachusetts, in 1766, compensated those
who suffered from the riots^ occasioned by the at
tempted enforcement of the Stamp Act, pardoning
the offenders at the same time, the law was
promptly disallowed. Not only this, but the King
by order in council, May 13, 1767, required the gov
ernor to have a law passed compensating the suf
ferers, " unmixed with any other matter whatso
ever."3 A few years later, when the controversy
thickened, the Governor of Massachusetts and the
Assembly of that colony were continually at logger
heads. The disallowance by the former of the bill
passed in 1771,* taxing the new Customs Commis
sioners, created by the Townshend Act, served not
only to increase the existing feeling of irritation at
having such a body of foreign and uncontrolled
officers in their midst, but also tended to interfere

1 TV. /. Archives, ist ser., X, 115.

2 Docs. Rel Col. Hist, of N. Y., VIII, 202-205, 215.

8 Almon's Prior Docs., 141-142; Mass. Hist. Coll., 6th
Series, IX, 82 et seq.
*Mass. State Papers, 306-307.

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 2 19

seriously with the necessary legislation of the col
ony. The disallowance of naturalization laws need
not detain us here, for we shall have occasion to
speak of them below.

Passing to the second charge, we find it but a ,
refinement, or rather an elaboration, of the preced
ing. The first intimation that a closer control over
colonial legislation was intended, came when Parlia
ment addressed the King, in 1740,* requesting that
governors of the colonies be instructed to assent to
no law that failed to contain a clause suspending its
action until transmitted to England for considera
tion. This was followed by a royal instruction of
March, 1752, requiring a revision of the laws in
force in all the royal provinces, and ordering at the
same time their transmission to England, and the
insertion in each of a clause " suspending and defer
ring the execution thereof until the royal will and
pleasure may be known thereon."2 A case in point
arose in New York, in 1759, when Governor De
Lancey was instructed to assent to no law empower
ing justices of the peace to try minor causes, unless
such act contained the suspending clause.3 The en- ; -\
deavor to suppress lotteries, then so great a factor ''

1 Answer to the Declaration of Independence, 5th ed., Lon
don, 1776, p. 21. Commons Journal, XXIII, 528.

2 Docs. Rel. Col. Hist. N. Y., VI, 755-756.
*Ibid., VII, 406.

220 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

in the economic and social life of the colonies, was
a stroke of policy that made its effects felt se
riously in all the colonies. Down to 1769 they
flourished unrestricted, but in June of that year the
royal governors were enjoined from assenting to
any law creating them that lacked the suspending
clause, — a practical veto upon all attempts at raising
funds by such means.1 Special instructions (1771)

f ^ prohibited Governor Martin of Virginia from sign-
! ing any law of this character, on the reasonable
ground that the practice " doth tend to disengage
those who become adventurers therein from that
spirit of industry and' attention to their proper call
ings and occupations on which the public welfare
so greatly depends."2

As respects the latter portion of this second
charge, — the neglect of laws suspended in their
action until the royal assent was obtained, — we have
a typical instance in four laws passed in Virginia,
in i77Cv and transmitted to England at once. They

ufc^ were not even considered by the Lords Commis
sioners for Trade and Plantations until nearly three
years after their enactment.3 Three were then con
firmed, but a fourth was set aside for final action at
a later date, until more information respecting it

1Ibid.t VIII, 174-175.

2 A/". C. Col. Recs., VIII, 515.

8 Board of Trade Journal, 1773, Vol. 81, 49-50.

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 221

could be obtained from the governor of Virginia.
Jefferson gave expression to the feeling in Virginia
when he wrote, in 1774, " his Majesty permitted our
laws to lie neglected in England for years, neither
confirming them by his assent, nor annulling them
by his negative; so that such of them as suspend
themselves until his majesty's assent be obtained,
we have feared, might be called into existence at
some future and distant period, when the time and
change of circumstances shall have rendered them
destructive to his people here. ... his majesty by
his instruction has laid his governors under such
restrictions that they can pass no law of any moment
unless it have such suspending clause ; so that, how
ever immediate may be the call for legislative inter
position, the law cannot be executed until it has
twice crossed the Atlantic, by which time the evil
may have spent its whole force."1

Closely related to this grievance was the oppo- \
sition created by the increase, after 1770, in the num
ber of royal instructions issued to the governors.
Every royal governor, moreover, upon setting out
for his post, was furnished with instructions by
which he was to be guided in the conduct of his
office. New policies were frequently initiated in
this way, and gave rise to many clashes between the
governors and the legislatures. The veto power of

1 Summary View, Works, I, 440-441.

222 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

the governor, under his instructions, was always a
source of irritation, and was looked upon as an in
fringement upon the legislative independence of the
assemblies.1 So far as regards Massachusetts,
Samuel Adams contended that instructions were
given the force of laws, and thus came to be sub
versive of charter privileges.2 And Pownall held
that " in some cases of emergency, and in the cases
of the concerns of individuals, the instruction has
been submitted to, but the principle never."3

With the third charge,4 however, we reach the
first grievance in the list that meant much to the
men of the days of the revolution, but which con
veys no message to us. It has to do with the erec
tion of additional counties out of newly-settled dis
tricts, and with their representation in the colonial
assemblies. As the population spread out from the
centers into the more remote regions, the inhabitants
demanded representation in the legislatures. The
colonists claimed this power as a right. But the
crown, in accordance with the English law, regarded
the issuance of writs for representation as a preroga-

1 Greene, The Provincial Governor, 162-163.

9 Mass. State Papers, 307.

8 Administration of the Colonies, 39.

4 " He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommoda
tion of large districts of people, unless those people would
relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a
right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only."

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 223

tive of the sovereign, to be exercised in the colonies
through the royal governors. Holding such con
flicting views, clashes were inevitable. They came
in New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, and Vir- \}j
ginia, the colonies most actively engaged in peo
pling their western lands. New York tried to give
representation to two newly erected counties, Cum
berland1 (1766) and Albany (1768), but was pre
vented in each case. More than that, in the latter
instance the King graciously consented to the di
vision of the county and the election of two members
from it to the Assembly, but only on condition that
in the law establishing the new county no mention
should be made of representation.2 The year 1767
witnessed the issuance of a royal instruction em
bodying, in most stringent form, the design to con
trol absolutely the whole matter of representation
in the assemblies, and the qualifications of electors
and the elected as well.3 Virginia felt this bore with
particular severity upon her, and her leading men
knew well that Governor Martin had, in 1771, re
ceived explicit orders to carry out this instruction to
the letter. Jefferson regarded it as a great griev
ance and an infringement on the rights of freemen.

1Docs. Rel. Col Hist, of N. Y., VII, 918. Journal of N.
Y. Legislative Council, II, 1594-1596.

2 Docs. Rel. Col. Hist, of N. Y., VIII, 100.

3 Ibid., 946.

224 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

According to his view, the people living on the
western borders and having no local courts, nor
any local government, found the administration of
justice almost an impossibility. " Does his Majesty
seriously wish," wrote he, " and publish it to the
world, that his subjects should give up the glorious
right of representation, with all the benefits derived
from that, and submit themselves the absolute slaves
of his sovereign will P"1

x In New Hampshire the dispute was of early ori
gin, and resulted for a time in the defeat of the
contention of the assembly which aimed to give to
that body the control over representation. But in
the last days of the old order the controversy was
revived, when rights of various kinds were being
examined with careful scrutiny and were being as
serted with vigor, if not always with discretion.
Upon this very point, of the admission of new mem
bers from the towns of Plymouth, Orford, and
Lime, " called in " by the King's writ by Governor
Wentworth, the assembly made its final stand, and it
breathed its last breath, on July 18, 1775, with this
contention on its lips.2

We come next to the three charges3 respecting the

1 Works, I, 441.

2 Force, 4th, II, 1175, 1678-1679. The reply of Governor
Wentworth to the claims of the Assembly is an able docu
ment, and thoroughly sound in its reasoning.

8 " He has called together legislajiyjaJjodjgs at places un
usual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 225

removal of assemblies, their dissolution, and the
failure to convoke them after long periods. These
need detain us but a moment, since the details of the
removal of the Massachusetts Assembly to Cam
bridge1 and Salem,2 and that of South Carolina to
Beaufort,3 are many and varied, and are to be found
in all histories of the times. Moreover, all accounts
tell of the dissolution of the Virginia Assembly, in ^3j
1765, after the passage of Patrick Henry's famous
resolutions; of that of Massachusetts, in 1768, for
refusing to review the action on the Circular Letter ;
and of those of South Carolina and Georgia for
daring to withstand Lord Hillsborough's order to
treat that letter " with the contempt it deserves."
In like manner, the passage of the ringing Virginia * ^\
Resolves, in May, 1769, against the revival of the
statute of Henry VIII, permitting of the transporta-

public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into
compliance with his measures."

" He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for
opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of
the people."

" He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions,
to cause others to be elected ; whereby the Legislative powers,
incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at
large for their exercise ; the State remaining in the mean
time exposed to all the dangers from invasion from without,
and convulsions within."

1 1769-1772-

2 1 774.

"1772.

15

226 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

tion to England for trial of persons accused of trea
son, led to another dissolution. And when a Con-
tinental Congress was being called together, in 1774,
all but three of the colonies had to elect delegates
by means of provincial conventions or committees
of correspondence, because their assemblies had been
dissolved by the governors. The last of the charges
relates undoubtedly to the calling of the Boston town
meeting of September, 1768, to urge upon the gov
ernor the necessity for convening the Assembly,
which had been dissolved because of its action on
the Circular Letter, while troops, but recently or
dered to Boston to quell the disturbances there,
" exposed the citizens to all the dangers of invasion
from without and convulsions from within." And
in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Vir
ginia, in the autumn of 1775, affairs of government
had come to such a pass that an appeal to the Con
gress was made for advice. The answer came to
establish governments that will " best promote the
happiness of the people," and " most effectually se
cure peace and good order."1

IWe turn now from the familiar details of dis
solved assemblies to the little known affairs of land
grants and naturalization.2 The proclamation of

1 See p. 34.

2 " He has endeavored to prevent the population of these
States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturaliza-

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 22?

the autumn of 1763,* in which the King expressed
his intention to erect new colonies out of lands that
the colonists claimed by right of charter, meant the
serious curtailment of these claims and the obstruc
tion of the migration westward, and marked the
initiation of a new policy. It restricted the limits
of the colonies claiming rights to the South Seas
to " the heads or sources of any of the rivers which
fall into the Atlantic Ocean." Beyond the " heads
or sources " was a reserved domain, out of which the
governors were prohibited from making any grants
whatever. Worse still, those who had settled in
these regions were peremptorily ordered to vacate,
on the pretext that the lands were reserved for the
Indians. But the movement had already set toward
the west, and no such restrictions could check it.
Land companies, in which Franklin and men of his
stamp were interested, made petition for the right
to found colonies, but met only with refusal. Yet
the westward migration could not be stayed, al
though this was attempted by means of an Order
in Council of I773,2 prohibiting the royal governors
from issuing any patents until further instructions

tion of Foreigners ; refusing to pass others to encourage their
migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appro
priations of Lands."

1MacDonald, Sel. Charters, i6o6-i775> 267.

2 April 7, 1773. N. C. Col. Recs., IX, 632-3.

228 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

were given. These followed a year later,1 and were
even more grievous, in that they raised the " condi
tions of new appropriations of lands." The royal
lands were to be sold at specified times to the highest
bidders, at the upset price of sixpence per acre, and
with the reservation of an annual quit-rent of one
half-penny an acre to the King. No lands were to
be disposed of except in this way. Jefferson had
this in mind when he wrote the Declaration, and
when he said, in 1774, " His Majesty has lately taken
on him to advance the terms of purchase, and of
holding to the double of what they were, by which
means the acquisition of lands being rendered diffi
cult, the population of our country is likely to be
checked."2 Only the advance of the revolution pre
vented the carrying out of these provisions, which
were everywhere regarded as harsh and unjust.

Closely allied to the question of granting lands
was that of the naturalization of aliens. This was
very generally practiced by the colonies, not so much
with a view to conferring political rights as for the
purpose of attracting desirable immigrants to open
up their undeveloped territory. Where the right to
transmit his property to posterity was accorded him,

February 3, 1774. Docs. Rel. Col. Hist. N. Y., VIII, 410-
412.

2 Works, I, 444. See also on " raising the conditions of
new Appropriations of lands," ibid., 452-453.

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 2 29

there would the immigrant settle. Such acts of nat
uralization met with no comment from the home
government till the proclamation of 1763 was issued.
From that time on, however, few of these acts
passed the ordeal of the Commissioners for Trade
and Plantations without recommendation for dis
allowance. Finally, in November, 1773, came the
royal instruction prohibiting absolutely the natural
ization of any aliens, and the passage of any acts to
that end. It was a heavy blow to the prosperity of
the larger land-holding colonies, Virginia, New
York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, the settlement
of which bade fair now to be seriously interfered
with.

That part of the same charge .mentioning the
refusal to assent to laws encouraging immigration,
has reference to an act passed in North Carolina in
1771. It exempted persons coming immediately
from Europe from all forms of taxation for four
years. It was disallowed, however, by the King,
in February, 1772, on the ground that it related
especially to certain Scotch immigrants, since its
provisions applied only to persons coming imme
diately from Europe, and thus might have an evil
effect upon the " landed Interests and Manufac
turers of Great Britain and Ireland."1

1N. C. Col. Recs., IX, 251-252.

230 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

We come next to the complaint of the interfer
ence with the administration of justice by the refusal
of assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.1
The man whose mind evolved the Declaration knew
that in such a state paper the most crying wrongs of
each colony must, in some measure, be enumerated.
Though it would be best, for the most part, to con
fine the charges to those restrictive measures that
concerned all alike, the most serious local grievances
of each colony must not be disregarded. The col
ony whose cause is here advocated is North Carolina.
And unquestionably the political consideration that
she had been the earliest to declare in favor of inde
pendence, was the occasion for this signal recogni
tion of her wrongs. Beyond the pages of local his
tories we seek in vain for the explanation of this
important episode in her history, even though it at
tained a prominence so great as to find a place in the
Declaration.

The controversy held in mind by Jefferson was an
old one, and began when, in January, 1768, Governor
Tyron signed a law, passed at a previous session
of the Assembly of North Carolina, providing,
among other things, for establishing superior courts
of justice. The law was to be in force for five
years only, and from then to the end of the next

1 " He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by re
fusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers."

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 23!

regular session of the Assembly For three years
all went well, because the Lords Commissioners for
Trade and Plantations paid little attention, in the
interval, to colonial laws. Fault was then found
with this " superior court act," because of a clause
that made the property of persons who had never
been in the colony liable to attachment on the suit
of the creditor. This was in contravention of the
letter and the spirit of the laws of England. Though
the Lords Commissioners considered it a serious
departure from legal form, they agreed, neverthe
less, that if the Assembly would amend the act in
this particular, they would not recommend its dis
allowance.'2 No action, in response to this hint, was
taken by the North Carolina Assembly, and after
waiting a due season — about a year, — the King
issued an instruction prohibiting his governor from
giving assent to any law containing the attachment
clause, unless it included a provision suspending its
operation until the royal pleasure was made known.3
This had come in February, 1772, and was well
timed, for the law was to expire by limitation the
next year, and, consequently, if proper provision
were not made by the Assembly, no superior courts

1 Iredell's N. C. Laws, Edenton, 1791, 231. N. C. Col. Recs.,
VII, 551, 557, 573, 58o, 588, 610, 623, 693, 921, No. 5-

2 Ibid., VIII, 264-267.

3 Ibid., IX, 235-

232 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

would exist in the province. In February, 1773,
therefore, when the Assembly passed a new court
act, making provision for superior and inferior
courts and retaining the objectionable attachment
clause, the contest was on in bitter earnest. The
first law enacted contained no suspending clause.
This the governor, Martin, vetoed.1 Then the As
sembly yielded so far as to add the suspending
clause, but retained the attachment provision.
Though signed by the governor, it was, of course,
disallowed by the King, and meanwhile, as there
were no courts in the province, the governor was in
structed to establish them on his own responsibility.
This he did, but the Assembly refused to recognize
his authority, and made no appropriation for the
salaries of the judges. Persisting in their determi
nation to have the kind of bill they wanted and to
control their own affairs, they passed the one pre
viously disallowed, when they convened again in
March, 1774. They were then prorogued for their
obstinacy, and practically did not sit again while
North Carolina was under British rule. Thus, as
a result of the controversy, not only was the Assem
bly dissolved, because it failed to do as it was bid, but
from 1773 until North Carolina assumed State gov-

1 March 6, 1773. Ibid., 583. See also Raper's North Caro~
Una, 157-158.

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 233

ernment in 1776, there were no courts in the prov
ince.1

Our first thought, in endeavoring to account for
the next charge,2 is likely to be of the long-standing
controversies in New York and Massachusetts over
the payment of the salaries of the judiciary, and the
conditions of their tenure of office. The question
at issue, in both instances, hinged upon granting
salaries by colonial appropriation, or permitting
payment to be made by the crown. The policy,
adopted by Great Britain at an early date (1761),
was to refuse to permit judges to hold office during
good behavior, as in England, and to insist, instead,
that they hold only during the King's pleasure.
Made to yield, with no good will, to this enforce
ment of the royal prerogative, the colonists resisted
to the utmost the extension that made it possible to
enforce obnoxious laws and decrees by the whole
power of a judiciary dependent, not only for its
tenure, but for its stipends as well, upon the abso-

1Ar. C. Col. Recs., IX, xxvi. There were contests in
South Carolina also, in respect of the erection of courts, but
they were of minor importance to those in North Carolina.
See McCrady, S. C. under Royal Government, 628 ; and 5". C.
in the Revolution, 120-121 ; Smith, S. C, as a Royal Prov.,
134 et seq.

2 " He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for .
the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of
their salaries."

234 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

lute good will of the crown. The term of tenure
established, to fix salaries was but a repressive step
in advance, although the question did not develop
till 1767. Then that ill-advised Townshend Act,
known colloquially as the " glass, lead, and paint
act," passed Parliament, and became the law of the
realm.1 The preamble stated boldly its design of
raising a revenue to make " a more certain and ade
quate Provision for defraying the Charge of the
Administration of Justice and the Support of Civil
Government, in such Provinces where it shall be
found necessary." A paragraph in the bill, ex
plaining how this was to be carried out, showed that
it was no idle declaration of intention merely. To
the inhabitants of the colonies, already goaded
nearly to the point of rebellion because of excessive
control of their internal affairs, this meant an intol
erable interference with their rights, and was not to
be borne. The colonial contention was that inas
much as judges held office during the King's pleas
ure, if they also received their salaries from any
other source than the people to whom they were to
dispense justice, all control over them would be lost,
and no redress could be had, when corruption and
incompetence displaced integrity and learning.
Furthermore, the extension of the jurisdiction of

JJune 29, 1767. 7 Geo. Ill, c. 46. The act is in Mac-
Donald, Select Charters, 323.

UNIVERSITY I

OF //

OF

FO
FACTS SUBM"iTTEb"TO A CANDID WORLD 235

the admiralty courts, in 1764 and I768,1 with great
enlargement of their powers, foreshadowed, it was
thought, the possible extinction of trial by jury in
civil as well as in maritime causes.2 The judges of
these courts were royal appointees receiving their
salaries, supposedly, from fines and the proceeds of
the sale of condemned vessels; but, as this source
failed to bring in any revenue, they were paid di
rectly out of the royal exchequer.

The greatest of the controversies over judicial
salaries, however, is the famous one begun in Mass
achusetts on that evil day in February, 1773, when
Governor Hutchinson announced to the Assembly
of the province that the King had made provision
for the justices of the superior court, and that con
sequently no appropriation was necessary for their
maintenance.3 The Assembly voiced their opposi
tion in vigorous terms, at first in letters of remon
strance and finally in the well known resolutions of
March 3, 1773. 4 And reference was made to this
grievance in the Declaration of Rights and the ad-

1 See Address to Colonies, Oct. 21, 1774, Journal of Con
gress.

2 The 4ist paragraph of the Sugar Act of 1764 (4 Geo. Ill,
c. 15) contained the provisions for enforcing the act, and
the recourse to admiralty courts. A part of the act is in
MacDonald, op. cit., 273 et seq.; the full text in Statutes at
Large, XXVI, 33-52.

3 Mass. State Papers, 365.

id., 396.

\S>

236 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

dress to the colonies of 1774, and redress de
manded.1

From the controversy over judges to that over
commissioners for the enforcement of customs laws
is but a step. Their appointment is made the basis
of the grievance charging that a multitude of new
officers had been sent to America " to harass the
people and eat out their substance."2 For, com
bined with the decision of Townshend to pass an
act of taxation, was the determination to enforce it
at all hazards. As there was no governmental ma
chinery in America through which to act, a new
engine of oppression was instituted by the first of
the Townshend Acts.3 Its provisions were exceed
ingly modest in that the King was simply authorized
to appoint commissioners of customs to reside in
America, with power and jurisdiction similar to the
British commissioners. They in turn were empow
ered to appoint an indefinite number of deputies,
and it was this multiplication of officers that aroused
the hostility of the colonists. Their salaries, more
over, were to be paid out of the receipts from the
customs, and constituted the most serious aggres-

1 Journal of Congress, Oct. 14, 1774.

2 " He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent
hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out
their substance."

8 June 29, 1767. The act is cited as 7 Geo. Ill, c. 41, and
is in MacDonald, op. cit., 321.

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 237

sion of this nature to which the colonists took ex
ception.

But little less irritation was caused by the
policy initiated by Grenville, in 1764, when he de
termined upon rigorously enforcing the existing
trade laws with a view to putting an end to smug
gling. In accordance with this intention, he placed
Admiral Colville, naval commander-in-chief on the
coasts of North America, virtually at the head of
the revenue service. And each captain of a vessel
was instructed to take the customs house oath, and
aid in the seizure of those engaged in the illicit
trade which had been connived at for years.1 Fur
ther, as offences against the revenue act were to be
tried in courts of admiralty or vice-admiralty, their
increase with new officers became necessary. The
first of the new courts with previously unheard-of
jurisdiction was opened at Halifax, in 1764, and
the act of 1768 made provision for their extension
throughout the other colonies.

The next charge has to do with the maintenance
of troops in the colonies without the consent of the
legislatures.2 To this may be joined that in which
complaint is made of rendering the military inde
pendent of and superior to the civil power,3 as also

1 Bancroft, original ed., V, 160-162.

8 " He has kept among us in times of peace, Standing Ar
mies without the Consent of our legislatures."

8 " He has affected to render the Military independent of
and superior to the Civil power."

238 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

the later accusation of quartering troops upon the
people.1 After the peace of 1763, the troops that
t\ had been sent over were not withdrawn and provi
sion had to be made for their support. This was
done by the extension of the provisions of the re
cently passed Mutiny Act to the American colonies,
in a separate act known as the " Quartering Act."2
After the Stamp Act riots several companies of
royal artillery reached Boston in the autumn of
1766, and were quartered at the expense of the
province, by order of Governor Bradford and the
Council. Against this the Assembly remonstrated
on the ground that they alone had the right to make
appropriations for this purpose.8 In 1768, as
trouble was anticipated over the enforcement of the
Townshend Acts, large increases of troops were
sent to Boston, New York, and elsewhere, and in
each case gave rise to controversy about provision
for their maintenance. The clash at Boston, in
March, 1770, known as the " Boston Massacre," was
the culminating event of this dispute.

The appointment of General Gage as governor
of Massachusetts in 1774, under the Massachusetts
Government Act,4 making him at the same time

1 " For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us."

3 April, 1765. The provisions of this act are in MacDonald,
op. cit., 306. The act is cited as 5 Geo. Ill, c. 33.

8Winsor, Narr. and Crit. Hist., VI, 38. Mass. State
Papers, 105-108.

4 14 Geo. Ill, c. 45. MacDonald, op. cit., 343.

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 239

commander-in-chief of the troops in America and
the supreme executive authority in the colony, was
a combination of the military with the civil jurisdic
tion which aroused stern opposition throughout the
colonies, as rendering " the Military independent of
and superior to the Civil power." All of these acts
were remonstrated against in the Declaration of
Rights and the address to the colonies of 1774.
With the accusation last referred to we come to the
end of the first division of grievances.

CHAPTER XI
(2) " THE FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD "

THE master mind of Jefferson perceived that for
rhetorical effect he must adopt a manner sufficiently
emphatic to inspire enthusiasm, and yet not weary
with a long recital of " abuses and usurpations,"
recounted in the same monotonous style. There
fore, the form of indictment now undergoes a
change for a few brief paragraphs. The King
alone is now not held solely responsible, but is ac
cused of combining " with others to subject us to
a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unac
knowledged by our laws : giving his Assent to their
Acts of pretended Legislation," — in part, the very
words used by Jefferson two years before.1
Though Parliament is thus made to bear a share
of the burden, it is nowhere mentioned by name,
and the principal weight is still put upon the shoul
ders of the King.

Of the first of the new order of grievances we
have already spoken sufficiently.2 The next, how
ever, which complains of soldiers escaping by mock
trials from the consequences of any murders that

1 Works, I, 439-

2 " For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us."

240

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 241

they might commit, needs further comment.1 It
can refer to no other law than that known generally
as the act " for the impartial administration of jus
tice," which passed Parliament on May 20, I774-2
This was one of the acts repeatedly decried in the
state papers of the earlier Congress,3 and moved
Jefferson to denounce those who would submit to
the enforcement of its provisions as " cowards who
would suffer a countryman to be torn from the
bowels of their society, in order to be thus offered
a sacrifice to parliamentary tyranny," meriting
" that everlasting infamy now fixed on the authors
of the act!"4 The act had been passed to provide
for such contingencies as had arisen after the " Bos
ton Massacre " — the trial of persons accused of
murder while in the discharge of their official duties. i
By its terms those in His Majesty's service, mili
tary as well as civil, accused of murder committed
while executing the laws of the realm in Massachu
setts, might obtain a change of venue to some other
province, or to Great Britain, " if it shall appear,

1 " For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment
for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabit
ants of these States."

2 14 Geo. Ill, c. 39. MacDonald, op. cit., 351. See also
Answer to the Declaration of Independence, 5th ed., London,
1776, 60, 62.

8 Declaration of Rights. Address to the Colonies.

4 Works, I, 439.

16

242 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

to the satisfaction of the . . . governor, . t . that
an indifferent trial cannot be had within the said
province." Provision was made also for the trans
portation of witnesses as well, and, most grievous
of all, the accused might be admitted to bail upon
the order of the governor, it mattered not how fla
grant the crime charged against him. As there was
little likelihood that a British official, military or civil,
would be brought to trial in England for commit
ting the crime of executing .the law in America, this
was regarded as an unwarrantable invasion of colo
nial rights.

Having thus far dealt in the main with the polit
ical side of the grievances, Jefferson, in order that
nothing of importance may be omitted, now turns
to those oppressions that bore most heavily upon the
economic life of the people. And if there be a
weakness in the Declaration, it is the failure to dwell
to any extent upon the narrow British economic
policy toward the colonies, which meant using
them for the benefit of the manufacturers and tra
ders at home. In the beginning, as has been noted,1
the opposition to the enforcement of trade laws,
restrictions upon manufactures, and the right to
taxation, was based as largely upon economic as
upon political grounds. But the material economic
grievances were soon lost to view in the eloquent

1 See p. 7.

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 243

maintenance of the right to political liberty that re
sounded through the land. Yet Jefferson had de
voted no small part of his Summary View* to a
consideration of the burdens put by law upon the
commerce and manufactures of the colonies, in the
interests of the British merchants.

To cut off the trade of the colonists with all parts
of the world except Great Britain, as written in the
Declaration,2 was a policy first adopted in the days
of Charles I and Cromwell, and persisted in to the
end. But the particularly serious acts of aggres
sion were those instituted by Grenville, in 1764,
when he revived the Molasses Act of 1733, by which
an end was intended to be put to the rum traffic of
New England, and the rigorous measures already
referred to for enforcing the existing though nearly
obsolete trade laws. An idea of the full meaning
of the last intention may be gathered when we
recall that, all in all, about fifty acts had been passed
by Parliament, between 1688 and 1765, for the pur
pose of binding the colonial trade. Coming down
to a later day, we have the well-known acts of 1774,
which closed the port of Boston, and the acts of
March, April, and December, I775,3 which effectu-

1 Works, I, 434-

2 " For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world."
8 14 Geo. Ill, c. 19. 15 Geo. Ill, c. 10. 16 Geo. Ill, c. 5.
MacDonald, op. cit,, 368, 391.

244 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

ally prohibited all trade with the colonies, thereby
cutting them off from all the world. The last men
tioned act superseded the earlier, was most strin
gent in its provisions, and punished with confisca
tion as prizes all vessels caught contravening it.

We come now to the consideration of that clause
. jp which has become the chief est of the familiars of
our history — taxation without consent.1 Reference
was here intended to (i) the Sugar Act of 1764,
(2) the Stamp Act, (3) the Townshend Acts, and
(4) the Tea Acts of 1770 and 1773. By the Sugar
Act of 1764, the determination was announced to
execute more strictly the trade laws, and, by raising
a revenue from the colonies, to help pay off Eng
land's debt, more than doubled by the war just con
cluded. The Molasses Act of I733,2 the first of the
revenue acts, was aimed to interdict the commerce
between the French West Indies and the colonies
of the continent, especially New England, and was
directly in the interest of the British West Indies
which lost in trade, it was claimed, what their
French rivals gained. Though in form a revenue
act, the duties on rum and spirits, molasses syrup,
and sugar imported from the French West Indies
to the other colonies, were placed so high as to be
prohibitory, and therefore the act worked out in

1 " For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent."
2 6 Geo. II, c. 13. MacDonald, op. cit., 249.

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 245

practice merely as a regulation of commerce.1
Since, however, it was never strictly enforced, its
provisions were constantly violated and smuggling
was carried on openly. The wind thus sown was
reaped in the whirlwind of disregard for laws, ex
cept those enacted by colonial legislatures, charac
teristic of the period of the revolution.

The Sugar Act of 1764* revived the Molasses
Act, but reduced the duties avowedly for revenue
purposes and made it perpetual. Its title began
with the words, " an act for granting certain duties
in the British colonies and plantations in America,"
and the preamble proceeded : " Whereas it is expe
dient that new provisions and regulations should
be established for improving the revenue of this
Kingdom . . . ; and whereas it is just and neces
sary, that a revenue be raised, in your Majesty's
said dominions in America, for defraying the ex
penses of defending, protecting, and rearing the
same ; . . . we, ... the commons of Great Britain
. . . have resolved to give and grant . . . the sev
eral rates of duties hereinafter mentioned."

In view of the recent colonial acquisitions by this
country, and the methods adopted for their govern
ment, the tenth paragraph is of striking insignifi
cance. It provides that all moneys arising from the

1Beer, op. cit., 121.

2 4 Geo. Ill, c. 15. MacDonald, op. cit., 271.

246 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

operation of the act, after the expenses of levying
and collection were paid, were to be turned into the
royal exchequer, to be kept separate from all other
funds, and to be " disposed of by parliament, towards
defraying the necessary expenses of defending, pro
tecting and securing the British Colonies and Plan
tations in America." If the Fathers ultimately
came to rebel against such a provision, is it any
more likely that the colonial Fathers of the future
will not be similarly moved? The principle in both
cases is the same, and though we may enforce our
measures with more tact, they contain elements of
grave danger to our political welfare.

The Stamp Act is so well known as to require
but brief comment. The main opposition to it was
drawn about its revenue clauses. But not the
least objectionable of its features was the minute
ness of its provisions by reason of which it touched
upon the life of the colonists at every point, letting
none escape. No man or woman who had business
in the courts of law or before an ecclesiastical court,
none engaged in trade, none who held public office,
none who secured a grant or made a conveyance
of land, none who read a pamphlet or an almanac
or a newspaper, could fail to come in contact with
this tax at some time. The idle were caught in the
meshes of its net along with the industrious, for no
man could indulge in a game of cards, or hazard a

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 247

stake at dice, without having this unwelcome token
of the power of Parliament rise up to greet him.

Only less irritating than the Stamp Act were the
Townshend Acts of 1767, three in number, that
establishing customs commissioners, already re
ferred to, the revenue act, known as the " glass,
lead and paint " act,1 and the tea act.2 As if the
taxation feature of the revenue act was thought not
to be sufficient to arouse the opposition of the col
onists, the last paragraph of this act legalized writs
of assistance in the colonies, over which the contro
versy with England had started in 1761. Thus
antagonized, the colonists instituted non-importa
tion agreements, which bore so heavily upon Eng
land's merchants that the revenue act was repealed
in 1770. Served thus with the first taste of the
results of effective opposition to unpalatable enact
ments, non-importation followed by non-exportation
agreements were resorted to in 1774.

When the revenue act of 1767 was repealed in
I77<D,3 the duty on tea imported into America was
retained, along with the provisions of the tea act of
1767, which granted a remission of the British
duties paid on all teas exported to America and Ire-

*7 Geo. Ill, c. 46, June 29, 1767.

2 7 Geo. Ill, c. 56, July 2, 1767. Both these acts are in
MacDonald, 323, 327.
8 10 Geo. Ill, c. 17.

248 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

land, and was obviously in the interests of the East
India Tea Company. The retention of this duty in
1770, though Americans were enabled to procure
tea more cheaply than it could be purchased in
England, led to the well-known tea disturbances
throughout the country, the most notorious and dis
orderly of which was the " Boston Tea Party."
Elsewhere the landing of tea was opposed with
equal efficacy, though not accompanied by such
theatrical turbulence. As this tea act expired in
1772, another act was passed in May, I773,1 by
which the cost of tea in America was still further
reduced, but a small tax being retained. Franklin
expressed the prevailing opinion when he wrote,
" They [the ministry] have no idea that any people
can act for any principle but that of interest; and
they believe that three pence on a pound of tea, of
which one does not perhaps drink ten pounds in a
year, is sufficient to overcome all the patriotism of
an American."2

The wide extension of the jurisdiction of admir
alty courts in 1764 (to which were entrusted the
enforcement of the Sugar Act), and their increase
in numbers in 1768, are responsible for the idea
contained in the next charge3 which is closely re-

1 13 Geo. Ill, c. 44.
3 Works, Sparks' ed., VIII, 49-

8 " For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial
by Jury."

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 249

lated to the succeeding.1 No cause was ever tried
in an admiralty court before a jury, and to author
ize, besides, the transportation of offenders for trial
was thought to add exile to injustice. Transporta
tion for trial beyond the seas meant the revival of
an old law, passed in the reign of Henry VIII,2 by
which it was made possible to send a person, ac
cused of treason in any part of the realm, to Eng
land for trial. The first intimation that this act was
to be extended to America came in 1769, after the
failure of Massachusetts to rescind her Circular Let
ter, and the riots that took place upon the seizure
of John Hancock's sloop, the "Liberty." Parlia
ment early in that year, in an address to the King,
made the suggestion that the time was favorable
for the revival of the law just mentioned. Matters
rested in this uncertain state until June, 1772, when,
after the revenue vessel " Gaspee " was burned to
the water's edge in NarragaliseTt_Bay, the determi
nation to punish violators of the revenue acts, and
these destructive rioters in particular, was greatly
intensified. A commission was therefore instituted
late in 1772 to investigate this offense. These com
missioners had extensive powers, yet the weightiest
part of their instructions was that which ordered

1 " For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pre
tended offenses."
2 35 Henry VIII.

25O THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

them to transport the offenders to England for
trial.1

In the autumn of 1772, just previous to the ap
pointment of this commission, and before the know
ledge of the " Gaspee " incident had even reached
England, an act had been passed " for the better
securing and preserving His Majesty's Dock Yards,
Magazines, Ships, Ammunition and Stores,"2 which
included the detested transportation provision. It
aroused great opposition, for it deprived the colo
nists of their dearly cherished right of " a constitu
tional trial by a jury of the vicinage." The law,
already referred to, " for the impartial administra
tion of Justice," while designed to protect the rev
enue and other officials, also belongs to this category
of ills, because of its transportation clauses.

The possible enforcement of the Quebec Act of

I774,3 with its far-reaching provisions for extending

,*£> the use of the civil as against the common law, was

made the ground of the next grievance.4 As it

never went into force in any respect, however, it is

1 Winsor, Narr. and Crit. Hist., VI, 53.

2 12 Geo. Ill, c. 24.

8 14 Geo. Ill, c. 83. MacDonald, op. cit., 355.

* " For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a
neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary gov
ernment and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at
once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same
absolute rule into these Colonies."

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 25 I

difficult to tell exactly what its effects might have
been. Yet the extension of the limits of the prov
ince created by the proclamation of 1763, so as to
include all the country west of the Alleghanies and
south to the Ohio River, meant a further encroach
ment upon the territory of those colonies that
claimed charter rights to much of the land thus
included. The reasons already given, therefore,
added to the opportunities for further aggression
that the enforcement of this act might offer, ren
dered it one of the laws looked on with the greatest
disfavor by the colonists. It appeared to them as
but another unwarrantable extension of the royal
prerogative, against which they had for so long been
contending without avail.

What the Quebec Act lacked in definiteness, how- ..-
ever, was more than supplied by the very evident
intent of the bill regulating the government of Mas
sachusetts.1 If any acts of aggression may be set
down as the immediate cause of the outbreak of
the revolution this and its sister, the Boston Port
Act, may be so regarded. None carried with them
so much consternation and dismay. None aroused
at the same time so much stern opposition. Their
great importance, therefore, made it necessary that

1 " For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most val
uable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our
Governments."

252 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

reference should be made to them in the Declara
tion. If the power to take away or alter a single
charter was once recognized, the rights of no colony
were safe from destruction. The principle, if car
ried to its logical conclusion, meant the possible abo
lition of all the laws developed by the English in
America through a period of a hundred and fifty
years, and the substitution in their stead of such
manner and form of government as the will of an
arbitrary sovereign might dictate. When, there
fore, the first-mentioned act1 abolished, with one
stroke, the council as it had been developed; cur
tailed the power of the assembly ; practically put an
end to that great institution for the redress of griev
ances, the town meeting; made serious changes in
the manner of selecting the judiciary and jurors ;
and virtually made the governor the supreme power
in the province, we cannot wonder that this act of
revenge upon Massachusetts, which foreshadowed
what might be expected to happen elsewhere,
aroused a spirit of opposition throughout the colo
nies such as had never before been called forth.
Therein lay the main part of the grievance. Yet
the earlier decision (1772) to sever the governor
of Massachusetts completely from any dependence
upon the assembly for his salary, and thereby to

make his freedom of action 'the greater, was also
1 14 Geo. Ill, c. 45. MacDonald, op. cit., 343.

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 2$ 3

an innovation in settled custom that was viewed with
grave disfavor. Also, when the great contest was
on in North Carolina, over the establishment of
courts, the attempt of the governor to pay no heed
to the recalcitrant assembly, by endeavoring to erect
courts on his own responsibility, was likewise re
garded as " altering fundamentally " an established
form of government.

Nor could the colonies ever become reconciled to
that short-sighted policy which, because of the spir
ited resistance of the New York Assembly to the
demands made upon it, could offer no other solu
tion of the difficulty than the suspension of the legis
lature until it bent the knee and yielded.1 The
colonies were accustomed to the exercise of the
governor's power of veto and prorogation. This
had been submitted to from the beginning, and was
regarded as a constitutional mode of enforcing royal
authority. But to go much further, and, for so
trivial an action on the part of the New York As
sembly, as the failure to make what was considered
adequate provision for the troops quartered there,
to suspend indefinitely its legislative functions by
act of Parliament,2 was regarded as an exercise of

1 " For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring
themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases
whatsoever."

2 7 Geo. Ill, c. 59, June 15, 1767. MacDonald, op. cit., 318.

254 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

unwarranted authority to which the colonists never
became reconciled. Although New York was forced
to yield, her cause was made the cause of all, and
the voice of protest against this act resounded far
and wide. It was, moreover, an enforcement of the
Declaratory Act of i?66,1 little heeded at first, but
now seen to be fraught with the utmost danger to
colonial rights. By the provisions of that act the
imperial crown and Parliament of Great Britain
were declared to have conjointly full power to make
laws " to bind the colonies and people of America,
subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases
whatever." And the Tea Acts of 1770 and 1773,
were regarded as but other instances of the enforce
ment of the policy thus announced.

We have come now to the end of the grievances
that had their origin previous to the beginning of
the armed struggle. For the last five2 of all the
long, unhappy list, the King is once more held to
sole responsibility. They have to do with the harsh

*6 Geo. Ill, c. 12. MacDonald, 316.

2 " He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out
of his Protection and waging War against us."

" He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt
our towns, and destroyed the Lives of our people."

" He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and
tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty &
perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and
totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 255

events of the beginning of the war — the skirmishes
and battles; the proclamation of August 23, 1775,
declaring the colonists in rebellion and announcing
the intention to suppress the revolutionists with a
high hand, and the speech *ii bin the throne in Oc
tober of the same year breathing a like purpose.
These led to war in earnest, and with its beginning
the royal governors, ever in a perplexing situation,
thought it necessary to flee, before the possible
disgrace of capture fell to their lot. First Gov
ernor Dunmore of Virginia, in June, 1775, soon
followed by Tryon of New York, Martin of North
Carolina, and Campbell of South Carolina, " abdi
cated government," — in the terms of the Act of Set
tlement of 1689 — and left the inhabitants of those
colonies to their own devices in creating new forms
of government.

The other acts complained of need no explanation,
for they all form part of the familiar history of the
commencement of the war. The burning of Fal-
mouth and Charlestown, Norfolk and Charleston;
the employment of Hessians — " foreign mercenar
ies " — to fight the cause of England ; and the act of
Parliament of December, I775,1 which authorized
the capture and condemnation of trading ships, and
compelled " fellow Citizens taken captive on the
high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to

1 1 6 Geo. Ill, c. 5. MacDonald, op. cit., 392.

256 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

become the executioners of their friends and Breth
ren, or to fall themselves by their Hands,"1 require
no comment to make their meaning clear.

The last grievance2 refers to a possible condition
of affairs, ever dreatfedr md against which precau
tions had been taken by numerous acts of legislation.
Those acquainted with life in the South are aware
of the fear engendered by the thought of a servile
war. Nothing more horrible could be imagined;
only the letting loose of bands of well-armed Indians
to plunder and devastate the country was to be com
pared with it. When, therefore, Dunmore, in the
spring of 1775, in order to enforce his decrees,
threatened to arm negroes and Indians, the alarm
created was widespread, and it had much to do with
bringing into existence a well-trained militia. The
governors of North and South Carolina were known
to be adopting similar measures, and the latter was
denounced as " having used his utmost endeavors
to destroy the lives, liberties and properties of the
people." Along with this came the endeavor to en-

1 " He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive
on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to
become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or
to fall themselves by their Hands."

2 " He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and
has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers,
the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare
is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and con
ditions."

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 257

gage the Indians as allies, and Gage issued instruc
tions to that effect in the summer of 1775. The
Indian agent Stuart, on the borders of South Caro
lina, made overtures and won to him the Creeks
and Chicksaws, while Sir Guy Carleton was making
similar progress with the Six Nations in the North.1

If impartial consideration be given to the forceful
recapitulation of the colonists' contentions in the
Declaration, and to the analysis here set down, it
must be admitted that the differences were serious,
even though some may not regard them as sufficient
to warrant recourse to arms. Moreover, they had
reason and right, — if not entire reason nor all-con
vincing right, — to sustain them, amply adequate to
justify the course they had pursued. Further, it
must be allowed, that if, in the statement of the
colonial side, the constitutional right of Great
Britain to enact legislation for the government of
the colonies is denied, full cause for such denial had
been given in the earlier failure to exercise that
right. The colonies had been allowed to work out
their destinies in their own way with only trifling
interference. This was in large measure due to
England's neglect to make the most of her colonial
possessions on the continent, ignoring them for the
wealth that was more easily to be acquired from her
West Indian possession. When she awoke to the

1 Winsor, Narr. and Crit. Hist., VI, Chapter VIII.
17

258 THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

possibilities lying in the development of the other
colonies, the time had passed when they might be
put to use mainly for her own advancement. The
colonists had learned, during the period of neglect,
in what directions lay the opportunities for their own
development. They could not abandon them, short
of a complete overturn of existing conditions, and
to this they would not submit, since they were strong
enough to make an effective resistance. Assertion
of rights and recital of grievances had been met
by determination to enforce submission. Memorials
and resolutions appealing to the King, to Parlia
ment, even to the English people, had been put
aside and disregarded, or else had been succeeded
by measures more obnoxious than those against
which protest had been registered. In the Declara
tion of Rights and the other documents of the first
Congress, repeal of practically all the acts, now
cited as warrant for breaking off the connection
with Great Britain, had been pleaded for in general
as well as in specific terms. Every method known
to the colonists to bring about the reforms desired
had been tried with no results. They had now
either to retreat or fight on to victory.

The belief in their own strength, in the righteous
ness of their cause, is epitomized in the Declaration.
The arguments had been made before, and the briefs
submitted. The decision was now proclaimed that

FACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD 2 5~'/

the time had arrived for them to stand up by them
selves in the court of nations, " to acquiesce in the
necessity " which caused the separation, and to hold
Great Britain, as they held " the rest of mankind,
enemies in war, in peace friends." Therefore, as
petitions to the King and appeals to the people of
Great Britain had proved fruitless of results, there
was no other course for them, the " Representa
tives of the United States of America, in General
Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme
Judge of the world for the rectitude " of their inten
tions, than, " in the Name and by authority of the
good People " of the colonies to " solemnly publish
and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of
Right ought to be Free and Independent States ; that
they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British
Crown, and that all political connection between
them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to
be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Indepen
dent States, they have full Power to levy War, con
clude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce,
and to do all other Acts and Things which Inde
pendent States may of right do." And for the sup
port of that Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of Divine Providence, they mutually
pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and
their sacred honor.

APPENDIX
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The Declaration of Independence as drafted by
Jefferson, and the engrossed copy, are printed in the
succeeding pages for purposes of comparison. The
originals are in the Department of State at Washing
ton. The draft reproduced here is the one found
among Jefferson's papers when they were acquired
by the government. Facsimiles of it are in Ran
dolph's Jefferson, and in Ford's, Writings, vol. II.
This is apparently not the report of the committee,
which has not been preserved, but appears to be the
draft from which Jefferson may have made^the final
copy submitted by the committee as its report to the
Congress. Jefferson made other copies, one of which
is inserted in the manuscript of his Autobiography,
and another is among the Madison papers, both in
possession of the government. Still other copies are
among the Richard Henry Lee papers, in the Ameri
can Philosophical Society (reproduced in facsimile
in Proc.y vol. XXXVII), the Adams papers in the
Massachusetts Historical Society (printed in Ford's
Jefferson's Writings, vol. II), in the Emmet collec
tion, Lenox Library, and a fragment is in the pos
session of Mrs. Washburn, of Boston.

The portions of the draft stricken out by the Con
gress are printed in italics, and those inserted are
enclosed within brackets.

261

A Declaration by the Representatives of the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General
Congress assembled.

When in the course of human events it becomes
necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them with another, and
to assume among the powers of the earth the sepa
rate and equal station to which the laws of nature
& of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect for
the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separa
tion.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all
men are created equal ; that they are endowed by
their creator with inherent & inalienable rights, that
among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happi
ness ; that to secure these rights, governments are in
stituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed ; that whenever any form
of government becomes destructive of these ends, it
is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, &
to institute new government, laying its foundation
on such principles & organising its powers in such
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
262

ED COPY

[In CONGRESlPpry 4, 1776. The unanimous
Declaration of the thirteen united STATES of
AMERICA,]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes
necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them with another, and
to assume among the powers of the earth, the sepa
rate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature
and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separa
tion.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with [certain unalienable] Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Govern
ments are instituted among Men, deriving their just,
powers from the consent of the governed. — That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destruc
tive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Govern
ment, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
263

264 JEFFERSON'S DRAFT

safety & happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate
that governments long established should not be
changed for light & transienj^^ses : and accord
ingly all experience hath |newn Ifchat mankind are
more disposed to suffer wran^evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed. But when a long train
of abuses & usurpations, begun at a distinguished
period, & pursuing invariably the same object,
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism,1 it is their right, it is their duty, to throw
off such government & to provide new guards for
their future security. Such has been the patient
sufferance of these colonies, & such is now the neces
sity which constrains them to expunge their former
systems of government. The history of the present
King of Great Britain2 is a history of unremitting
injuries and usurpations, among which appears no
solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the
rest, but all have in direct object the establishment of
an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this
let fact be submitted to a candid world, for the truth
of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by false
hood.

xThe words "under absolute Despotism" are in Franklin's
handwriting, and are in place of the words " to arbitrary
power."

2 The words "King of Great Britain" were substituted by
Adams for " his present majesty."

ENGROSSED COPY 265

seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happi
ness. j^Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Govern
ments long established should not be changed for
light and transient causes; and accordingly all ex
perience hath shown, that mankind are more dis
posed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed?/ But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under abso
lute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new
Guards for their future security. — Such has been the
patient sufferance of these Colonies ; and such is now
the necessity which constrains them to [alter] their
former Systems of Government.^The history of the
present King of Great Britain is a history of [re
peated] injuries and usurpations, all [having] in
direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyr
anny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be
submitted to a candid world. — ^

266 JEFFERSON'S DRAFT

He has refused his assent to laws the most whole
some and necessary for the public good :

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of
immediate & pressing importance, unless suspended
in their operation till his assent should be obtained,
and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to
attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accom
modation of large districts of people unless those
people would relinquish the right of representation
in the legislature, a right, inestimable to them, &
formidable to tyrants only :

He has called together legislative bodies at places
unusual, uncomfortable & distant from the de
pository of their public records, for the sole purpose
of fatiguing them into compliance with his meas
ures.

He has dissolved Representative houses repeatedly
& continually for opposing with manly firmness his
invasions on the rights of the people:

He has refused for a long time after such Dissolu
tions1 to cause others to be elected whereby the legis
lative powers incapable of annihilation, have returned
to the people at large for their exercise, the state re
maining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers
of invasion from without, & convulsions within :

1 The words " after such Dissolutions " were suggested by
Adams.

ENGROSSED COPY 267

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most
wholesome and necessary for the public good. —

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of
immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended
in their operation till his Assent should be obtained ;
and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected
to attend to them. —

He has refused pass other Laws for the accom
modation of large districts of people, unless those
people would relinquish the right of Representation
in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and
formidable to tyrants only. —

He has called together legislative bodies at places
unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the de
pository of their public Records, for the sole purpose
of fatiguing them into compliance with his meas
ures. —

He has dissolved Representative Houses re
peatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his in
vasions on the rights of the people. —

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolu
tions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the
Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have
returned to the People at large for their exercise ; the
State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the
dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions
within. —

268 JEFFERSON'S DRAFT

He has endeavored to prevent the population of
these states, for that purpose obstructing the laws
for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass
others to encourage their migrations hither, &
raising the conditions of new appropriations of
lands.

He has suffered the administration of justice
totally to cease in some of these states, refusing his
assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers :

He has made our judges dependant on his will
alone, for the tenure of their offices and the amount
& payment1 of their salaries :

He has erected a multitude of new offices by a
self-assumed power, & sent hither swarms of officers
to harrass our people & eat out their substance :

He has kept among us in times of peace standing
armies & ships of war without the consent of our
legislatures.

He has affected to render the military, independ
ent of & superior to the civil power :

He has combined with others to subject us to a
jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and un
acknowledged by our laws ; giving his assent to their
acts of pretended legislation, for quartering large
bodies of armed troops among us; for protecting
them by a mock-trial from punishment for any mur
ders which they should commit on the inhabitants of

1 The words " and payment " were suggested by Franklin.

ENGROSSED COPY 269

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of
these States ; for that purpose obstructing the Laws
for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass
others to encourage their migrations hither, and
raising the conditions of new Appropriations of
Lands.—

He has [obstructed the Administration of Justice,
by] refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing
Judiciary powers. —

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone,
for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and
payment of their salaries. —

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and
sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people,
and eat out their substance. —

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing
Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. —

He has affected to render the Military independ
ent of and superior to the Civil power. —

He has combined with others to subject us to a
jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and un
acknowledged by our laws ; giving his Assent to their
Acts of pretended Legislation: — For quartering
large bodies of armed troops among us; For pro
tecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for
any Murders which they should commit on the In-

2/0 JEFFERSON S DRAFT

these states ; for cutting off our trade with all parts
of the world ; for imposing taxes on us without our
consent ; for depriving us of the benefits of trial by
jury, for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for
pretended offences ; for abolishing the free system of
English laws in a neighboring province, establishing
therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its
bounds so as to render it at once an example & fit
instrument for introducing the same absolute rule
into these colonies; for taking away our charters,
abolishing our most valuable Laws,1 and altering
fundamentally the forms of our governments; for
suspending our own legislatures & declaring them
selves invested with power to legislate for us in all
cases whatsoever :

He has abdicated government here, withdrawing
his governors, & declaring us out of his allegiance &
protection.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts,
burnt our towns & destroyed the lives of our
people :

He is at this time transporting large armies of
Scotch and other foreign mercenaries to compleat
the works of death desolation & tyranny already
begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy un
worthy the head of a civilized nation.

1 The words " abolishing our most valuable Laws " were
added by Franklin.

ENGROSSED COPY 2/1

habitants of these States : — For cutting off our Trade
with all parts of the world : — For imposing Taxes on
us without our Consent: — For depriving us [in
many cases] , of the benefits of Trial by Jury : — For
transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pre
tended offences : — For abolishing the free System of
English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing
therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its
Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and
fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule
into these Colonies : — For taking away our Charters,
abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering
fundamentally the Forms of our Governments : —
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring
themselves invested with power to legislate for us in
all cases whatsoever. —

He has abdicated Government here, [by] declar
ing us out of his Protection [and waging War
against us] . —

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts,
burnt our towns, and destroyed the Lives of our
people. —

He is at this time transporting large Armies of
foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, Is
desolation and tyranny, already begun with circum
stances of Cruelty & perfidy [scarcely paralleled in
the most barbarous ages, and totally] unworthy the
Head of a civilized nation.

272 JEFFERSON'S DRAFT

He has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of
our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose
known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruc
tion of all ages, sexes, & conditions of existence.

He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fel
low-citizens with the allurements of forfeiture & con
fiscation of property.

He has constrained others taken captives on the
high seas, to bear arms against their country, to be
come the executioners of their friends & brethren, or
to fall themselves by their hand :

He has waged cruel war against human nature
itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life &
liberty in the persons of a distant people who never
offended him, captivating & carrying them into
slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable
death in their transportation thither. This piratical
warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the
warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain deter
mined to keep open a market where MEN should
be bought and sold. He has prostituted his negative
for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit
or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this

ENGROSSED COPY 2/3

He has constrained [our fellow Citizens] taken
Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their
Country, to become the executioners of their friends
and Brethren, or fall themselves by their Hands. —

He has [excited domestic insurrections amongst
us, and has] endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants
of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose
known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished de
struction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

18

2/4 JEFFERSON S DRAFT

assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distin
guished die, he is now exciting these very people to
rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty
of which he has deprived them, by murdering the
people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus pay
ing off former crimes committed against the liberties
of our people, with crimes which he urges them to
commit against the lives of another.

In every stage of these oppressions " we have
petitioned for redress in the most humble terms,"
our repeated petitions have been answered only1 by
repeated injuries. " A prince whose character is
thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant,"
is unfit to be the ruler of a people who mean to be
free. "Future ages will scarce believe that the hardi
ness of one man adventured within the short compass
of twelve years only " to build a foundation so broad
& undisguised, for tyranny over a people fostered
and fixed in principles of freedom.

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our
British brethren. We have warned them from time
to time of attempts by their legislature to extend a
jurisdiction over these our states. We have re
minded them of the circumstances of our emigration
& settlement here, no one of which could warrant so
strange a pretension: that these were effected at the
cxpence of our own blood & treasure, unassisted by
the wealth or the strength of Great Britain: that in

1 " Only " added by Franklin.

ENGROSSED COPY 2/5

In every stage of these Oppressions We have
Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms :
Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus
marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is
unfit to be the ruler of a [free] people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our
British brethren. We have warned them from time
to time of attempts by their legislature to extend [an
unwarrantable] jurisdiction over [us]. We have
reminded them of the circumstances of our emigra
tion and settlement here. We [have] appealed to
their native justice and magnanimity, and [we have
conjured them by] the ties of our common kindred
to disavow these usurpations, which, [would in-

276 JEFFERSON'S DRAFT

constituting indeed our several forms of government,
we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a
foundation for perpetual league and amity with
them: but that submission to their parliament was
no part of our constitution, nor ever in idea of his
tory may be credited; and we appealed to their native
justice & magnanimity, as well as to the ties of our
common kindred to disavow these usurpations which
were likely to interrupt our connection & correspond
ence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice
and consanguinity, & zvhen occasions have been
given them, by the regular course of their laws, of
removing from their councils the disturbers of our
harmony, they have by their free election re-estab
lished them in power. At this very time too they are
permitting their chief magistrate to send over not
only soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch &
foreign mercenaries to invade & destroy us1 these
facts have given the last stab to agonising affection,
and manly spirit bids us to renounce for ever these
unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget
our former love for them, and to hold them as we
hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace
friends. We might have been a free & a great
people together; but a communication of grandeur
& of freedom it seems is below their dignity. Be it
so since they will have it. The road to happiness & to
glory is open to us too, we will climb it apart from

* " And destroy us " added by Franklin.

ENGROSSED COPY

evitably] interrupt our connections and correspond
ence

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and
of consanguinity.

[We must, therefore] acquiesce in the necessity,
which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as
we held the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in
Peace Friends. —

278 JEFFERSON'S DRAFT

them, and acquiesce in the necessity which denounces
our eternal separation.

We therefore the representatives of the United
States of America in General Congress assembled
do in the name & by authority of the good people of
these states reject and renounce all allegiance & sub
jection to the kings of Great Britain & all others
who may hereafter claim by, through, or under them;
we utterly dissolve all political connection which
may heretofore have subsisted betzveen us & the
people or parliament of Great Britain; and finally we
do assert and declare these colonies to be free and
independant states and that as free & independant
states they have full power to levy war conclude
peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, & to do
all other acts and things which independant states
may of right do. And for the support of this decla
ration we mutually pledge to each other our lives,
our fortunes, & our sacred honour.

ENGROSSED COPY 2/9

We, therefore the Representatives of the united
States of America, in General Congress, Assembled,
[appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for
the rectitude of our intentions], do, in the Name,
and by Authority of the good People of these Col
onies, [solemnly publish and declare, That these
United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free
and Independent States; that they are Absolved
from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all
political connection between them and the State of
Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved] ;
and that as Free and Independent States, they have
full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract
Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other
Acts and Things which Independent States may of
right do. —

And for the support of this Declaration, [with a
firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence] ,
we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our For
tunes and our sacred Honor.

INDEX

ACT of settlement (1689),
255-

Adams, Charles Francis, Life
and tvorks of John Adams,
2.

Adams, John, 20, 23, 24, 60,
79, 90, 113, 114, 141, 142,
173; Life of, by C. F.
Adams, 2 ; on rights of the
colonies, 14; Diary, 20;
compromise proposition of,
24 ; on independence, 28,
29 ; in Congress, 58, 84 ; on
the expected commissioners
of the King, 65 ; on form
ing new governments, 80 ;
endeavors to force union,
91 ; on renouncing jurisdic
tion of the crown, 95 ; Let
ters to his wife, 95 ; sec
onds motion for indepen
dence, 102; debate of, on
adoption of resolutions of
independence, 104-106;
member of committee to
prepare Declaration of In
dependence, 107; Declara
tion of Independence sub
mitted to, 121 ; on resolu
tions for independence,
123 ; speech for indepen
dence, 124; criticises Dec
laration of Independence,
J56, 157; reply of Jefferson
to, 157-159; on the Dec
laration of Independence,
182; on government, 195;
Works, 23, 24, 40, 41, 43,
90, 91, 102, 113, 114, 122,
124, 141, 173.

Adams, Samuel, 58, 79, 142,
176; on rights of the col
onies, 14; on independence,
28, 29, 59 ; in Congress,
84 ; on the signing of the
Declaration of Indepen
dence by, 141 ; manuscript
letter of, in Lenox library,
141 ; on the Declaration of
Independence, 182; on gov
ernment, 195 ; on royal in
structions issued to gov
ernors, 222.

Address, proposed, on inde
pendence, 175, 176.

Address of Philadelphia mer
chants, 1768, 218.

Address to the colonies, 1774,
164, 235.

Address to the inhabitants of
Great Britain, 1775, 165.

Address to the people of
Great Britain, 1774, 162,
164.

Address to the people of
Quebec, 27.

Admiralty courts, 248, 249 ;
extension of jurisdiction
of, 234, 235, 237.

Agents, colonial, in London,
211.

Aitken, Robert, proceedings
of Congress for 1776 print
ed by, 135.

Alexander, James, member of
committee to prepare ad
dress against independence,
56.

Aliens, naturalization of, 228.

281

282

INDEX

Almon, John, Prior docu
ments, 217, 218.

Alsop, John, 142, 144.

American Revolution, might
have been postponed many
years, 4 ; influence of Con
gress upon, 32, 33 ; prepara
tion for, 69 ; political phi
losophy of, 184, 198-200;
original causes that led to
the, 212. See also War of
Independence.

Answer to the Declaration of
Independence, 5th ed., Lon
don, 1776, 219, 241.

Army, standing, in the col
onies, 26, 237.

Army, continental, on the
formation of a, 34 ; in
crease of, 6 1 ; distribution
throughout colonies of the,
82.

Assemblies, colonial, 12; ad
ministrative power of, 15 ;
the proroguing of, 16;
members of Congress elect
ed by, 77 ; on representa
tion of newly-settled dis
tricts in the, 222, 223, 224 ;
removal and dissolution of,
225, 226.

Association of 1774, Articles
of, 22, 23, 68 ; non-exporta
tion part of, goes into ef
fect, 40 ; reenactment of
parts of, 73 ; date of sign
ing, 134; importation of
slaves prohibited by, 216.

Austin, James T., Gerry, 90.

BALTIMORE Committee, places
Eden's correspondence be
fore Congress, 87 ; de
nounced by Maryland
Council of Safety, 88.

Bancroft, George, 124; His
tory of the United States
of America, 67, 237.

Bartlett, Josiah, 142; on the
Declaration of indepen
dence, 183.

Bills of credit, issuance of,
48 ; British policy against
issuance of, 217.

Bland, Richard, on rights of
the colonies, 14; on gov
ernment, 195.

Board of trade and foreign
plantations, established as
Council for Trade (1660),
208; reorganized (1765),
209 ; permanently estab
lished (1696), 209; pre
rogatives of, curtailed
(1766), 210; method of
procedure of, during revolu
tionary agitation, 210, 211.

Board of trade journals, 208,
214, 220.

Borgeaud, Charles, Rise of
modern democracy in Old
and New England, 184.

Boston, proclamation prohib
iting people from leaving
town of, 47 ; evacuation of,
73 ; town meeting of, 1768,
226.

"Boston Massacre" (1770), 4,
238, 241.

Boston Port Act, 243, 251 ;
effect of, 19.

" Boston tea party," 248.

Boucher, Jonathan, on rights
of kings and governments,
14.

Bradford, William, 238.

Buchanan, Thomas McKean,
McKean family, 128, 146.

Burke, Edmund, 211; on
liberty, 12.

INDEX

Braxton, Carter, 143.
Bryce, James, Studies in his
tory and jurisprudence, 186.

CAMPBELL, Governor William
abdicates government, 255.

Canada, invitation to unite
with colonies, 83.

Carleton, Sir Guy, engages
Indians as allies, 257.

Carroll, Charles, influence
upon Maryland politics of,
113 ; on signing of Declara
tion of Independence by,
145.

Chamberlain, Mellen, Authen
tication of the Declaration
of Independence, 133.

Charles I, 208.

Charles II, 208, 209, 243.

Charleston, burning of, 255.

Charlestown, burning of, 255.

Chase, Samuel, unofficially
supports independence, 58 ;
in Congress, 84; influence
of, upon Maryland politics,
112-114; on signing of
Declaration of Indepen
dence by, 141, 142, 145,
149.

Choate, Rufus, on the Dec
laration of Independence,
159, 160.

Clark, Abraham, 143.

Clinton, George, 142, 144.

Clymer, George, on signing
of Declaration of Indepen
dence by, 144, 149.

Collins, Edward D., on com
mittees of correspondence,
17-

Colonies, acts of Parliament
affecting commerce and in
dustry of, i, 2 ; beginning
of controversy between

Parliament and, 6 ; Parlia
mentary control gradually
renounced by, 7 ; removal
of economic burdens of, 9 ;
constant development along
democratic lines of, 1 1 ;
administrative powers of,
i i ; change in the nature
of the dispute of, 12;
rights of, 13, 14, 15, 23,
!79> *99> 200; administra
tive development of, 15;
formation of parties in,
31 ; administrative bodies
of, controlled by Congress,
33 ; decrease of conserva
tives in, 42 ; proclamation
by Congress in name of
United, 47 ; conservative
spirit in, 50 ; declared by
the King to be in rebellion,
52 ; commercial relations
of, regulated by Congress,
68 ; foreign relations of,
75 ; political revolutions in,
79, 80 ; resolutions to de
clare independence of, 100;
theories of, on government,
163 ; first official expression
of contentions of, 164, 165 ;
denial of the right of Par
liament to control the, 162-
167 ; protests by, of loyalty
to the King, 162, 164, 166 ;
answer of, to proclamation
of the King, 167, 168; re
nounce allegiance to the
crown, 169; increase of
authority of the legislature
in, 194, 204, 205 ; contro
versy between the King
and the, 194 ; authority of
the crown over, 195 ; po
litical conceptions of lead
ers of thought of, 204 ;

284

INDEX

official relations of Great
Britain with, 208-211; re
strictions on commerce of,
212 ; constitutional relations
to the crown of, 214; in
crease of royal instructions
issued to the governors of,
221, 222; economic griev
ances of, 242, 243 ; denial
by, on constitutional right
of Great Britain to enact
colonial legislation, 257.
Rights of, See also Dec
laration of rights.

Colonies, laws of, British
supervision over, 213, 214;
disallowance by the King
of, 214-219; on restricting
slave trade, 215; on re
stricting entrance of con
victs, 215, 216; on issuing
bills of credit, 217; first in
timation in 1740 of closer
British control over, 219 ;
royal instructions in 1752
requiring revision of, 219;
on suppression of lotteries,
219, 220; British neglect
of, while suspended in ac
tion awaiting royal assent,
220.

Colville, Admiral, placed at
head of revenue service,
237-

Commissioners of customs in
America, 236.

Commissioners of the King,
prospective, 63-66.

Committee of secret corre
spondence, personnel of, 75.

Committee to prepare a Dec
laration of Independence,
1 06, 107 ; lays document
before Congress, 121.

Committees of correspon
dence, ramifications of, 4 ;
origin of, 16, 17; Collins
on, 17; Congress and the,
17, 18; violation of Asso
ciation to be controlled by,
23-

Concord, effect of hostilities
at, 30.

Confederation, plan of a, 104;
committee to draft Articles
of, 1 01 ; importance of,
125 ; date of signing Ar
ticles of, 134.

Congress of 1765, revolu
tionary memorials of, 3 ;
delegates to, elected by the
assemblies, 5 ; proves effi
cacy of united action, 5 ;
memorial to Lords and
Commons and petition to
the King, 6 ; state papers
of, 7 ; moderation of the
acts of, 8.

Congress of 1774, five dele
gations to, elected by as
semblies, 5 ; Committees of
correspondence and, 17, 18;
credentials of delegates to,
19, 20 ; committed to non
importation and non-ex
portation agreements, 20 ;
Suffolk County resolves en
dorsed by, 21 ; on legisla
tion without representation,
22 ; letter of, to Gen. Gage,
22 ; Declaration of rights
adopted by, 23, 24 ; Address
to the people of Great
Britain by, 26 ; independent
government not demanded
by, 28 ; Address to the
people of the colonies and
Petition to the King by,
27 ; dissolved, 29 ; on the

INDEX

285

slave trade, 216; election
of delegates to, 226.
Congress of 1775-76, con
vened, 30 ; responsibilities
of, 30 ; assumes direction
of colonial affairs, 31 ;
growth of power and au
thority of, 32, 33 ; support
of, by the colonies, 33 ; ef
fect of the enlargement of
the powers of, 35 ; em
phasis of British aggres
sion the continual policy
of, 36, 41 ; unconscious
working of, toward inde
pendence, 37, 38 ; second
Petition to the King by,
38; rejects Lord North's
plan of conciliation, 39 ;
adjournment and recon
vening of, 40 ; reply of, to
proclamation of King de
claring rebellion, 41 ; effect
of proclamation upon, 42,
43 ; on sending a new peti
tion, 46 ; proclamation of
Dec. 6, 47 ; sovereign policy
of, 48 ; strength of con
servative in, 50 ; continued
increase in power and au
thority of, 51 ; increasing
strength of radical party in,
59 ; influence upon, of the
engaging of foreign mer
cenaries, 67 ; regulates com
mercial relations of the
colonies, 68-70, 74 ; in
creased power of, 69 ; on
the question of open ports,
71 ; opens ports, 73 ; plans
to secure supplies of war,
74, 75 ; attributes of, 77 ;
instructions to delegates of,
77 ; casts influence on side
of democracy, 80 ; reaction

in, 8 1 ; revolutionary char
acter of, 81, 82 ; measures
resorted to by, 82 ; projects
itself into Pennsylvania
politics, 82, 83 ; antagon
ism of Pennsylvania As
sembly to, 83, 85, 86; ad
vocates of independence in,
84 ; takes measures to show
sympathy with democracy
of Pennsylvania, 86 ; Mary
land feels the hand of, 87 ;
arrest of Gov. Eden or
dered by, 87 ; Maryland
Council of Safety aroused
to opposition to, 88 ; at
tempts to overcome inertia
of conservative colonies,
89 ; recommends local gov
ernments, 91, 92, 93, 94;
extension of jurisdiction
of, 95 J ignores Maryland's
reactionary resolutions, 96 ;
decides to call for more
troops, 97, 98; Virginia
resolutions to declare inde
pendence submitted to, 100,
101 ; debate on indepen
dence postponed one day,
102; debates in, on inde
pendence, 103-106; unim
portant position of New
York delegation in, 116;
New York delegates to,
given no instructions on
independence, 118-119, 126,
143, 144; on resolutions
for independence, 123-125 ;
vote of, on resolutions,
125-129; Declaration of
Independence adopted by,
133 ; state documents is
sued by, 133, 134; mem
bers of, who voted for

286

INDEX

Declaration of Indepen
dence, 142, 143.

Congress, Journal of. See
Journal of Congress.

Connecticut, radical dele
gates of, control vote of
colony, 58, 59 ; on inde
pendence, 114.

Continental army. See Army,
continental.

Continental Congress. See
Congress of 1774; Con
gress of 1775-76.

Convicts, opposition of col
onies to introduction of,
215, 216.

Conway, Moncure Daniel,
Life of Paine, 55.

Cromwell, Oliver, 208, 243 ;
popular uprisings under, n.

Gushing, Thomas, letter of,
67.

DEANE, Silas, contract of
Congress with, 74, 75 ;
Deane papers, 74, 75 ; in
Congress, 84.

Declaration of causes of
taking up arms, July 1775,
164.

Declaration of Independence,
committee selected to pre
pare a, 106, 107; draft of,
reported to Congress, 121 ;
debate on, 130; omitted
paragraphs from draft of,
131, 132; adoption by Con
gress of, 133 ; tradition
about date of signing of,
134, 135; signing and pro
mulgation of, 134-139; en
grossment of, 136, 137;
first official reference to
signing of, 137; first au
thentic copy of, with names

of signers, 137; manuscript
of, 139 ; authentication of,
138, 139; date of signing
of, 139-149 ; signers of,
140-149 ; on the engrossed
copy of, 148-149 ; location
of signatures on the en
grossed copy of, 150; ob
servance of anniversary of
signing of, 151 ; lack of
comprehension of, 152, 153,
159 ; on the criticism of,
J54> 155; criticism of, by
John Adams, 156, 157; in
herent vitality of, 155, 156;
rhetorical side of, 160 ; de
nies the right of Parlia
ment to control the col
onies, 163; purpose of, 172,
174-177; human elen\ nts
of, 178; liferafy"~form" -jf,
178—180; contemporary

opinion of, 180-183 ; the
" unalienable rights " of,
1 88; upon French origin
of, 197; political philos
ophy of, 200-205 ; on the
right to change form of
government, 202, 203 ; in
fluence of, upon American
political institutions, 203 ;
on British supervision over
colonial laws, 213, 222; on
representation, 222 ; on the
removal and dissolution of
assemblies, 224, 225 ; on
naturalization, immigration,
and lands, 226, 227 ; on in
terference with the admin
istration of justice, 230 ;
on the tenure of office and
payment of salaries of the
judiciary, 233 ; on erection
of a multitude of offices,
236; on a standing army,

INDEX

287

237 ; on rendering the mili
tary independent of civil
power, 237 ; on quartering
troops upon the people,
238 ; holds Parliament as
well as King responsible
for abuses, 240 ; on protec
tion of soldiers from pun
ishment, 241 ; on economic
grievances of the colonies,
242 ; on trade, 243 ; on
taxation, 244 ; on trial by
jury, 247 ; on transporta
tion of offenders, 248 ; on
the Quebec Act of 1774,
250 ; on altering estab
lished forms of govern
ment, 251 ; on suspension
of legislatures, 253 ; on the
waging of war against the
colonies, 254, 256 ; on in
citing domestic insurrec
tion, 256. See also Inde
pendence.

Declaration of rights of 1774,
13, 165, 199; adopted by
Congress, 23 ; on the au
thority of Parliament in
the colonies, 24, 25 ; pre
amble of, 24, 25 ; features
of, 25-27; cited, 162, 163;
on the judiciary, 235.

Declaratory act, 3 ; passed by
the Rockingham ministry,
4 ; passage of, 8 ; political
controversy carried on by
means of, 9, 10; on the
legality of Parliamentary
dominance over the col
onies, 1 5 ; enforcement of,

254-
DeLancey, Governor James,

219.
Delaware, resolutions of, on

non-importation (1774), 19,

20 ; instructions of, against
independence, 45, 77 ; con
test for independence in,
80 ; McKean's influence
upon the politics of, no;
loses vote on resolutions
for independence, 125 ; vote
on independence, 127, 128.

Dickinson, John, 78, 107, 109 ;
on the rights of the col
onies, 14 ; petition to the
King drafted by, 27 ; op
poses an aggressive policy,
44 ; chairman of committee
to confer with New Jersey,
46 ; member of committee
to prepare address against
independence, 56 ; on inde
pendence, 76, 79, 1 02, 103,
104, 128, 129; prime mover
in reaction, 81 ; opposes
plan of confederation, 104;
against resolutions for in
dependence, 123 ; speech
against independence, 124,
125; vindication of, 125;
on the signing of the Dec-
claration of Independence
by, 140; on government,
195 ; on introduction of
convicts into the colonies,
216, 217; Life and writings
of, 217.

Documents relating to the
colonial history of New
York, 208, 218, 219, 223,
228.

Donne, Correspondence of
George III with Lord
North, 171.

Duane, James, member of
committee to prepare ad
dress against independence,
56 ; protests against local
governments, 94.

288

INDEX

Dubois, William E. B., Sup
pression of the slave trade,
215.

Dulany, Daniel, on rights of
the colonies, 14; on gov
ernment, 195.

Dunlap, John, printer of the
Declaration of Indepen
dence, 139.

Dunmore, Governor, Norfolk
destroyed by, 52 ; abdicates
government, 255 ; threatens
to arm Negroes and In
dians, 256.

EDEN, Robert, influence of,
upon Maryland politics, 87-
89 ; arrest of, ordered by
Congress, 87 ; banishment
of, by Maryland Council of
safety, 88.

Ellery, William, 142 ; enters
Congress, 92.

Equality, political, 201, 202.

FALMOUTH, burning of, 255.

Filmer, Sir Robert, 187 ;
Patriarcha, 187.

Flick, Alexander C, Loyal-
ism in New York, 116.

Floyd, William, 142.

Ford, Jefferson, 164, 173.

Franklin, Benjamin, 78, 129,
143, 144, 159, ^211, 227;
view of, concerning separa
tion of colonies, 3 ; respon
sibility of, for Paine's
Common Sense, 54 ; allies
himself with radicals of
Pennsylvania, 56 ; unoffi
cially supports indepen
dence, 58 ; member of Com
mittee of secret correspon
dence, 75 ; in Congress, 84 ;
plan of, for a confedera

tion, 104; member of com
mittee to prepare Declara
tion of Independence, 107;
absent from Congress in
June, no; Declaration of
Independence submitted to,
121 ; on introduction of
convicts into the colonies,
216; on the taxation of
tea, 248.

Franklin, William, relations
of, with the Provincial con
gress of New Jersey, in ;
banishment of, 112.

Frothingham, Richard, Rise
of the Republic, no.

GADSDEN, Christopher, in Con
gress, 84.

Gage, Thomas, letter of Con
gress to, 22 ; as governor
of Massachusetts and com-
mander-in-chief of the
army, 238, 239; engages
Indians as allies, 257.

Gaspee, the revenue vessel,
burned, 249.

Gates, General, called to
councils of Congress, 96.

George III, 193 ; autocratic
direction of England's af
fairs by, 10, ii ; proclama
tion of, declaring rebellion
in the colonies, 41, 255 ;
speech of, on rebellion of
the colonies, 51, 52; an
swer of, to the address and
petition of the Lord Mayor
and aldermen of London,
101 ; denounced by Dec
laration of Independence,
132, 155; proclamation of,
167 ; answer of colonies to
the proclamation, 167, 168 ;
tyranny of, 170, 171 ; con-

INDEX

289

troversy between the col
onies and, 194.

Georgia, not represented at
Stamp act congress, 5 ; nor
Congress of 1774, 5; dele
gates absent from Congress
in 1776, 50; instructions to
delegates of, 96 ; favors
adoption of the resolutions
for independence, 104, 105 ;
votes for resolutions of in
dependence, 126; on sla
very, 130; dissolution of
Assembly of, 225.

Gerry, Elbridge, 147; in Con
gress, 58, 84 ; on the sign
ing of the Declaration of
Independence by, 141, 142,

147, 149.

" Glass, lead and paint act,"
234, 247, 248.

Goddard, Mary Katharine,
Declaration of Indepen
dence printed by, 137.

Government, theory of the
origin of, 13, 14; theory of
colonists on, 163 ; con
tractual theories of origin
of, 185, 186; Locke on,
1 86, 193 ; legislative, 189-
191 ; relations of the legis
lative and the executive to
the people, 191 ; dissolution
of, 192 ; theories of the
origin and end of, 195 ;
contractual, 196; evolu
tionary theory of the origin
of, 206.

Governments, local, author
ized by Congress, 91—94.

Great Britain, inconsistency
of, in carrying out colonial
policy, i, 2 ; commercial
relations of the colonies
with, 7 ; negotiations of,

19

with foreign mercenaries,
66, 67, 73 ; Prohibitory act
of (i775), 72; reply of col
onies to Prohibitory act,
73 ; acts of aggression of,
93 J John Adams on sepa
ration from, 95 ; revolution
of 1688, 193 ; colonial in
terpretation of the consti
tution of, 199, 200; official
relations of the colonies
with, 208-211; attitude of,
toward slavery, 215, 216;
on the constitutional right
of, to enact legislation for
the colonies, 257; neglect
of colonial possessions, 257.

Green, John Richard, Short
history of the English
people, 171.

Greene, Evarts B., The pro
vincial governor, 222.

Grenville, George, 195, 213;
colonial policy of, 2, 3 ;
rigorous enforcement of
trade laws by, 237 ; acts of
aggression instituted by,

243.
Gwinnet, Button, 96, 143.

HALL, Lyman, 96, 143.

Hamilton, Alexander, on gov
ernment, 195.

Hancock, John, 135, 139, 142,
181, 249 ; friction between
Maryland delegates and, 89 ;
president of Congress, 123.

Harrison, Benjamin, 101, 106,
126, 133, 143 ; member of
Committee of secret cor
respondence, 75 ; on inde
pendence, 76 ; manuscript
notes by, on the original
manuscript of the Virginia
resolutions, 101.

290

INDEX

Hart, John, 143.

Henry VIII, 249.

Henry, Patrick, 225 ; on in
dependence, 28, 29.

Hessian troops, employment
of, 67, 255.

Heyward, Thomas, Jr., 143.

Hewes, Joseph, 143, 145 ;
North Carolina's interests
guarded by, 97.

Hillsborough, Lord, 217, 225;
repressive measures of, 9 ;
became first Secretary of
state for the colonies, 210.

Hobbes, Thomas, 185, 187,
197; on government, 186;
Leviathan, 186.

Hooker, Richard, 197 ; on
government, 186, 187.

riooper, William, 104, 145;
member of committee to
prepare address against in
dependence, 56 ; opposes
plan of confederation, 104.

Hopkins, Stephen, 142 ; on
rights of the colonies, 14;
on government, 195.

Hopkinson, Francis, 143.

Howe, Sir William, procla
mation, concerning Boston,
47; at Sandy Hook, 122.

Humphreys, Charles, votes
against independence, 129,
143;

Huntington, Samuel, 58, 142.

INDEPENDENCE, first steps to
ward, 6 ; not advocated by
Congress of 1774, 28; ad
vance toward, 37 ; not pub
licly advocated by Con
gress, 37 ; popular move
ment toward, 42, 43 ; rapid
development of sentiment
of, 48, 49, 51 ; motion

against, 56, 57 ; public sen
timent for, 58 ; preparation
for, 6 1 ; reluctance of col
onists to declare for, 62,
63 and open ports, 71 ; in
structions of five colonies
against, 77, 78, 81 ; attitude
of conservatives toward,
79 ; fight in Congress for,
85 ; increase in popularity
of, 89 ; status of the senti
ment of, the first of June,
1776, 99; motion in Con
gress for, 100; vote on,
postponed one day, 102;
debates on, 103-106; vote
on, postponed three weeks,
106 ; New York on, 116;
resolutions for, by New
York, 120; consideration
of resolutions for, 123 ; de
bates on resolutions for,
123; vote for, 125-129;
denial by colonies of desire
for, 1 66 ; popular mind pre
pared for reception of, 199,
200. See also Declaration
of Independence.

Independence Hall, Philadel
phia, 134.

Indians, threat to arm, 256.

Iredell, James, North Caro
lina laws, 231.

JAMES II, 105, 209.

Jay, John, 112 ; address to the
people of Great Britain pre
pared by, 26 ; member of
committee to confer with
New Jersey, 46 ; on inde
pendence, 76, 79.

Jefferson, Thomas, 79, 143,
147, 152, 165, 176, 230, 240,
242 ; on independence, 28,
29 ; returns to Congress,

INDEX

291

92 ; notes of debates on in
dependence made by, 102;
chairman of committee to
prepare Declaration of In
dependence, 107; Declara
tion of Independence draft
ed by, 121, 122; on para
graphs omitted from Dec
laration of Independence,
130; on the signing of the
Declaration of Indepen
dence by, 140; popularity
of, 156; reply of, to John
Adams' criticism, 157-159;
disclaims authority of Par
liament, 163, 164; position
of, in relation to the Dec
laration of Independence,
173, 177 J Summary view of
the rights of British Amer
ica, 173, 174, 243; proposed
constitution for Virginia
prepared by, 1 74 ; on gov
ernment, 195 ; influence of /
Locke upon, 197, 201-203 »N
on government as voiced in
the Declaration of Inde
pendence, 200, 201 ; on
equality, 201, 202 ; on dis
allowance by the King of
colonial laws, 213, 214; on
the King's neglect of Vir
ginia laws, 221 ; on repre
sentation, 223, 224 ; Works,
104, 121, 130, 140, 148, 159,
165, 174, 202, 224, 228, 240,
241, 243.

Journal of Congress, 1774:
19, 21, 23, 24, 34, 164, 236;
1775: 34, 35, 39, 40, 42, 46,
69, 70, 86, 165, 166; 1776:
66, 67, 70, 74, 77, 82, 83, 84,
86, 87, 92, 94, 96, 97, 107,
112, 123, 145, 146, 235;
July 4, 1776, upon the Dec

laration of Independence,
135, 136; manuscripts of,
138-140.

Judiciary, on the establish
ment of, 230-233 ; on the
tenure of office and pay
ment of salaries of, 232-
235.

LAND companies refused the
right to found colonies,
227.

Land grants, restrictions of
limits for, 227.

Lands, acquisition of, 228.

Langdon-Elwyn papers, 183.

Lecky, William E. H., His
tory of England in the i8th
century, 171.

Lee, Francis Lightfoot, 143.

Lee, Richard Henry, 168;
address to the people of
the colonies prepared by,
27 ; in Congress, 84 ; reso
lutions introduced by, 100;
debate of, on adoption of
resolutions for indepen
dence, 104—106; on signing
of Declaration of Indepen
dence by, 145, 147, 148;
charges of, against Jeffer
son, 158.

Legislative assemblies. See
Assemblies, colonial.

Lewis, Francis, 142.

Lexington, effect of hostili
ties at, 30.

Liberty, the sloop, riots upon
seizure of, 249.

Liberty Bell, unwarranted
prominence of, 134.

Lincoln, Abraham, 202.

Lincoln, Revolutionary move
ment in Pennsylvania, 45,
56, 86, 108.

292

INDEX

Lippard, George, Legends of
the revolution, 134.

Livingston, Philip, 142.

Livingston, Robert R., 121,
142, 144; opposes adoption
of resolutions for indepen
dence, 102, 103, 104; mem
ber of committee to prepare
Declaration of Indepen
dence, 107.

Livingston, William, 168;
motion of, 60.

Locke, John, 185, 198 ; col
onists' reception of political
ideas of, n ; doctrine of,
on the separation of pow
ers, 1 68; on government,
186-193 ; Treatises on gov
ernment, 187; influence of,
upon the colonial Fathers,
197; influence of, upon
Jefferson, 201 ; on equality,
202 ; resemblance between
deductions of, and of mod
ern jurists, 205, 206.

Lords of the Committee of
Council for Plantation af
fairs, 211.

Lotteries, legislation respect
ing, 2.

Lowell, Abbott Lawrence,
Essays on government, 186,
205.

Lynch, Thomas, Jr., 143.

McCRADY, Edward, South
Carolina under royal gov
ernment, 20, 233 ; South
Carolina in the revolution,
63, 100, 115, 127, 233.

MacDonald, William, Select
charters illustrative of Am
erican history, 8, 208, 227,
234-236, 238, 241, 243-245,
247, 250, 252-255.

McKean, Thomas, 84, 112,
129, 143.

McLaughlin, Andrew Cun
ningham, 1 86, 205.

Martin, Alexander, 220, 223 ;
abdicates government, 255.

Maryland, resolutions of, on
non-importation (1774), 19,
20; instructions of, against
independence, 45, 77; con
test for independence in,
80 ; controversy between
the Council of safety of,
and Congress, 87-89 ; reac
tionary resolutions of, 96 ;
on independence, 113, 114,
123 ; votes for resolutions
for independence, 125 ; ef
fort of, to restrict entrance
of convicts, 216.

Maryland Convention, Pro
ceedings of, 88, 89, 113,
114.

Maryland Council of safety,
Journal and correspondence
of, 65.

Massachusetts, advice by
Congress respecting gov
ernment, 34 ; radical dele
gates of, control vote of
colony, 58, 59 ; on inde
pendence, 100, 114, 115;
constitution of, 204, dis
putes over laws of, 215 ;
breaking up of land bank
schemes of, 217 ; laws of,
disallowed by the King,
218; removal of Assembly
of, 225 ; dissolution of As
sembly of, 225, 226 ; on the
judiciary, 233, 235 ; failure
to rescind Circular letter
of, 249 ; act regulating gov
ernment of, 251, 252; sal
ary of governor of, 252.

INDEX

293

Massachusetts historical so
ciety, Proceedings, 144, 147.
Massachusetts State papers,

2l8, 222, 235, 238.

Merriam, Charles Edward,
American political theories,
1 86, 197, 205 ; on sover
eignty, 196, 197.

Middleton, Arthur, 143.

Military, independent of civil
power, 237, 239.

Milton, John, 186.

Molasses act (1733), 243,
245; (1764), 243, 245.

Montesquieu, Baron, on sepa
ration of powers, 198, 204.

Montgomery, General, death
of, 57; services in memory
of, 59-

Moore, Sir Henry, 217.

Morris, Lewis, 142, 144.

Morris, Robert, 71, 78, 107;
on independence, 75, 76,
79, 129 ; letter of, to Joseph
Reed, 129 ; on the signing
of the Declaration of Inde
pendence by, 140 ; opposi
tion of, to Declaration of
Independence, 180.

Morton, John, 129, 143, 144.

Mutiny act, extension of pro
visions of, to the colonies,
238.

NARRAGANSETT Bay, burning
of the Gaspee in, 249.

Naturalization, generally prac
ticed by the colonies, 228 ;
passage of acts of, prohib
ited, 229.

Nature, law of, as related to
government, 188, 189.

Nature, state of, 186; denned
by Locke, 188, 189.

Navigation act (1651), 208;
acts, 212.

Negroes, threat to arm, 256.

Nelson, Thomas, Jr., 143.

New England, favors a dec
laration of independence
by Congress, 99 ; favors the
adoption of the resolutions
for independence, 104, 105,
125.

New Hampshire, not repre
sented at Stamp act con
gress, 5 ; advised by Con
gress to form a government,
34, 43, 80, 226 ; appeal of,
to Congress for advice on
government, 49, 226 ; on
independence, 114; royal
instructions to, against op
position to slave trade, 215 ;
on representation, 223, 224.

New Jersey, resolutions of,
on non-importation (1774),
19, 20 ; instructions of,
against independence, 45,
77 ; proposes sending a new
petition to the King, 46;
contest for independence in,
80 ; revolutionary changes
in, no, in; relations of
Gov. Franklin and the
Provincial Congress of,
in; declares for a new
government and for inde
pendence, 112; votes for
resolutions for indepen
dence, 125 ; laws of, de
signed to prohibit slave
trade, 215; laws of, re
specting bills of credit,
218; on representation, 223.

New Jersey Archives, 46,
218.

New Jersey Congress, letter

294

INDEX

of, to the Continental Con
gress, in.

New York, instructions of,
against independence, 45,
77 ; reluctance of, to de
clare for independence, 63 ;
contest for independence
in, 80 ; pressure of Con
gress upon conservative
element of, 94 ; political
and religious division in,
116; position in Congress
of, of minor importance,
116; resolutions of Provin
cial Congress of, on form
ing new governments, 117;
vacillation and inconsist
ency of Provincial Con
gress of, 118-120; dele
gates of, given no instruc
tions on independence, 118-
119, 126, 143, 144; Provin
cial Congress of, removed
to White Plains, 119;
adopts resolutions to sup
port the Declaration of In
dependence, 120; Conven
tion of, reports Howe at
Sandy Hook, 122; laws of,
respecting bills of credit,
217, 218; royal instructions
to governors of, respecting
legislation, 219 ; on repre
sentation, 223 ; on the ju
diciary of, 233 ; suspension
of Assembly of, 253, 254.

New York Legislative coun
cil, Journal of, 223.

Niles, Hezekiah, Principles
and acts of the revolution,
8.

Non-exportation agreements,
20, 26, 40, 41, 247.

Non-importation, Articles of
Association upon, 22.

Non-importation agreements,
9, 19, 20, 26, 247.

Norfolk, burning of, 52, 255.

North, Lord, 64, 65 ; on plan
of conciliation of, 39 ; an
swer of colonies to motion
of, 165.

North Carolina, not repre
sented at Stamp act con
gress, 5 ; resolutions on
non-importation (1774), 20 ;
delegates absent from Con
gress in 1776, 50; contest
for independence in, 80 ;
instructions of, in favor of
independence, 96, 97, 99 ;
votes for resolutions of in
dependence, 125 ; constitu
tion of, 204 ; on the estab
lishment of superior courts
of justice in, 230, 233, 253 ;
on attachment of property
in, 231 ; Assembly of, dis
solved, 232 ; laws of, ex
empting immigrants from
taxation, disallowed by the
King, 229.

North Carolina colonial rec
ords, 220, 227, 229, 231,
233-

OTIS, James, 199 ; Rights of
the British colonies assert
ed and proved, 12, 157, 189 ;
on the rights of the col
onies, 13, 14; on govern
ment, 195.

PACA, William, 143.

Paine, Robert Treat, 142.

Paine, Thomas, appearance
of Common Sense by, 52 ;
influence of Common Sense,
53 ; origin of Common

INDEX

295

Sense, 53-55 ; dessemina-
tion of Common Sense, 61.

Paper money, 82. See also
Bills of credit.

Parliament, acts of, affecting
commerce and industries of
the colonies, i, 2; projects
itself into American affairs,
6 ; beginning of controversy
between colonies and, 6 ;
remonstrance against au
thority of, 7, 14; opposition
of colonies to control by,
162-167; establishment of
supremacy of, in England,
187; attempt of, to revive
authority in colonies (1763),
194, 195 ; address King in
1740 upon colonial legisla
tion, 219 ; act of, " for the
impartial administration of
justice" (i774), 241, 242;
acts of, on colonial trade
(1688-1765), 243, 244; act
of, authorizing captives to
bear arms against their
country (1755), 255.

Penn, John, 143.

Pennsylvania, resolutions of,
on non-importation (1774),
19, 20 ; attitude toward in
dependence of conserva
tives of, 43 ; efforts of
the conservative party to
keep control of government
of, 44, 45 ; instructions
of, against independence,
45, 77 ; attempt to break
up conservative party in,
54 ; radicals of, gain in
power, 56 ; reluctance of,
to declare for indepen
dence, 63 ; Conference of
Committees of, 109; new
instructions of, to dele

gates, 109; dissolution of
Assembly of, 109 ; votes
against resolutions for in
dependence, 126; political
situation of, 128 ; votes for
independence, 129 ; attempts
to overthrow proprietary
government in, 162; con
stitution of, 204 ; effort of,
to restrict entrance of con
victs, 216 ; laws, respecting
bills of credit, 218; con
servative policy of, 78, 79,
90 ; contest for indepen
dence in, 80 ; antagonism
of Assembly of, to Con
gress, 83, 85, 86 ; attempt
to overthrow the Assembly
of, 94 ; protestations of in
habitants of Philadelphia
against the Assembly of,
107, 1 08; change of form
of government of, 108, 109;
on independence, 108-110,
128, 129; inhabitants of,
protest against competency
of the Pennsylvania As
sembly, 107, 1 08.

Pitt, William, on the Declara
tory act, 15.

Political organizations, inter
colonial, 4.

Poore, Benjamin Perley,
Charters and constitutions,
204.

Ports, opening of, 62, 69, 70,
7i ,73, 78.

Pownall, Thomas, on royal
instructions issued to gov
ernors, 222 ; Administra
tion of the colonies, 222.

Privateering, authorization of,
73, 84.

" Prohibitory Act," 78, 244.

Property, conception of, by

ric

Loeke, 188, i%;

Act," 238.
Quebec act (1774), 250, 251.

Qoebec, fall of (17*), 57-

- . ____ -• • -.- — . __ ._ .

7T

Cfcaries Lee.

George, M3; L*f* •**
oj, no;

by, 144. MS.

Edward, 60, 106,

:-: :-- :.; : -_: ::::fti

independence, 102, 103.
Carolina potirks, 127.

:v :-:

R«d, Joseph, €3, 180; Uje
«^ nnrip^rndtmtt of, 45,
64, 65, 181 ; on Ac pro-
posed coonnssioners of tke
King, is; Letterx f» Jku
; :'f.

*• Restnioing Ads" (i/75),

- "- " "-

--:"
Bf nii^iiM. nrmfafM of Ac

~:f'

Sine In*, Ins _

tinBtmtA. by tbe crown,
«S; irnliaUti iy Articfa
of ^TMfi^iia, 74, 216.
Skvoy, draft of Declaration
of Independence on, 130,

INDEX

297

Smith. Richard. Diary, 40,
56, 57, 60, 72, 104.

Smith, Dr. William, oration
of, 59-

Smuggling, 437.

South Carolina, votes against
non-importation agreement
(1774), 26; advised by
Congress to form a gov
ernment, 34, 80, 226; dele
gates absent from Congress
in 1776, 50; reluctance of,
to declare for independence,
63 ; political revolutions in,
79, 80; contest for inde
pendence in, 80 ; on inde
pendence, 99, 115, 116;
first vote of, against resolu
tions for independence,
127; final vote of, for in
dependence, 127 ; on sla
very, 130; constitution of,
204 ; laws of, designed to
prohibit slave trade, 215;
removal of Assembly of,
225 ; dissolution of Assem
bly of, 225 ; appeal to Con
gress of, for advice on gov
ernment, 226 ; on the es
tablishment of courts of
justice in, 233.

Southern colonies, laws of,
215-

Sovereignty, the beginning of,
48 ; doctrine of popular,
196, 197.

Sparks. Jared, Washington,
29, 181.

Stamp act, 246 ; repeal of, 3,
8, 10 ; resistance by Con
gress to, 5 ; economic rea
sons for non-enforcement
of, 7, 8 ; five years succeed
ing passage of, 10; on riots
occasioned by, 218.

Stamp act congress. See

Congress of, 1765.
Staples, Rlwde Island in the

Continental Congress, 93.
Stephen, Sir Leslie, on po
litical philosophy, 184;

English thought in the iSth

century, 184, 186, 187.
Stephen, Sir James Fitz

James, Hora Sabbatica, 16,

186.
Stevens, Benjamin Franklin,

Facsimiles, 63.
Stille, Charles, Dickinson, 45,

104, 125.

Stockton. Richard, 142.
Stone, Thomas, 143 ; letter

of, 65.
Stuart, the Indian agent,

makes overtures to Gen.

Gage, 257.
Suffolk county resolutions,

endorsement by Congress

of, 21.
Sugar act (1764), 6, 235, 244,

245-
Sullivan. William, on social

compact, 185.
Sydney, Algernon, 186, 197.

TAYLOR, George, on signing
of Declaration of Indepen
dence by, 144, 149.

Taxation, acts of Parliament
for raising revenue by di
rect, 6 ; principle of, at
issue, 12 ; without consent,
163, 244-248.

Taxation, without represen
tation, 7, 12, 13, 25, 163,
196.

Tea, non-importation of, 22 ;
opposition to landing of,
248.

r F ~ V! E

298

INDEX

Tea act of 1770, 9, 10, 247,
248, 254; of 1773, 248, 254.

Thomson, Charles, 138, 142;
the original manuscript of
the Virginia resolutions
endorsed by, 101 ; tran
script of the Declaration
of Independence by, 139.

Thornton, Matthew, signing
of Declaration of Indepen
dence by, 146, 149, 150.

Trade compromise of Nov. i,
1775, 69.

Trade laws, economic reasons
for non-enforcement of, 7 ;
enforcement of, with view
to end smuggling, 237 ; en
forcement of, 243, 244.

Treaties, committee to pre
pare a plan of, 107.

Trial by jury, 7, 25, 248, 249,
250.

Troops, quartering of, with
out consent of colonists, 4,
238.

Tryon, William, 230 ; con
spiracy against Washington
instituted by, 119, 122; ab
dicates government, 255.

Tories, resolutions to sup
press, 57 ; suppression of,
82, 83 ; influence of, in New
York politics, 116.

Townshend acts (1767), pas
sage of, 5 ; partial repeal
of, 9, 10; on the Town
shend revenue act, known
as "Glass, lead and paint
act," 234, 247, 248 ; on en
forcement of taxation laws
in the, 236. See also Tea
act.

Tyler, Moses Coit, Literary
history of American revo
lution, 154, 179, 1 80; on

the Declaration of Inde
pendence, 177, 178-180.
Tyranny, 191, 192.

UNION, effectiveness of, 5, 6 ;
represented by Congress,
32 ; sentiment regarding,
strengthened by Congress,
35, 36, 39 J strengthened by
Lord North's plan of con
ciliation, 40 ; fundamental
acts of, 133, 134.

United colonies. See colonies.

United States, first use of the
phrase, 136; relation of po
litical science to the po
litical life of, 161 ; consti
tutional and legal develop
ment of, 205, 206.

Usurpation, 191.

VIRGINIA, not represented at
Stamp act congress, 5 ;
resolutions of, on non-im
portation (1774), 19, 20;
advised by Congress to
form a government, 34, 80,
226 ; majority of delegates
favor independence, 50 ; re
luctance of, to declare for
independence, 63 ; instruc
tions of, to propose inde
pendence, 96, 97, 99 ; reso
lutions for independence
by, 100, 101 ; manuscript of
the resolutions, 101 ; fac
simile of the resolutions,
1 01 ; on the accepting of
the resolutions, 104, 105 ;
vote for resolutions of In
dependence, 125 ; constitu
tion of, 204 ; laws of, de
signed to prohibit slave
trade, 215 ; effort of, to re
strict entrance of con-

INDEX

299

victs, 215, 216; royal in
structions to government
of, upon suppression of lot
teries, 220 ; British neglect
of laws of (1770), 220,
221 ; on representation,
223 ; dissolution of As
sembly of, 225 ; appeal to
Congress for advice on
government of, 226.

WALTON, George, 143.

War of independence, early
events of, 255, 256.

War office, establishment of
a, considered by Congress,
57; institution of a, 107.

Ward, Henry, in Congress,
84; death of, 85.

Washington, George, 65, 73 ;
impatience of, at delay in
declaring independence, 64 ;
called to councils of Con
gress, 96 ; reports to Con
spiracy in New York, 122;
on the Declaration of inde
pendence, 181-182.

Webster, Daniel, on al
legiance of the colonies to
the king, 169, 170.

Wendell, Barrett, Literary
history of America, 160.

Wentworth, John, 224.

West Indies, trade of, with
the colonies, 244.

Whigs, under Rockingham
administration, 4 ; return
to power of Rockingham,
9-

Whiggism, expounded by
Locke, 187.

Whipple, William, 142; on
the Declaration of Inde
pendence, 182.

William III, establishes a
permanent Board for trade
and foreign plantations,
209.

Williams, William, on the
signing of the Declaration
of Independence by, 144,
147, 149.

Willing, William, 143 ; votes
against independence, 129.

Wilson, James, 143, 144, 168;
motion by, 56 ; defeat of
motion, 57, 58 ; protests
against local governments,
94 ; opposes adoption of
resolutions of indepen
dence, 102, 103, 104; on
independence, 128 ; votes
for independence, 129; on
government, 195.

Winsor, Justin, Narrative
and critical history, 29,
238, 250, 257.

Witherspoon, John, 143.

Wolcott, Oliver, 60; in Con
gress, 58 ; on signing of
Declaration of Indepen
dence by, 146, 147.

Wyoming, border warfare of,
83, 86.

Wythe, George, 60, 85, 176;
member of committee to
confer with New Jersey,
46; in Congress, 84; de
bate of, on adoption of the
resolutions for indepen
dence, 104-106; on signing
of Declaration of Indepen
dence by, 145, 147, 148.

JST

*- *

14 DAY USE

RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED

LOAN DEPT.

This book is due on the last date stamped below, or

on the date to which renewed,
leoewed books are subject to immediate recall.

••••'

•

LOAN

1-tB 7 1967

D ,0 tfTO 7&

jtfR3°

$4 &-&M4m££*

*v ^ vKrVBri/

/- t :; -, - i ' - -: ' ' -' /"i -' • j L i

.-if /0«IAM

fc

-

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

' ••"• -