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 
 
JHWRSITY 
 
 \\ 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 Act 1 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 I767 1 were re 
 pealed, are of a piece with the Declaratory Act in 
 their effect in emphasizing the transformation of the 
 
 x The 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 three 1 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 Gage 1 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 
 active 1 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 
 
 a july 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- 
 onies 2 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 September 2 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 Acts 1 of March and April, since 
 four colonies 2 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 s 2 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 colonies 2 
 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 committee 2 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 " D r . 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- 
 
 1 See 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 first 2 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 reprisal 2 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 
 
 1 John 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 
 
 x The 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 
 
 x May 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, 
 
 l See 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 
 
 1 Stille 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 respectively 3 And, 
 though the assemblies of Massachusetts and Rhode 
 Island 4 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 
 
 l l 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. 
 
 But 1 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 
 
 1 Much 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 States 1 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 y e Declaration of Independency if 
 y e same is to be signed as proposed. I think we 
 ought to have y e 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 
 
 J J. 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 
 
 1 Mass. 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 W T ythe 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 
 
 1 J. 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 Colony 6 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., 45 8. 
 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~-co4ar-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 Declaration 4 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 
 
 l Beer, 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 Jersey 1 (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 
 
 1 Ibid. 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 
 berland 1 (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. 
 
 1 Docs. 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 charges 3 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 
 bridge 1 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." 
 
 1 MacDonald, 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 
 
 1 N. 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- 
 
 1 A r . 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 
 
 J June 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. 
 
 8 Winsor, 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 
 
 1 Beer, 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 charge 3 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 act 1 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 five 2 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 grievance 2 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 Britain 2 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. 
 
 x The 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 
 tions 1 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 
 & payment 1 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 only 1 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 us 1 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 
 
 28 5 
 
 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, 
 J 54> 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, 
 178180; 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 
 
 28 7 
 
 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, 9194. 
 
 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, 104106; 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 : - : 
 
 Rd, 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 /0IAM 
 
 
 
 
fc 
 
 
 - 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 " -