United States Declaration of Independence
|United States Declaration of Independence|
1823 facsimile of the engrossed copy
|Ratified||July 4, 1776|
|Location||Engrossed copy: National Archives
Rough draft: Library of Congress
|Author(s)||Thomas Jefferson et al. (Engrosser: Probably Timothy Matlack)|
|Signatories||56 delegates to the Continental Congress|
|Purpose||To announce and explain separation from Great Britain|
The Declaration of Independence is the statement adopted by the Continental Congress meeting at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies, then at war with Great Britain, regarded themselves as thirteen newly independent sovereign states, and no longer a part of the British Empire. Instead they formed a new nation—the United States of America. John Adams was a leader in pushing for independence, which was unanimously approved on July 2. A committee of five had already drafted the formal declaration, to be ready when Congress voted on independence. The term "Declaration of Independence" is not used in the document itself.
Adams persuaded the committee to select Thomas Jefferson to compose the original draft of the document, which Congress would edit to produce the final version. The Declaration was ultimately a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The national birthday, Independence Day, is celebrated on July 4, although Adams wanted July 2.
After ratifying the text on July 4, Congress issued the Declaration of Independence in several forms. It was initially published as the printed Dunlap broadside that was widely distributed and read to the public. The source copy used for this printing has been lost, and may have been a copy in Thomas Jefferson's hand. Jefferson's original draft, complete with changes made by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, and Jefferson's notes of changes made by Congress, are preserved at the Library of Congress. The best known version of the Declaration, a signed copy that is popularly regarded as the official document, is displayed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. This engrossed copy was ordered by Congress on July 19, and signed primarily on August 2.
The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, references to the text of the Declaration were few for the next four score years. Abraham Lincoln made it the centerpiece of his rhetoric (as in the Gettysburg Address of 1863), and his policies. Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
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.
This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language", containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history". The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.
It provided inspiration to numerous national declarations of independence throughout the world. Historian David Armitage, after examining the influence of the American "Declaration" on over 100 other declarations of independence, says:
The American Revolution was the first outbreak of the contagion of sovereignty that has swept the world in the centuries since 1776. Its influence spread first to the Low Countries and then to the Caribbean, Spanish America, the Balkans, West Africa, and Central Europe in the decades up to 1848.... Declarations of independence were among the primary symptoms of this contagion of sovereignty.
- 1 Background
- 2 Toward independence
- 3 Draft and adoption
- 4 Annotated text of the engrossed Declaration
- 5 Influences
- 6 Signing
- 7 Publication and reaction
- 8 History of the documents
- 9 Legacy
- 10 References
- 11 Bibliography
- 12 External links
Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.
By the time the Declaration of Independence was adopted in July 1776, the Thirteen Colonies and Great Britain had been at war for more than a year. Relations between the colonies and the mother country had been deteriorating since the end of the Seven Years' War in 1763. The war had plunged the British government deep into debt, and so Parliament enacted a series of measures to increase tax revenue from the colonies. Parliament believed that these acts, such as the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767, were a legitimate means of having the colonies pay their fair share of the costs to keep the colonies in the British Empire.
Many colonists, however, had developed a different conception of the empire. Because the colonies were not directly represented in Parliament, colonists argued that Parliament had no right to levy taxes upon them. This tax dispute was part of a larger divergence between British and American interpretations of the British Constitution and the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies. The orthodox British view, dating from the Glorious Revolution of 1688, was that Parliament was the supreme authority throughout the empire, and so by definition anything Parliament did was constitutional. In the colonies, however, the idea had developed that the British Constitution recognized certain fundamental rights that no government—not even Parliament—could violate. After the Townshend Acts, some essayists even began to question whether Parliament had any legitimate jurisdiction in the colonies at all. Anticipating the arrangement of the British Commonwealth, by 1774 American writers such as Samuel Adams, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson were arguing that Parliament was the legislature of Great Britain only, and that the colonies, which had their own legislatures, were connected to the rest of the empire only through their allegiance to the Crown.
The issue of Parliament's authority in the colonies became a crisis after Parliament passed the Coercive Acts in 1774 to punish the Province of Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party of 1773. Many colonists saw the Coercive Acts as a violation of the British Constitution and thus a threat to the liberties of all of British America. In September 1774, the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia to coordinate a response. Congress organized a boycott of British goods and petitioned the king for repeal of the acts. These measures were unsuccessful because King George III and the ministry of Prime Minister Lord North were determined not to retreat on the question of parliamentary supremacy. As the king wrote to North in November 1774, "blows must decide whether they are to be subject to this country or independent".
Even after fighting in the American Revolutionary War began at Lexington and Concord in April 1775, most colonists still hoped for reconciliation with Great Britain. When the Second Continental Congress convened at the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia in May 1775, some delegates hoped for eventual independence, but no one yet advocated declaring it. Although many colonists no longer believed that Parliament had any sovereignty over them, they still professed loyalty to King George, whom they hoped would intercede on their behalf. They were to be disappointed: in late 1775, the king rejected Congress's second petition, issued a Proclamation of Rebellion, and announced before Parliament on October 26 that he was considering "friendly offers of foreign assistance" to suppress the rebellion. A pro-American minority in Parliament warned that the government was driving the colonists toward independence.
In January 1776, just as it became clear in the colonies that the king was not inclined to act as a conciliator, Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense was published. Paine, who had only recently arrived in the colonies from England, argued in favor of colonial independence, advocating republicanism as an alternative to monarchy and hereditary rule. Common Sense introduced no new ideas, and probably had little direct effect on Congress's thinking about independence; its importance was in stimulating public debate on a topic that few had previously dared to openly discuss. Public support for separation from Great Britain steadily increased after the publication of Paine's enormously popular pamphlet.
Although some colonists still held out hope for reconciliation, developments in early 1776 further strengthened public support for independence. In February 1776, colonists learned of Parliament's passage of the Prohibitory Act, which established a blockade of American ports and declared American ships to be enemy vessels. John Adams, a strong supporter of independence, believed that Parliament had effectively declared American independence before Congress had been able to. Adams labeled the Prohibitory Act the "Act of Independency", calling it "a compleat Dismemberment of the British Empire". Support for declaring independence grew even more when it was confirmed that King George had hired German mercenaries to use against his American subjects.
Despite this growing popular support for independence, Congress lacked the clear authority to declare it. Delegates had been elected to Congress by thirteen different governments—which included extralegal conventions, ad hoc committees, and elected assemblies—and were bound by the instructions given to them. Regardless of their personal opinions, delegates could not vote to declare independence unless their instructions permitted such an action. Several colonies, in fact, expressly prohibited their delegates from taking any steps towards separation from Great Britain, while other delegations had instructions that were ambiguous on the issue. As public sentiment for separation from Great Britain grew, advocates of independence sought to have the Congressional instructions revised. For Congress to declare independence, a majority of delegations would need authorization to vote for independence, and at least one colonial government would need to specifically instruct (or grant permission for) its delegation to propose a declaration of independence in Congress. Between April and July 1776, a "complex political war" was waged to bring this about.
In the campaign to revise Congressional instructions, many Americans formally expressed their support for separation from Great Britain in what were effectively state and local declarations of independence. Historian Pauline Maier identified more than ninety such declarations that were issued throughout the Thirteen Colonies from April to July 1776. These "declarations" took a variety of forms. Some were formal, written instructions for Congressional delegations, such as the Halifax Resolves of April 12, with which North Carolina became the first colony to explicitly authorize its delegates to vote for independence. Others were legislative acts that officially ended British rule in individual colonies, such as on May 4, when the Rhode Island legislature became the first to declare its independence from Great Britain. Many "declarations" were resolutions adopted at town or county meetings that offered support for independence. A few came in the form of jury instructions, such as the statement issued on April 23, 1776, by Chief Justice William Henry Drayton of South Carolina: "the law of the land authorizes me to declare...that George the Third, King of Great Britain...has no authority over us, and we owe no obedience to him." Most of these declarations are now obscure, having been overshadowed by the declaration approved by Congress on July 4.
Some colonies held back from endorsing independence. Resistance was centered in the middle colonies of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Advocates of independence saw Pennsylvania as the key: if that colony could be converted to the pro-independence cause, it was believed that the others would follow. On May 1, however, opponents of independence retained control of the Pennsylvania Assembly in a special election that had focused on the question of independence. In response, on May 10 Congress passed a resolution, which had been promoted by John Adams and Richard Henry Lee, calling on colonies without a "government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs" to adopt new governments. The resolution passed unanimously, and was even supported by Pennsylvania's John Dickinson, the leader of the anti-independence faction in Congress, who believed that it did not apply to his colony.
May 15 preamble
As was the custom, Congress appointed a committee to draft a preamble to explain the purpose of the resolution. John Adams wrote the preamble, which stated that because King George had rejected reconciliation and was hiring foreign mercenaries to use against the colonies, "it is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed". Adams's preamble was meant to encourage the overthrow of the governments of Pennsylvania and Maryland, which were still under proprietary governance. Congress passed the preamble on May 15 after several days of debate, but four of the middle colonies voted against it, and the Maryland delegation walked out in protest. Adams regarded his May 15 preamble effectively as an American declaration of independence, although a formal declaration would still have to be made.
Lee's resolution and the final push
On the same day that Congress passed Adams's radical preamble, the Virginia Convention set the stage for a formal Congressional declaration of independence. On May 15, the Convention instructed Virginia's congressional delegation "to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent States, absolved from all allegiance to, or dependence upon, the Crown or Parliament of Great Britain". In accordance with those instructions, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia presented a three-part resolution to Congress on June 7. The motion, which was seconded by John Adams, called on Congress to declare independence, form foreign alliances, and prepare a plan of colonial confederation. The part of the resolution relating to declaring independence read:
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 connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.
Lee's resolution met with resistance in the ensuing debate. Opponents of the resolution, while conceding that reconciliation with Great Britain was unlikely, argued that declaring independence was premature, and that securing foreign aid should take priority. Advocates of the resolution countered that foreign governments would not intervene in an internal British struggle, and so a formal declaration of independence was needed before foreign aid was possible. All Congress needed to do, they insisted, was to "declare a fact which already exists". Delegates from Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York were still not yet authorized to vote for independence, however, and some of them threatened to leave Congress if the resolution were adopted. Congress therefore voted on June 10 to postpone further discussion of Lee's resolution for three weeks. Until then, Congress decided that a committee should prepare a document announcing and explaining independence in the event that Lee's resolution was approved when it was brought up again in July.
Support for a Congressional declaration of independence was consolidated in the final weeks of June 1776. On June 14, the Connecticut Assembly instructed its delegates to propose independence, and the following day the legislatures of New Hampshire and Delaware authorized their delegates to declare independence. In Pennsylvania, political struggles ended with the dissolution of the colonial assembly, and on June 18 a new Conference of Committees under Thomas McKean authorized Pennsylvania's delegates to declare independence. On June 15, the Provincial Congress of New Jersey, which had been governing the province since January 1776, resolved that Royal Governor William Franklin was "an enemy to the liberties of this country" and had him arrested. On June 21, they chose new delegates to Congress and empowered them to join in a declaration of independence.
Only Maryland and New York had yet to authorize independence towards the end of June. Previously, when the Continental Congress had adopted Adams's radical May 15 preamble, Maryland's delegates walked out and sent to the Annapolis Convention for instructions. On May 20, the Annapolis Convention rejected Adams's preamble, instructing its delegates to remain against independence, but Samuel Chase went to Maryland and, thanks to local resolutions in favor of independence, was able to get the Annapolis Convention to change its mind on June 28. Only the New York delegates were unable to get revised instructions. When Congress had been considering the resolution of independence on June 8, the New York Provincial Congress told the delegates to wait. But on June 30, the Provincial Congress evacuated New York as British forces approached, and would not convene again until July 10. This meant that New York's delegates would not be authorized to declare independence until after Congress had made its decision.
Draft and adoption
While political maneuvering was setting the stage for an official declaration of independence, a document explaining the decision was being written. On June 11, 1776, Congress appointed a "Committee of Five", consisting of John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, to draft a declaration. Because the committee left no minutes, there is some uncertainty about how the drafting process proceeded—accounts written many years later by Jefferson and Adams, although frequently cited, are contradictory and not entirely reliable. What is certain is that the committee, after discussing the general outline that the document should follow, decided that Jefferson would write the first draft. The committee in general, and Jefferson in particular, thought Adams should write the document, but Adams persuaded the committee to choose Jefferson and promised to consult with Jefferson personally. Considering Congress's busy schedule, Jefferson probably had limited time for writing over the next seventeen days, and likely wrote the draft quickly. He then consulted the others, made some changes, and then produced another copy incorporating these alterations. The committee presented this copy to the Congress on June 28, 1776. The title of the document was "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled."
Congress ordered that the draft "lie on the table". For two days Congress methodically edited Jefferson's primary document, shortening it by a fourth, removing unnecessary wording, and improving sentence structure. Congress removed Jefferson's assertion that Britain had forced slavery on the colonies, in order to moderate the document and appease persons in Britain who supported the Revolution. Although Jefferson wrote that Congress had "mangled" his draft version, the Declaration that was finally produced, according to his biographer John Ferling, was "the majestic document that inspired both contemporaries and posterity."
On Monday, July 1, having tabled the draft of the declaration, Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole, with Benjamin Harrison of Virginia presiding, and resumed debate on Lee's resolution of independence. John Dickinson made one last effort to delay the decision, arguing that Congress should not declare independence without first securing a foreign alliance and finalizing the Articles of Confederation. John Adams gave a speech in reply to Dickinson, restating the case for an immediate declaration.
After a long day of speeches, a vote was taken. As always, each colony cast a single vote; the delegation for each colony—numbering two to seven members—voted amongst themselves to determine the colony's vote. Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted against declaring independence. The New York delegation, lacking permission to vote for independence, abstained. Delaware cast no vote because the delegation was split between Thomas McKean (who voted yes) and George Read (who voted no). The remaining nine delegations voted in favor of independence, which meant that the resolution had been approved by the committee of the whole. The next step was for the resolution to be voted upon by the Congress itself. Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, who was opposed to Lee's resolution but desirous of unanimity, moved that the vote be postponed until the following day.
On July 2, South Carolina reversed its position and voted for independence. In the Pennsylvania delegation, Dickinson and Robert Morris abstained, allowing the delegation to vote three-to-two in favor of independence. The tie in the Delaware delegation was broken by the timely arrival of Caesar Rodney, who voted for independence. The New York delegation abstained once again, since they were still not authorized to vote for independence, although they would be allowed to do so by the New York Provincial Congress a week later. The resolution of independence had been adopted with twelve affirmative votes and one abstention. With this, the colonies had officially severed political ties with Great Britain. In a now-famous letter written to his wife on the following day, John Adams predicted that July 2 would become a great American holiday. Adams thought that the vote for independence would be commemorated; he did not foresee that Americans—including himself—would instead celebrate Independence Day on the date that the announcement of that act was finalized.
After voting in favor of the resolution of independence, Congress turned its attention to the committee's draft of the declaration. Over several days of debate, Congress made a few changes in wording and deleted nearly a fourth of the text, most notably a passage critical of the slave trade, changes that Jefferson resented. On July 4, 1776, the wording of the Declaration of Independence was approved and sent to the printer for publication.
Annotated text of the engrossed Declaration
The Declaration is not divided into formal sections; but it is often discussed as consisting of five parts: Introduction, the Preamble, the Indictment of George III, the Denunciation of the British people, and the Conclusion.
Asserts as a matter of Natural Law the ability of a people to assume political independence; acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained.
In CONGRESS, July 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 separate 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 separation.
Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.
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, 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 to 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind 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.
A bill of particulars documenting the king's "repeated injuries and usurpations" of the Americans' rights and liberties.
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 repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
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 to pass other Laws for the accommodation 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 depository of their 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 of 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 of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
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 harass 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 independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged 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 Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit 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 neighbouring 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 states
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 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.
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.
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 destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
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.
This section essentially finished the case for independence. The conditions that justified revolution have been shown.
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 emigration 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 inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. 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 hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions, and by necessity the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2.
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 Colonies, 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 Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The first and most famous signature on the engrossed copy was that of John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress. Two future presidents, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and a father and great-grandfather of two other presidents, Benjamin Harrison, were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26), was the youngest signer, and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) was the oldest signer. The fifty-six signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows (from north to south):
Historians have often sought to identify the sources that most influenced the words and political philosophy of the Declaration of Independence. By Jefferson's own admission, the Declaration contained no original ideas, but was instead a statement of sentiments widely shared by supporters of the American Revolution. As he explained in 1825:
Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.
Jefferson's most immediate sources were two documents written in June 1776: his own draft of the preamble of the Constitution of Virginia, and George Mason's draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Ideas and phrases from both of these documents appear in the Declaration of Independence. They were, in turn, directly influenced by the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, which formally ended the reign of King James II. During the American Revolution, Jefferson and other Americans looked to the English Declaration of Rights as a model of how to end the reign of an unjust king. The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath (1320) and the Dutch Act of Abjuration (1581) have also been offered as models for Jefferson's Declaration, but these models are now accepted by few scholars.
Jefferson wrote that a number of authors exerted a general influence on the words of the Declaration. The English political theorist John Locke, whom Jefferson called one of "the three greatest men that have ever lived", is usually cited as one of the primary influences. In 1922, historian Carl L. Becker wrote that "Most Americans had absorbed Locke's works as a kind of political gospel; and the Declaration, in its form, in its phraseology, follows closely certain sentences in Locke's second treatise on government." The extent of Locke's influence on the American Revolution has been questioned by some subsequent scholars, however. Historian Ray Forrest Harvey declared in 1937, as he argued for the dominant influence of the Swiss jurist Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, that Jefferson and Locke were at "two opposite poles" in their political philosophy, as evidenced by Jefferson's use in the Declaration of Independence of the phrase "pursuit of happiness" instead of "property". Other scholars emphasized the influence of republicanism rather than Locke's classical liberalism. Historian Garry Wills argued that Jefferson was influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment, particularly Francis Hutcheson, rather than Locke, an interpretation that has been strongly criticized.
Legal historian John Phillip Reid has written that the emphasis on the political philosophy of the Declaration has been misplaced. The Declaration is not a philosophical tract about natural rights, argues Reid, but is instead a legal document—an indictment against King George for violating the constitutional rights of the colonists. In contrast, historian Dennis J. Mahoney argues that the Declaration is not a legal document at all, but a philosophical document influenced by Emerich de Vattel, Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and Samuel Pufendorf. Historian David Armitage has argued that the Declaration is a document of international law. According to Armitage, the Declaration was strongly influenced by de Vattel's The Law of Nations, a book that Benjamin Franklin said was "continually in the hands of the members of our Congress". Armitage writes that because "Vattel made independence fundamental to his definition of statehood", the primary purpose of the Declaration was "to express the international legal sovereignty of the United States". If the United States were to have any hope of being recognized by the European powers, the American revolutionaries had first to make it clear that they were no longer dependent on Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law domestically, but nevertheless it may help to provide historical and legal clarity about the Constitution and other laws.
The Declaration became official when Congress voted for it on July 4; signatures of the delegates were not needed to make it official. The handwritten copy of the Declaration of Independence that was signed by Congress is dated July 4, 1776. The signatures of fifty-six delegates are affixed; however, the exact date each person signed it has long been the subject of debate. Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams all wrote that the Declaration had been signed by Congress on July 4. But in 1796, signer Thomas McKean disputed that the Declaration had been signed on July 4, pointing out that some signers were not then present, including several who were not even elected to Congress until after that date.
According to the 1911 record of events by the U.S. State Department, under Secretary Philander C. Knox, the Declaration was transposed on paper, adopted by the Continental Congress, and signed by John Hancock, President of the Congress, on July 4, 1776. On August 2, 1776, a parchment paper copy of the Declaration was signed by 56 persons. Many of these signers were not present when the original Declaration was adopted on July 4. One signer, Matthew Thornton from New Hampshire, who was seated in the Continental Congress in November, asked for and received the privilege of adding his signature at that time, and signed on November 4, 1776.
Historians have generally accepted McKean's version of events, arguing that the famous signed version of the Declaration was created after July 19, and was not signed by Congress until August 2, 1776. In 1986, legal historian Wilfred Ritz argued that historians had misunderstood the primary documents and given too much credence to McKean, who had not been present in Congress on July 4. According to Ritz, about thirty-four delegates signed the Declaration on July 4, and the others signed on or after August 2. Historians who reject a July 4 signing maintain that most delegates signed on August 2, and that those eventual signers who were not present added their names later. Two future U.S. presidents, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, were among the signatories.
The most famous signature on the engrossed copy is that of John Hancock, who, as President of Congress, presumably signed first. Hancock's large, flamboyant signature became iconic, and John Hancock emerged in the United States as an informal synonym for "signature". A commonly circulated but apocryphal account claims that after Hancock signed, the delegate from Massachusetts commented, "The British ministry can read that name without spectacles." Another apocryphal report indicates that Hancock proudly declared, "There! I guess King George will be able to read that!"
Various legends about the signing of the Declaration emerged years later, when the document had become an important national symbol. In one famous story, John Hancock supposedly said that Congress, having signed the Declaration, must now "all hang together", and Benjamin Franklin replied: "Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." The quotation did not appear in print until more than fifty years after Franklin's death.
The Syng inkstand, used at the signing, was also used at the signing of the United States Constitution in 1787.
Publication and reaction
After Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration on July 4, a handwritten copy was sent a few blocks away to the printing shop of John Dunlap. Through the night Dunlap printed about 200 broadsides for distribution. Before long, the Declaration was read to audiences and reprinted in newspapers across the thirteen states. The first official public reading of the document was by John Nixon in the yard of Independence Hall on July 8; public readings also took place on that day in Trenton, New Jersey, and Easton, Pennsylvania. A German translation of the Declaration was published in Philadelphia by July 9.
President of Congress John Hancock sent a broadside to General George Washington, instructing him to have it proclaimed "at the Head of the Army in the way you shall think it most proper". Washington had the Declaration read to his troops in New York City on July 9, with thousands of British troops on ships in the harbor. Washington and Congress hoped the Declaration would inspire the soldiers, and encourage others to join the army. After hearing the Declaration, crowds in many cities tore down and destroyed signs or statues representing royal authority. An equestrian statue of King George in New York City was pulled down and the lead used to make musket balls.
British officials in North America sent copies of the Declaration to Great Britain. It was published in British newspapers beginning in mid-August, it had reached Florence and Warsaw by mid-September, and a German translation appeared in Switzerland by October. The first copy of the Declaration sent to France got lost, and the second copy arrived only in November 1776. It reached Portuguese America by Brazilian medical student 'Vendek' José Joaquim Maia e Barbalho, who had met with Thomas Jefferson in Nîmes in 1786.[contradiction] Though the Spanish-American authorities banned the circulation of the Declaration, it was widely transmitted and translated, by the Venezuelan Manuel García de Sena, by the Colombian Miguel de Pombo, by the Ecuadorian Vicente Rocafuerte and by the New Englanders Richard Cleveland and William Shaler, who distributed the Declaration and the United States Constitution among creoles in Chile and Indians in Mexico in 1821. The North Ministry did not give an official answer to the Declaration, but instead secretly commissioned pamphleteer John Lind to publish a response, which was entitled Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress. British Tories denounced the signers of the Declaration for not applying the same principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to African Americans. Thomas Hutchinson, the former royal governor of Massachusetts, also published a rebuttal. These pamphlets challenged various aspects of the Declaration. Hutchinson argued that the American Revolution was the work of a few conspirators who wanted independence from the outset, and who had finally achieved it by inducing otherwise loyal colonists to rebel. Lind's pamphlet had an anonymous attack on the concept of natural rights, written by Jeremy Bentham, an argument which he would repeat during the French Revolution. Both pamphlets asked how the American slaveholders in Congress could proclaim that "all men are created equal" without freeing their own slaves.
William Whipple, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who had fought in the war, freed his slave, Prince Whipple, because of revolutionary ideals. In the postwar decades, other slaveholders also freed their slaves; from 1790 to 1810, the percentage of free blacks in the Upper South increased to 8.3 percent from less than one percent of the black population. All Northern states abolished slavery by 1804.
History of the documents
The official copy was the one printed on July 4, 1776 under Jefferson's supervision. It was sent to the states and the Army, and was widely reprinted in newspapers. The slightly different "engrossed copy" (shown at the top of this article) was made later for members to sign. The engrossed version is the one widely distributed in the 21st century. Note the opening lines of the two version differ.
The copy of the Declaration that was signed by Congress is known as the engrossed or parchment copy. It was probably engrossed (that is, carefully handwritten) by clerk Timothy Matlack. Because of poor conservation of the engrossed copy through the 19th century, a facsimile made in 1823, rather than the original, has become the basis of most modern reproductions. In 1921, custody of the engrossed copy of the Declaration, along with the United States Constitution, was transferred from the State Department to the Library of Congress. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the documents were moved for safekeeping to the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox in Kentucky, where they were kept until 1944. In 1952, the engrossed Declaration was transferred to the National Archives, and is now on permanent display at the National Archives in the "Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom".
Although the document signed by Congress and enshrined in the National Archives is usually regarded as the Declaration of Independence, historian Julian P. Boyd argued that the Declaration, like Magna Carta, is not a single document. Boyd considered the printed broadsides ordered by Congress to be official texts as well. The Declaration was first published as a broadside that was printed the night of July 4 by John Dunlap of Philadelphia. Dunlap printed about 200 broadsides, of which 26 are known to survive. The 26th copy was discovered in The National Archives in England in 2009. In 1777, Congress commissioned Mary Katherine Goddard to print a new broadside that, unlike the Dunlap broadside, listed the signers of the Declaration. Nine copies of the Goddard broadside are known to still exist. A variety of broadsides printed by the states are also extant.
Several early handwritten copies and drafts of the Declaration have also been preserved. Jefferson kept a four-page draft that late in life he called the "original Rough draught". How many drafts Jefferson wrote prior to this one, and how much of the text was contributed by other committee members, is unknown. In 1947, Boyd discovered a fragment of an earlier draft in Jefferson's handwriting. Jefferson and Adams sent copies of the rough draft, with slight variations, to friends.
During the writing process, Jefferson showed the rough draft to Adams and Franklin, and perhaps other members of the drafting committee, who made a few more changes. Franklin, for example, may have been responsible for changing Jefferson's original phrase "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" to "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Jefferson incorporated these changes into a copy that was submitted to Congress in the name of the committee. The copy that was submitted to Congress on June 28 has been lost, and was perhaps destroyed in the printing process, or destroyed during the debates in accordance with Congress's secrecy rule.
Having served its original purpose in announcing the independence of the United States, the Declaration was initially neglected in the years immediately following the American Revolution. Early celebrations of Independence Day, like early histories of the Revolution, largely ignored the Declaration. Although the act of declaring independence was considered important, the text announcing that act attracted little attention. The Declaration was rarely mentioned during the debates about the United States Constitution, and its language was not incorporated into that document. George Mason's draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights was more influential, and its language was echoed in state constitutions and state bills of rights more often than Jefferson's words. "In none of these documents", wrote Pauline Maier, "is there any evidence whatsoever that the Declaration of Independence lived in men's minds as a classic statement of American political principles."
Influence in other countries
Many leaders of the French Revolution admired the Declaration of Independence but were also interested in the new American state constitutions. The inspiration and content of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789) emerged largely from the ideals of the American Revolution. Its key drafts were prepared by Lafayette, working closely in Paris with his friend, Thomas Jefferson. It also borrowed language from George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights.
According to historian David Armitage, the Declaration of Independence did prove to be internationally influential, but not as a statement of human rights. Armitage argued that the Declaration was the first in a new genre of declarations of independence that announced the creation of new states.
Other French leaders were directly influenced by the text of the Declaration of Independence itself. The Manifesto of the Province of Flanders (1790) was the first foreign derivation of the Declaration; others include the Venezuelan Declaration of Independence (1811), the Liberian Declaration of Independence (1847), the declarations of secession by the Confederate States of America (1860–61), and the Vietnamese Proclamation of Independence (1945). These declarations echoed the United States Declaration of Independence in announcing the independence of a new state, without necessarily endorsing the political philosophy of the original.
Some other countries that used the Declaration as inspiration or directly copied sections from it is the Haitian declaration of 1 January 1804 from the Haitian Revolution, the United Provinces of New Granada in 1811, the Argentine Declaration of Independence in 1816, the Chilean Declaration of Independence in 1818, Costa Rica in 1821, El Salvador in 1821, Guatemala in 1821, Honduras in (1821), Mexico in 1821, Nicaragua in 1821, Peru in 1821, Bolivian War of Independence in 1825, Uruguay in 1825, Ecuador in 1830, Colombia in 1831, Paraguay in 1842, Dominican Republic in 1844, Texas Declaration of Independence in March 1836, California Republic in November 1836, Hungarian Declaration of Independence in 1849, Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand in 1835, and the Czechoslovak declaration of independence from 1918 drafted in Washington D.C. with Gutzon Borglum among the drafters. The Rhodesian declaration of independence, ratified in November 1965, is based on the American one as well, however, it omits the phrases "all men are created equal" and "the consent of the governed". The South Carolina declaration of secession from December 1860 also mentions the U.S. Declaration of Independence, though it, like the Rhodesian one, omits references to "all men are created equal" and "consent of the governed".
Revival of interest
In the United States, interest in the Declaration was revived in the 1790s with the emergence of America's first political parties. Throughout the 1780s, few Americans knew, or cared, who wrote the Declaration. But in the next decade, Jeffersonian Republicans sought political advantage over their rival Federalists by promoting both the importance of the Declaration and Jefferson as its author. Federalists responded by casting doubt on Jefferson's authorship or originality, and by emphasizing that independence was declared by the whole Congress, with Jefferson as just one member of the drafting committee. Federalists insisted that Congress's act of declaring independence, in which Federalist John Adams had played a major role, was more important than the document announcing that act. But this view, like the Federalist Party, would fade away, and before long the act of declaring independence would become synonymous with the document.
A less partisan appreciation for the Declaration emerged in the years following the War of 1812, thanks to a growing American nationalism and a renewed interest in the history of the Revolution. In 1817, Congress commissioned John Trumbull's famous painting of the signers, which was exhibited to large crowds before being installed in the Capitol. The earliest commemorative printings of the Declaration also appeared at this time, offering many Americans their first view of the signed document. Collective biographies of the signers were first published in the 1820s, giving birth to what Garry Wills called the "cult of the signers". In the years that followed, many stories about the writing and signing of the document would be published for the first time.
When interest in the Declaration was revived, the sections that were most important in 1776—the announcement of the independence of the United States and the grievances against King George—were no longer relevant. But the second paragraph, with its talk of self-evident truths and unalienable rights, were applicable long after the war had ended. Because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights lacked sweeping statements about rights and equality, advocates of marginalized groups turned to the Declaration for support. Starting in the 1820s, variations of the Declaration were issued to proclaim the rights of workers, farmers, women, and others. In 1848, for example, the Seneca Falls Convention, a meeting of women's rights advocates, declared that "all men and women are created equal".
Slavery and the Declaration
The contradiction between the claim that "all men are created equal" and the existence of American slavery attracted comment when the Declaration was first published. As mentioned above, although Jefferson had included a paragraph in his initial draft that strongly indicted Britain's role in the slave trade, this was deleted from the final version. Jefferson himself was a prominent Virginia slave holder having owned hundreds of slaves. Referring to this seeming contradiction, English abolitionist Thomas Day wrote in a 1776 letter, "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves." In the 19th century, the Declaration took on a special significance for the abolitionist movement. Historian Bertram Wyatt-Brown wrote that "abolitionists tended to interpret the Declaration of Independence as a theological as well as a political document". Abolitionist leaders Benjamin Lundy and William Lloyd Garrison adopted the "twin rocks" of "the Bible and the Declaration of Independence" as the basis for their philosophies. "As long as there remains a single copy of the Declaration of Independence, or of the Bible, in our land," wrote Garrison, "we will not despair." For radical abolitionists like Garrison, the most important part of the Declaration was its assertion of the right of revolution: Garrison called for the destruction of the government under the Constitution, and the creation of a new state dedicated to the principles of the Declaration.
The controversial question of whether to add additional slave states to the United States coincided with the growing stature of the Declaration. The first major public debate about slavery and the Declaration took place during the Missouri controversy of 1819 to 1821. Antislavery Congressmen argued that the language of the Declaration indicated that the Founding Fathers of the United States had been opposed to slavery in principle, and so new slave states should not be added to the country. Proslavery Congressmen, led by Senator Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, argued that since the Declaration was not a part of the Constitution, it had no relevance to the question.
With the antislavery movement gaining momentum, defenders of slavery such as John Randolph and John C. Calhoun found it necessary to argue that the Declaration's assertion that "all men are created equal" was false, or at least that it did not apply to black people. During the debate over the Kansas–Nebraska Act in 1853, for example, Senator John Pettit of Indiana argued that "all men are created equal", rather than a "self-evident truth", was a "self-evident lie". Opponents of the Kansas–Nebraska Act, including Salmon P. Chase and Benjamin Wade, defended the Declaration and what they saw as its antislavery principles.
Lincoln and the Declaration
The Declaration's relationship to slavery was taken up in 1854 by Abraham Lincoln, a little-known former Congressman who idolized the Founding Fathers. Lincoln thought that the Declaration of Independence expressed the highest principles of the American Revolution, and that the Founding Fathers had tolerated slavery with the expectation that it would ultimately wither away. For the United States to legitimize the expansion of slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, thought Lincoln, was to repudiate the principles of the Revolution. In his October 1854 Peoria speech, Lincoln said:
Nearly eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a "sacred right of self-government. ... Our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it. ... Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. ... If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union: but we shall have saved it, as to make, and keep it, forever worthy of the saving.
The meaning of the Declaration was a recurring topic in the famed debates between Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858. Douglas argued that "all men are created equal" in the Declaration referred to white men only. The purpose of the Declaration, he said, had simply been to justify the independence of the United States, and not to proclaim the equality of any "inferior or degraded race". Lincoln, however, thought that the language of the Declaration was deliberately universal, setting a high moral standard for which the American republic should aspire. "I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere", he said. During the seventh and last joint debate with Steven Douglas at Alton, Illinois on 15 October 1858 Lincoln said about the declaration:
I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal — equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all, constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere.
According to Pauline Maier, Douglas's interpretation was more historically accurate, but Lincoln's view ultimately prevailed. "In Lincoln's hands", wrote Maier, "the Declaration of Independence became first and foremost a living document" with "a set of goals to be realized over time".
Like Daniel Webster, James Wilson, and Joseph Story before him, Lincoln argued that the Declaration of Independence was a founding document of the United States, and that this had important implications for interpreting the Constitution, which had been ratified more than a decade after the Declaration. Although the Constitution did not use the word "equality", Lincoln believed that "all men are created equal" remained a part of the nation's founding principles. He famously expressed this belief in the opening sentence of his 1863 Gettysburg Address: "Four score and seven years ago [i.e. in 1776] our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
Lincoln's view of the Declaration as a moral guide to interpreting the Constitution became influential. "For most people now," wrote Garry Wills in 1992, "the Declaration means what Lincoln told us it means, as a way of correcting the Constitution itself without overthrowing it." Admirers of Lincoln, such as Harry V. Jaffa, praised this development. Critics of Lincoln, notably Willmoore Kendall and Mel Bradford, argued that Lincoln dangerously expanded the scope of the national government, and violated states' rights, by reading the Declaration into the Constitution.
Women's suffrage and the Declaration
In July 1848, the first Woman's Rights Convention, the Seneca Falls Convention, was held in Seneca Falls, New York. The convention was organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Mary Ann McClintock, and Jane Hunt. In their "Declaration of Sentiments", patterned on the Declaration of Independence, the convention members demanded social and political equality for women. Their motto was that "All men and women are created equal" and the convention demanded suffrage for women. The suffrage movement was supported by William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass.
The adoption of the Declaration of Independence was dramatized in the 1969 Tony Award-winning musical play 1776, and the 1972 movie of the same name, as well as in the 2008 television miniseries John Adams.
The engrossed copy of the Declaration is central to the 2004 Hollywood film National Treasure, in which the main character steals the document because he believes it has secret clues to a treasure hidden by some of the Founding Fathers.
The Declaration is featured in The Probability Broach (1980), an alternative history novel, when one word is added to the document, to read that governments "derive their just power from the unanimous consent of the governed".
In 1984 the Memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence was dedicated in Constitution Gardens on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., where the signatures of all the original signers are carved in stone with their names, places of residences and occupations.
- Becker, Declaration of Independence, 5.
- The thirteen colonies were: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Jersey were formed by mergers of previous colonies.
- "Declaring Independence", Revolutionary War, Digital History, University of Houston. From Adams' notes: "Why will you not? You ought to do it." "I will not." "Why?" "Reasons enough." "What can be your reasons?" "Reason first, you are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second, I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third, you can write ten times better than I can." "Well," said Jefferson, "if you are decided, I will do as well as I can." "Very well. When you have drawn it up, we will have a meeting."
- Boyd (1976), The Declaration of Independence: The Mystery of the Lost Original, pg. 438
- "Did You Know...Independence Day Should Actually Be July 2?" (Press release). National Archives and Records Administration. June 1, 2005. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
- The Declaration of Independence: A History, The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
- Stephen E. Lucas, "Justifying America: The Declaration of Independence as a Rhetorical Document", in Thomas W. Benson, ed., American Rhetoric: Context and Criticism, Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989, p. 85
- Ellis, American Creation, 55–56.
- McPherson, Second American Revolution, 126.
- David Armitage, The Declaration of Independence: A Global History (Harvard University Press, 2007) pp. 103–4
- Hazelton, Declaration History, 19.
- Christie and Labaree, Empire or Independence, 31.
- Bailyn, Ideological Origins, 162.
- Bailyn, Ideological Origins, 200–02.
- Bailyn, Ideological Origins, 180–82.
- Middlekauff, Glorious Cause, 241.
- Bailyn, Ideological Origins, 224–25.
- Middlekauff, Glorious Cause, 241–42. The writings in question include Wilson's Considerations on the Authority of Parliament and Jefferson's A Summary View of the Rights of British America (both 1774), as well as Samuel Adams's 1768 Circular Letter.
- Middlekauff, Glorious Cause, 168; Ferling, Leap in the Dark, 123–24.
- Hazelton, Declaration History, 13; Middlekauff, Glorious Cause, 318.
- Middlekauff, Glorious Cause, 318.
- Maier, American Scripture, 25. The text of the 1775 king's speech is online, published by the American Memory project.
- Maier, American Scripture, 25.
- Rakove, Beginnings of National Politics, 88–90.
- Christie and Labaree, Empire or Independence, 270; Maier, American Scripture, 31–32.
- Jensen, Founding, 667.
- Rakove, Beginnings of National Politics, 89; Maier, American Scripture, 33.
- Maier, American Scripture, 33–34.
- Hazelton, Declaration History, 209; Maier, American Scripture, 25–27.
- Friedenwald, Interpretation, 67.
- Friedenwald, Interpretation, 77.
- Maier, American Scripture, 30.
- Maier, American Scripture, 59.
- Jensen, Founding, 671; Friedenwald, Interpretation, 78.
- Maier, American Scripture, 48, and Appendix A, which lists the state and local declarations.
- Jensen, Founding, 678–79.
- Jensen, Founding, 679; Friedenwald, Interpretation, 92–93.
- Maier, American Scripture, 69–72, quote on 72.
- Maier, American Scripture, 48. The modern scholarly consensus is that the best-known and earliest of the local declarations, the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, allegedly adopted in May 1775 (a full year before other local declarations), is most likely inauthentic; Maier, American Scripture, 174.
- Jensen, Founding, 682.
- Jensen, Founding, 683.
- Jensen, Founding, 684; Maier, American Scripture, 37. For the full text of the May 10 resolve see the Journals of the Continental Congress.
- Jensen, Founding, 684.
- Burnett, Continental Congress, 159. The text of Adams's letter is online.
- Maier, American Scripture, 37; Jensen, Founding, 684. For the full text of the May 15 preamble see the Journals of the Continental Congress.
- Rakove, National Politics, 96; Jensen, Founding, 684; Friedenwald, Interpretation, 94.
- Rakove, National Politics, 97; Jensen, Founding, 685.
- Maier, American Scripture, 38.
- Boyd, Evolution, 18; Maier, American Scripture, 63. The text of the May 15 Virginia resolution is online at Yale Law School's Avalon Project.
- Jefferson, Thomas (1776-07-04). "Declaration of Independence. In Congress, July 4, 1776, a Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress Assembled.". World Digital Library. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Retrieved 1 July 2013.
- Maier, American Scripture, 41; Boyd, Evolution, 19.
- Jensen, Founding, 689–90; Maier, American Scripture, 42.
- Jensen, Founding, 689; Armitage, Global History, 33–34. The quote is from Jefferson's notes; Boyd, Papers of Jefferson, 1:311.
- Maier, American Scripture, 42–43; Friedenwald, Interpretation, 106.
- Jensen, Founding, 691–92.
- Friedenwald, Interpretation, 106–07; Jensen, Founding, 691.
- Jensen, Founding, 692.
- Jensen, Founding, 693.
- Jensen, Founding, 694.
- Jensen, Founding, 694–96; Friedenwald, Interpretation, 96; Maier, American Scripture, 68.
- Friedenwald, Interpretation, 118; Jensen, Founding, 698.
- Friedenwald, Interpretation, 119–20.
- Dupont and Onuf, 3.
- Maier, American Scripture, 97–105; Boyd, Evolution, 21.
- Boyd, Evolution, 22.
- Maier, American Scripture, 104.
- Becker, Declaration of Independence, 4.
- Jensen, Founding, 701.
- John E. Ferling, Setting the World Ablaze: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the American Revolution, Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513409-4. OCLC 468591593, pp. 131–137
- Burnett, Continental Congress, 181.
- Jensen, Founding, 699.
- Burnett, Continental Congress, 182; Jensen, Founding, 700.
- Maier, American Scripture, 45.
- Boyd, Evolution, 19.
- Jensen, Founding, 703–04.
- Maier, American Scripture, 160–61.
- Maier, American Scripture, 146–50.
- Julian P. Boyd, "The Declaration of Independence: The Mystery of the Lost Original". Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 100, number 4 (October 1976), page 456
- Lucas, Stephen E. "The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence". National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
- "Index of Signers by State". ushistory.org – Independence Hall Association in Philadelphia. Retrieved October 12, 2006.
- "TO HENRY LEE — Thomas Jefferson The Works, vol. 12 (Correspondence and Papers 1816–1826; 1905)". The Online Library of Liberty. May 8, 1825. Retrieved March 8, 2008.
- Malone, Jefferson the Virginian, 221; Maier, American Scripture, 125–26.
- Maier, American Scripture, 126–28.
- Maier, American Scripture, 53–57.
- Maier found no evidence that the Dutch Act of Abjuration served as a model for the Declaration and considers the argument "unpersuasive" (American Scripture, p. 264). Armitage discounts the influence of the Scottish and Dutch acts, and writes that neither was called "declarations of independence" until fairly recently (Global History, pp. 42–44). For the argument in favor of the influence of the Dutch act, see Stephen E. Lucas, "The 'Plakkaat van Verlatinge': A Neglected Model for the American Declaration of Independence", in Rosemarijn Hofte and Johanna C. Kardux, eds., Connecting Cultures: The Netherlands in Five Centuries of Transatlantic Exchange (Amsterdam, 1994), 189–207, and Barbara Wolff, "Was the Declaration of Independence Inspired by the Dutch?" University of Wisconsin Madison News, June 29, 1988, http://www.news.wisc.edu/3049 Accessed July 3, 2013
- Boyd, Evolution, 16–17.
- "The Three Greatest Men". Retrieved June 13, 2009.
- Becker, Declaration of Independence, 27.
- Ray Forrest Harvey, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui: A Liberal Tradition in American Constitutionalism (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1937), 120.
- A brief, online overview of the classical liberalism vs. republicanism debate is Alec Ewald, "The American Republic: 1760–1870" (2004). In a similar vein, historian Robert Middlekauff argues that the political ideas of the independence movement took their origins mainly from the "eighteenth-century commonwealthmen, the radical Whig ideology", which in turn drew on the political thought of John Milton, James Harrington, and John Locke. See Robert Middlekauff (2005), The Glorious Cause, pp. 3–6, 51–52, 136
- Wills, Inventing America, especially chs. 11–13. Wills concludes (p. 315) that "the air of enlightened America was full of Hutcheson's politics, not Locke's".
- Hamowy, "Jefferson and the Scottish Enlightenment", argues that Wills gets much wrong (p. 523), that the Declaration seems to be influenced by Hutcheson because Hutcheson was, like Jefferson, influenced by Locke (pp. 508–09), and that Jefferson often wrote of Locke's influence, but never mentioned Hutcheson in any of his writings (p. 514). See also Kenneth S. Lynn, "Falsifying Jefferson", Commentary 66 (Oct. 1978), 66–71. Ralph Luker, in "Garry Wills and the New Debate Over the Declaration of Independence" (The Virginia Quarterly Review, Spring 1980, 244–61) agreed that Wills overstated Hutcheson's influence to provide a communitarian reading of the Declaration, but he also argued that Wills's critics similarly read their own views into the document.
- John Phillip Reid, "The Irrelevance of the Declaration", in Hendrik Hartog, ed., Law in the American Revolution and the Revolution in the Law (New York University Press, 1981), 46–89.
- Mahoney, Declaration of Independence.
- Benjamin Franklin to Charles F.W. Dumas, December 19, 1775, in The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Albert Henry Smyth (New York: 1970), 6:432.
- Armitage, Global History, 21, 38–40.
- Gulf, C. & SFR Co. v. Ellis, 165 US 150 (1897): "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty.... it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence."
- Wills, Gary. Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, p. 25 (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002): "the Declaration is not a legal instrument, like the Constitution".
- Cuomo, Mario. Why Lincoln Matters: Now More Than Ever, p. 137 (Harcourt Press 2004) (it "is not a law and therefore is not subjected to rigorous interpretation and enforcement").
- Warren, "Fourth of July Myths", 242–43.
- Hazelton, Declaration History, 299–302; Burnett, Continental Congress, 192.
- The U.S. State Department (1911), The Declaration of Independence, 1776, pp. 10, 11.
- Warren, "Fourth of July Myths", 245–46; Hazelton, Declaration History, 208–19; Wills, Inventing America, 341.
- Ritz, "Authentication", 179–200.
- Ritz, "Authentication", 194.
- Hazelton, Declaration History, 208–19.
- Hazelton, Declaration History, 209.
- Merriam-Webster online; Dictionary.com.
- "TeachAmericanHistory.org: John Hancock" (PDF). Retrieved October 6, 2014.
- Malone, Story of the Declaration, 91.
- Maier, American Scripture, 156.
- Armitage, Global History, 72.
- Maier, American Scripture, 155.
- Maier, American Scripture, 156–57.
- Armitage, Global History, 73.
- "The Declaration of Independence in World Context". Retrieved October 6, 2014.
- The Contagion of Sovereignty: Declarations of Independence since 1776
- Armitage, Global History, 75. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
- Jessup, John J. (September 20, 1943). "America and the Future". Life: 105. Retrieved March 9, 2011.
- Hutchinson, Thomas (1776). Eicholz, Hans, ed. "Strictures upon the Declaration of the Congress at Philadelphia in a Letter to a Noble Lord, &c.". London: Liberty Fund. Retrieved November 7, 2012.
- Armitage, Global History, 74.
- Bailyn, Ideological Origins, 155–56.
- Armitage, Global History, 79-80. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
- Armitage, Global History, 76-77. Retrieved October 6, 2014.
- Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, 1619–1877 (1993), pp. 77–79, 81
- "The Declaration of Independence: A History". Charters of Freedom. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved July 1, 2011.
- Malone, Story of the Declaration, 263.
- "Charters of Freedom Re-encasement Project". National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved July 1, 2011.
- "Rare copy of United States Declaration of Independence found in Kew". The Daily Telegraph. July 3, 2009. Retrieved July 1, 2011.
- Ann Marie Dube (May 1996). "The Declaration of Independence". A Multitude of Amendments, Alterations and Additions: The Writing and Publicizing of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States. National Park Service. Retrieved July 1, 2011.
- Boyd, "Lost Original", 446.
- Boyd, Papers of Jefferson, 1:421.
- Becker, Declaration of Independence, 142 note 1. Boyd (Papers of Jefferson, 1:427–28) casts doubt on Becker's belief that the change was made by Franklin.
- Boyd, "Lost Original", 448–50. Boyd argued that if a document was signed on July 4—which he thought unlikely—it would have been the Fair Copy, and probably would have been signed only by Hancock and Thomson.
- Ritz, "From the Here", speculates that the Fair Copy was immediately sent to the printer so that copies could be made for each member of Congress to consult during the debate. All of these copies were then destroyed, theorizes Ritz, to preserve secrecy.
- Armitage, Global History, 87–88; Maier, American Scripture, 162, 168–69.
- McDonald, "Jefferson's Reputation", 178–79; Maier, American Scripture, 160.
- Armitage, Global History, 92.
- Armitage, Global History, 90; Maier, American Scripture, 165–67.
- Maier, American Scripture, 167.
- Armitage, Global History, 82.
- Georges Lefebvre (2005). The Coming of the French Revolution. Princeton UP. p. 212.
- George Athan Billias, ed. (2009). American Constitutionalism Heard Round the World, 1776-1989: A Global Perspective. NYU Press. p. 92.
- Susan Dunn, Sister Revolutions: French Lightning, American Light (1999) pp 143-45
- Armitage, Global History, 113.
- Armitage, Global History, 120–35.
- Armitage, Global History, 104, 113.
- Palley, Claire (1966). The Constitutional History and Law of Southern Rhodesia 1888–1965, with Special Reference to Imperial Control (First ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 750. OCLC 406157.
- Hillier, Tim (1998). Sourcebook on Public International Law (First ed.). London & Sydney: Cavendish Publishing. p. 207. ISBN 1-85941-050-2.
- Gowlland-Debbas, Vera (1990). Collective Responses to Illegal Acts in International Law: United Nations action in the question of Southern Rhodesia (First ed.). Leiden and New York: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 71. ISBN 0-7923-0811-5.
- McDonald, "Jefferson's Reputation", 172.
- McDonald, "Jefferson's Reputation", 172, 179.
- McDonald, "Jefferson's Reputation", 179; Maier, American Scripture, 168–71.
- McDonald, "Jefferson's Reputation", 180–84; Maier, American Scripture, 171.
- Wills, Inventing America, 348.
- Detweiler, "Changing Reputation", 571–72; Maier, American Scripture, 175–78.
- Detweiler, "Changing Reputation", 572; Maier, American Scripture, 175.
- Detweiler, "Changing Reputation", 572; Maier, American Scripture, 175–76; Wills, Inventing America, 324. See also John C. Fitzpatrick, Spirit of the Revolution (Boston 1924).
- Maier, American Scripture, 176.
- Wills, Inventing America, 90.
- Armitage, "Global History", 93.
- Maier, American Scripture, 196–97.
- Maier, American Scripture, 197. See also Philip S. Foner, ed., We, the Other People: Alternative Declarations of Independence by Labor Groups, Farmers, Woman's Rights Advocates, Socialists, and Blacks, 1829–1975 (Urbana 1976).
- Maier, American Scripture, 197; Armitage, Global History, 95.
- Cohen (1969), Thomas Jefferson and the Problem of Slavery
- (1) Armitage, Global History, 77.
(2) Day, Thomas. Fragment of an original letter on the Slavery of the Negroes, written in the year 1776. London: Printed for John Stockdale (1784). Boston: Re-printed by Garrison and Knapp, at the office of "The Liberator" (1831). p. 10. Retrieved February 26, 2014.
If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.At: Internet Archive: The Johns Hopkins University Sheridan Libraries: James Birney Collection of Antislavery Pamphlets.
- Wyatt-Brown, Lewis Tappan, 287.
- Mayer, All on Fire, 53, 115.
- Maier, American Scripture, 198–99.
- Detweiler, "Congressional Debate", 598.
- Detweiler, "Congressional Debate", 604.
- Detweiler, "Congressional Debate", 605.
- Maier, American Scripture, 199; Bailyn, Ideological Origins, 246.
- Maier, American Scripture, 200.
- Maier, American Scripture, 200–01.
- Maier, American Scripture, 201–02.
- McPherson, Second American Revolution, 126–27.
- Maier, American Scripture, 204.
- Maier, American Scripture, 204–05.
- "Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865): Political Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas 1897, p. 415.". Bartleby. Retrieved January 26, 2013.
- Maier, American Scripture, 207.
- Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg, 100.
- Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg, 129–31.
- Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg, 145.
- Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg, 147.
- Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg, 39, 145–46. See also Harry V. Jaffa, Crisis of the House Divided (1959) and A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War (2000); Willmoore Kendall and George W. Carey, The Basic Symbols of the American Political Tradition (1970); and M.E. Bradford, "The Heresy of Equality: A Reply to Harry Jaffa" (1976), reprinted in A Better Guide than Reason (1979) and Modern Age, the First Twenty-five Years (1988).
- Norton, et al (2010), p. 301.
- "Modern History Sourcebook: Seneca Falls: The Declaration of Sentiments, 1848". Retrieved October 6, 2014.
- Armitage, David. The Declaration Of Independence: A Global History, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-674-02282-9.
- Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Enlarged edition. Originally published 1967. Harvard University Press, 1992. ISBN 0-674-44302-0.
- Becker, Carl. The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas. 1922. Available online from The Online Library of Liberty and Google Book Search. Revised edition New York: Vintage Books, 1970. ISBN 0-394-70060-0.
- Boyd, Julian P. The Declaration of Independence: The Evolution of the Text. Originally published 1945. Revised edition edited by Gerard W. Gawalt. University Press of New England, 1999. ISBN 0-8444-0980-4.
- Boyd, Julian P., ed. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 1. Princeton University Press, 1950.
- Boyd, Julian P. "The Declaration of Independence: The Mystery of the Lost Original". Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 100, number 4 (October 1976), 438–67.
- Burnett, Edward Cody. The Continental Congress. New York: Norton, 1941.
- Christie, Ian R. and Benjamin W. Labaree. Empire or Independence, 1760–1776: A British-American Dialogue on the Coming of the American Revolution. New York: Norton, 1976.
- Detweiler, Philip F. "Congressional Debate on Slavery and the Declaration of Independence, 1819–1821", American Historical Review 63 (April 1958): 598–616. in JSTOR
- Detweiler, Philip F. "The Changing Reputation of the Declaration of Independence: The First Fifty Years". William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 19 (1962): 557–74. in JSTOR
- Dumbauld, Edward. The Declaration of Independence And What It Means Today. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950.
- Ellis, Joseph. American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic. New York: Knopf, 2007. ISBN 978-0-307-26369-8.
- Dupont, Christian Y. and Peter S. Onuf, eds. Declaring Independence: The Origina and Influence of America's Founding Document. Revised edition. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Library, 2010. ISBN 978-0-9799997-1-0.
- Ferling, John E. A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-515924-1.
- Friedenwald, Herbert. The Declaration of Independence: An Interpretation and an Analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1904. Accessed via the Internet Archive.
- Gustafson, Milton. "Travels of the Charters of Freedom". Prologue Magazine 34, no 4. (Winter 2002).
- Hamowy, Ronald. "Jefferson and the Scottish Enlightenment: A Critique of Garry Wills's Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence". William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 36 (October 1979), 503–23.
- Hazelton, John H. The Declaration of Independence: Its History. Originally published 1906. New York: Da Capo Press, 1970. ISBN 0-306-71987-8. 1906 edition available on Google Book Search
- Journals of the Continental Congress,1774–1789, Vol. 5 ( Library of Congress, 1904–1937)
- Jensen, Merrill. The Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution, 1763–1776. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.
- Mahoney, D. J. (1986). "Declaration of independence". Society 24: 46–48. doi:10.1007/BF02695936.
- Lucas, Stephen E., "Justifying America: The Declaration of Independence as a Rhetorical Document", in Thomas W. Benson, ed., American Rhetoric: Context and Criticism, Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989
- Maier, Pauline. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Knopf, 1997. ISBN 0-679-45492-6.
- Malone, Dumas. Jefferson the Virginian. Volume 1 of Jefferson and His Time. Boston: Little Brown, 1948.
- Mayer, David (2008). "Declaration of Independence". In Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 113–5. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
- Mayer, Henry. All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998. ISBN 0-312-18740-8.
- McDonald, Robert M. S. "Thomas Jefferson's Changing Reputation as Author of the Declaration of Independence: The First Fifty Years". Journal of the Early Republic 19, no. 2 (Summer 1999): 169–95.
- McPherson, James. Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. ISBN 0-19-505542-X.
- Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789. Revised and expanded edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
- Norton, Mary Beth, et al., A People and a Nation, Eighth Edition, Boston, Wadsworth, 2010. ISBN 0-547-17558-2.
- Rakove, Jack N. The Beginnings of National Politics: An Interpretive History of the Continental Congress. New York: Knopf, 1979. ISBN 0-8018-2864-3.
- Ritz, Wilfred J. "The Authentication of the Engrossed Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776". Law and History Review 4, no. 1 (Spring 1986): 179–204.
- Ritz, Wilfred J. "From the Here of Jefferson's Handwritten Rough Draft of the Declaration of Independence to the There of the Printed Dunlap Broadside". Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 116, no. 4 (October 1992): 499–512.
- Tsesis, Alexander. For Liberty and Equality: The Life and Times of the Declaration of Independence (Oxford University Press; 2012) 397 pages; explores the impact on American politics, law, and society since its drafting.
- Warren, Charles. "Fourth of July Myths". The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, vol. 2, no. 3 (July 1945): 238–72. JSTOR 1921451.
- United States Department of State, "The Declaration of Independence, 1776, 1911.
- Wills, Garry. Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1978. ISBN 0-385-08976-7.
- Wills, Garry. Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Rewrote America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992. ISBN 0-671-76956-1.
- Wyatt-Brown, Bertram. Lewis Tappan and the Evangelical War Against Slavery. Cleveland: Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1969. ISBN 0-8295-0146-0.
Find more about
United States Declaration of Independence
at Wikipedia's sister projects
|Media from Commons|
|Quotations from Wikiquote|
|Source texts from Wikisource|
- "Declare the Causes: The Declaration of Independence" lesson plan for grades 9–12 from National Endowment for the Humanities
- Declaration of Independence at the National Archives
- Declaration of Independence at the Library of Congress
- "The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence" by Stephen E. Lucas
- Short film released in 2002 with actors reading the Declaration, with an introduction by Morgan Freeman
- Mobile-Friendly Declaration of Independence
- Various editions of the Declaration of Independence at the Online Books Page
- Loyalist Responses to the Declaration of Independence
- Strictures upon the Declaration of the Congress at Philadelphia (London 1776), Thomas Hutchinson's reaction to the Declaration
- The Loyalist Declaration of Independence published in The Royal Gazette, (New York) on November 17, 1781 (Transcription provided by Bruce Wallace and posted on The On-Line Institute for Advanced Loyalist Studies.)