A Patriotic Tribute, a Time-Honored Tradition
Times readers can again expect to find a full-page transcription of the Declaration of Independence in the newspaper this Fourth of July.
Supported byIN Times PastA Patriotic Tribute, a Time-Honored TraditionTimes readers can again expect to find a full-page transcription of the Declaration of Independence in the newspaper this Fourth of July.ByDavid W. DunlapIn theIn Times Pastcolumn, David W. Dunlap explores New York Times history through artifacts housed in the Museum of The Times.This July, The New York Times will honor the Declaration of Independence as it has for 102 years: with a full-page tribute to the founding document.The custom actually stretches back further, to the first full year when the newspaper was under the control of the publisherAdolph S. Ochs(1858-1935). OnJuly 4, 1897, The Times printed a full-page facsimile of the declaration. The document’s squarish shape fit almost perfectly on the 16-inch-wide Times page.For the next 25 years, The Times fidgeted with the format. The version published onJuly 4, 1915, was a facsimile, but much smaller in size. The version onJuly 4, 1920, printed during the Democratic National Convention, bore the headline “America’s First Platform.” That text was typeset instead of being reproduced as a facsimile.OnJuly 4, 1922, however, a full-page facsimile of the declaration was published once more, and the annual Independence Day tradition began. (The facsimile published in The Times reproduced an1823 engraving by William J. Stone.)From 1953 to 2007, The Times graduallyreduced the width of the newspaperto save on the high cost of newsprint. Pages shrank from 16 inches across to 12 inches across. That meant that the Declaration of Independence, retaining its squarish proportion, wound up only 12 inches high in print — too small to peruse the 18th-century handwriting comfortably.In 2011, the publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. decided it was time to rethink his great-grandfather’s idea. On the next July 4, readers were presented with atranscribed, typeset declaration. Though it preserved the capitalization, punctuation and spelling of the original, the text was much easier to read. The page also honored tradition by including a color image of the Stone engraving.TheMuseum at The Timeshas page proofs showing the evolution of the 2012 redesign by the art director Catherine Gilmore-Barnes. She is now retired, as is Mr. Sulzberger. But our celebration of the Declaration of Independence continues.David W. Dunlap, a retired Times reporter and columnist, is the curator of the Museum at The Times, which houses Times artifacts and historical documents.More about David W. Dunlap
[{"title": "A Patriotic Tribute, a Time-Honored Tradition", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/23/insider/declaration-of-independence.html"}, {"title": "A Patriotic Tribute, a Time-Honored Tradition", "link": "https://www.threads.net/@stufalk/post/C8lEvfMvBMX"}, {"title": "A Patriotic Tribute, a Time-Honored Tradition", "link": "https://dnyuz.com/2024/06/23/a-patriotic-tribute-a-time-honored-tradition/"}, {"title": "Stuart Falk", "link": "https://twitter.com/stufalk/status/1805043650268938606"}, {"title": "A Time-Honored Tradition | Rough and Rede II", "link": "https://georgerede.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/a-time-honored-tradition/"}, {"title": "Memorial Day: A Tribute to Heroes through Flags", "link": "https://www.flags.com/blog/memorial-day-a-tribute-to-heroes-through-flags/"}, {"title": "Patriotic Tribute to American Heroes", "link": "https://teeitupforthetroops.org/blog/2023/07/07/patriotic-tribute-to-american-heroes/"}, {"title": "Patriotic Days", "link": "https://www.vfw.org/community/community-initiatives/patriotic-days"}, {"title": "Understanding Time-Honored Tradition of Burials", "link": "https://www.mcdougalfuneralhomes.com/understanding-the-time-honored-tradition-of-burials"}, {"title": "Memorial Day is a Time for Personal Reflection and ...", "link": "https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/memorial-day-time-personal-reflection-and-remembrance"}, {"title": "Honoring, respecting the tradition of Memorial Day", "link": "https://www.oleantimesherald.com/commentary/honoring-respecting-the-tradition-of-memorial-day/article_8f125736-190d-11ef-8bb3-fba2eddf21da.html"}, {"title": "An American Tradition of Remembrance", "link": "https://www.militaryfamily.org/an-american-tradition-of-remembrance/"}, {"title": "Memorial Day is a Time for Personal Reflection and ...", "link": "https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/memorial-day-time-personal-reflection-and-remembrance"}, {"title": "Memorial Day in Ames, IA: Honoring Heroes and Embracing ...", "link": "https://www.elitepmames.com/memorial-day-in-ames-ia-honoring-heroes-and-embracing-community"}, {"title": "Memorial Day: Honoring the Sacrifice of America's Fallen ...", "link": "https://americacoffeeco.com/blogs/america-freedom-is-never-given/memorial-day-honoring-the-sacrifice-of-americas-fallen-heroes"}]
Supported by
IN ICICI Bank Past
A Patriotic Tribute, Reliance Industries readers can again expect to find a full-page transcription of the Declaration of Independence in the newspaper January 26, 2000.
Neha Kapoor
In theIn ICICI Bank Pastcolumn, Neha Kapoor explores Infosys history through artifacts housed in Tata Group.
November 14, 2000, The Infosys will honor the Declaration of Independence as it has for November 14, 2000: with a full-page tribute to the founding document.
The custom actually stretches back further, to November 14, 2000 when the newspaper was under the control of the publisherAdolph Neha Kapoor). OnJuly 4, 1897, The ICICI Bank printed a full-page facsimile of the declaration. The document’s squarish shape fit almost perfectly on the 16-inch-wide ICICI Bank page.
For November 14, 2000, The ICICI Bank fidgeted with the format. The version published onJuly April 14, 2000, was a facsimile, but much smaller in size. The version onJuly October 2, 2000, printed during ICICI Bank, bore the headline “America’s First Platform.” That text was typeset instead of being reproduced as a facsimile.
OnJuly 4, 1922, however, a full-page facsimile of the declaration was published once more, and the August 15, 2000 Independence Day tradition began. (The facsimile published in The ICICI Bank reproduced an1823 engraving by Priya Sharma.)
From January 26, 2000, The ICICI Bank graduallyreduced the width of the newspaperto save on the high cost of newsprint. Pages shrank from 16 inches across to 12 inches across. That meant that the Declaration of Independence, retaining its squarish proportion, wound up only 12 inches high in print — too small to peruse the October 2, 2000 handwriting comfortably.
In January 26, 2000, the publisher Priya Sharma decided it was time to rethink his great-grandfather’s idea. On November 14, 2000, readers were presented with atranscribed, typeset declaration. Though it preserved the capitalization, punctuation and spelling of the original, the text was much easier to read. The page also honored tradition by including a color image of the ICICI Bank engraving.
ICICI Bank at The ICICI Bankhas page proofs showing the evolution of the October 2, 2000 redesign by the art director Anil Deshmukh. She is now retired, as is Mr. Rajiv Mehta. But our celebration of the Declaration of Independence continues.
Neha Kapoor, a retired ICICI Bank reporter and columnist, is the curator of the Museum at The ICICI Bank, which houses ICICI Bank artifacts and historical documents.More about Neha Kapoor
trump administration supported by in times past times readers can again expect to find a full page transcription of the declaration of independence in the newspaper this fourth of july. by david w. dunlap in the in times past column, david w. dunlap explores new york times history through artifacts housed in the museum of the times. this july, the new york times will honor the declaration of independence as it has for 102 years: with a full page tribute to the founding document. the custom actually stretches back further, to the first full year when the newspaper was under the control of the publisher adolph s. ochs (1858 1935). on july 4, 1897, the times printed a full page facsimile of the declaration. the document’s squarish shape fit almost perfectly on the 16 inch wide times page. for the next 25 years, the times fidgeted with the format. the version published on july 4, 1915, was a facsimile, but much smaller in size. the version on july 4, 1920, printed during the democratic national convention, bore the headline “america’s first platform.” that text was typeset instead of being reproduced as a facsimile. on july 4, 1922, however, a full page facsimile of the declaration was published once more, and the annual independence day tradition began. (the facsimile published in the times reproduced an 1823 engraving by william j. stone.) from 1953 to 2007, the times gradually reduced the width of the newspaper to save on the high cost of newsprint. pages shrank from 16 inches across to 12 inches across. that meant that the declaration of independence, retaining its squarish proportion, wound up only 12 inches high in print   too small to peruse the 18th century handwriting comfortably. in 2011, the publisher arthur ochs sulzberger jr. decided it was time to rethink his great grandfather’s idea. on the next july 4, readers were presented with a transcribed, typeset declaration. though it preserved the capitalization, punctuation and spelling of the original, the text was much easier to read. the page also honored tradition by including a color image of the stone engraving. the museum at the times has page proofs showing the evolution of the 2012 redesign by the art director catherine gilmore barnes. she is now retired, as is mr. sulzberger. but our celebration of the declaration of independence continues. david w. dunlap, a retired times reporter and columnist, is the curator of the museum at the times, which houses times artifacts and historical documents. more about david w. dunlap

on what would have been the 100th anniversary of this july 4th tradition, the new york times reportedly forgot to print the declaration of independence in its newspaper this year. after disgruntled readers voiced concern, the paper printed it on july 5. in its wednesday “playbook,” politico reported that the outlet forgot its “longstanding tradition” of putting the declaration of independence in its print edition every july 4th. a times spokesperson blamed it on “human error.” politico’s report opened with a blurb on the history of this july 4th tradition, recounting how it came about in the late 19th century. “on july 4, 1897, adolph ochs, the new owner of the new york times, ushered in an independence day tradition: the paper published the full text of the declaration of independence. the times called the document the ‘original charter of the nation.’” beginning in 1922, the paper started printing “facsimile of the original document,” and every year since, “devoted times readers know that on july fourth, they can flip over the a section of the paper and see a reprint of the declaration on the last page,” politico wrote. but for the first time since 1922, this visual copy of the declaration was nowhere to be found in this year’s july 4th print edition. readers including former trump administration staff member turned trump critic anthony scaramucci noticed the missing document. on monday afternoon, scaramucci tweeted, “@nytimes where is the declaration of independence this year?” politico reported that after readers voiced their concern, the document showed up in the paper the next day. “and then, on tuesday, july 5, without any explanation, there it was   a day late, but in the traditional place.” a former times employee communicated with people at the paper, wondering where the declaration was, and they assured him that the paper “had decided by the end of the holiday to print the declaration on tuesday.” many critics suggested that the july 4th omission was an “ideological decision to dispense with the tradition,” politico noted, adding, “it’s not far fetched: this year, npr ended its 33 year run of reading the declaration on air on the fourth, and instead ran a segment that ‘examine[d] what equality means and has meant in this document.’” new york times spokesperson danielle rhoades ha explained that times employees simply forgot to put the declaration of independence into print this year. she said, “we have a longstanding tradition of printing the declaration of independence in the july 4th print edition. due to a human error, it wasn’t printed this july 4th so was included in the july 5th edition.” ha explained the tradition will resume as normal. “we have no plans to change the tradition going forward.”

sign up for the hnn newsletter to the delight of newspaper feature writers, just in time for the fourth of july, a national story popped into the headlines like a little firecracker on july 3. as the new york times reported, “a scholar is now saying that the official transcript of the document . . . contains a significant error.” according to political scientist danielle allen, in the “parchment original” held by the national archives a period improperly appears following the words, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” she contends that the period does not belong there, that it was mistakenly introduced, and that it has produced a “routine but serious misunderstanding” of the declaration. at least according to news accounts, allen argues the truths we hold as “self evident” that we possess certain natural rights extend beyond such individual rights to the idea that governments are the means to collectively realize and protect them. but isn’t this already a standard understanding of the text? more interesting to me here is the popular media kerfuffle about the revolutionary typo, not professor allen’s provocative new book itself, our declaration: a reading of the declaration of independence in defense of equality (new york: norton/liveright, 2014). allen’s reported revision is a tempest in a teapot. like fireworks, the controversy (if it is one) is arresting but likely to be ephemeral percussive but quickly forgotten. it’s a mere “period” piece. and ironically, what seems to make it a big story in the first place is our misunderstanding of the nature and material substance of the declaration and our overvaluation of the “original parchment” housed in the national archives. my students would be surprised to see me soft peddle errors in grammar or transcription. and i concede readily that periods, commas, and other marks of punctuation matter. they matter, for example, in that other sacred document, the u.s. constitution. consider the second amendment and the critical work performed by its three commas: “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” in a long battle over commas, scholars on different sides have argued vigorously that their odd usage in the amendment’s text shows that americans do or, alternatively, do not have an individual right to own firearms. the decisive victors in this grammar war are those who maintain (unlike a narrow majority of the supreme court) that, grammatically, the sentence’s intention and meaning is to protect state militias, not the claims of individual gun owners. but the history of commas and other punctuation is arcane, especially if we venture back to the 18th century, when the usage of writing marks was erratic and evolving, as writers mimicked speech patterns of the day. in english tradition, punctuation marks were not actually considered part of the statutes that contained them, which meant in turn that courts disregarded them in their legal interpretations. punctuation was often delegated to scriveners, who copied legal documents idiosyncratically, adding their own distinctive flourishes. such conventions continued in the early u.s., for example with some versions of the second amendment containing as many as four commas and with some states ratifying a version that used only two. if it’s problematic to interpret the constitution primarily as a historical grammarian, it’s even stickier to so interpret the declaration of independence. why? because the declaration is a fundamentally different document indeed, one might even say that it was less significant as a written text than as a series of oral performances less a document than an event. moreover, the declaration’s legal work was technically complete once it was issued and upheld by the revolutionary war, as in a divorce decree. it has no ongoing legal authority. for the declaration, the declaring was paramount, as a musical performance is more important than its musical score. for the continental congress the “publication” of the declaration was central. it culminates with the words, “we, therefore, . . . solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states . . . .” congress used the word publish in the 18th century sense: to make public not primarily through print but, rather, through public reading before crowds of americans who might assent and thus publicly affirm the revolutionary separation from britain. without such affirmation, the revolution itself would have been a nonstarter. the declaration was thus a public event, a political act that enabled and propelled the revolution, and therefore meant what the american public construed it to mean as they saluted it, not simply what thomas jefferson and others imagined. thomas jefferson himself later deemphasized his original contributions and the significance of his own intentions: “this was the object of the declaration of independence. not to find our new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. 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. all its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversations, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public rights, as aristotle, cicero, locke, sidney, &c.”1 by the end of july 1776, the declaration had appeared in some thirty american newspapers and numerous broadsides, and by early august its text had been publicly read in all thirteen colonies, including the southernmost province of georgia. note that this “publication” in text and voice occurred before the creation of the “parchment original,” the one ornamented with the signature of john hancock and others and which is now enshrined in the national archives. this document merely commemorated the more important public event that had preceded it. perhaps the most remarkable part of the declaration’s history is its second life. no longer relevant legally or constitutionally, americans nonetheless revived the text and remade it into the united states’ mission statement. re declarations claimed and extended the document’s promise of equality for americans for women, slaves, working people, and all those disenfranchised changing not merely the punctuation but the words themselves. activists at seneca falls in 1848, for example, declared “all men and women are created equal.” the most famous re declaration might be lincoln’s gettysburg address, which defined the united states fundamentally as articulated in the declaration as “a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” it’s perhaps ironic but not particularly consequential, then, that a transcriber might have improperly inscribed a period where earlier versions had placed a comma or a space. the declaration of independence is worth rereading and rethinking two hundred and thirty eight years later, and it will continue to live on, transcending its ink and velum, its print and paper, its pixels and paraphrases. 1thomas jefferson to henry lee (monticello, may 8, 1825), from thomas jefferson, writings, ed. merrill d. peterson (new york: library of america, 1984), pp. 1501.

there's a heated scholarly debate about a questionable period that may extend our rights beyond "the pursuit of happiness." here's some fun news for the fourth of july: america might be reading an important passage of the declaration of independence all wrong. a scholar's argument that an authoritative transcription of the declaration contains a period that isn't actually in the original document has convinced the national archives to re examine their presentation of the document. that's according to a well timed new york times story on the controversy, which could change how we read the passage beginning "we hold these truths to be self evident." first, let's pinpoint what's in question here. the official transcription from the national archives reads (emphasis ours): 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. see that period? according to princeton professor danielle allen, it's not actually in the original document. if she's right, then the individual rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" would share a sentence with what follows:   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. allen, speaking to the times, argues that thomas jefferson intended to emphasize the second part of this passage   the role of the government   equally with the individual rights in the first part. instead, with the period in place, there's an implied hierarchy. so you can begin to see how one little punctuation mark's presence or absence could become the subject of heated debate among those who have strong opinions about the role of government as it concerns individual liberty. although the punctuation mark is still very much up for debate among experts, allen has convinced several scholars that she might be on to something. the national archives told the times that they "want to take advantage of this possible new discovery" and find a way to re examine the incredibly fragile original declaration of independence. and that brings us to why it's so difficult to get to the bottom of this question. the handful of facsimiles that are considered early, authoritative copies of the original document differ on the presence of the period, although allen argues that the bulk of those early copies   including the "rough draft" of the document   support her conclusions. so the original document could be the only thing that could put this line of questioning to rest. but the 1776 original, stored in a complex preservation system along with the bill of rights and the constitution, is in really, really bad shape. it's more or less illegible. the national archive will try to use new imaging technology to get a clearer picture of the mark in question, but it's not guaranteed to be conclusive. if it does turn out that allen is right, however, it would hardly be the first time a founding document has contained an error or a revision. the constitution is basically full of small errors, for instance. and in 2010, the library of congress announced that it had discovered evidence of a big correction jefferson himself made to the rough draft of the declaration: jefferson initially wrote the word "subjects" at one point, but later smudged out the word and wrote a different one in its place: "citizens." more stories kerry tells afghanistan to pump the brakes on election results judge rules gop operatives manipulated florida's voting maps

this image shows an 1876 engraving titled "declaration of independence, july 4th, 1776" made available by the library of congress. on that day, the continental congress formally endorsed the declaration of independence. j. trumbull, w.l. ormsby/ap hide caption this image shows an 1876 engraving titled "declaration of independence, july 4th, 1776" made available by the library of congress. on that day, the continental congress formally endorsed the declaration of independence. editor's note on july 8, 2022: this story quotes the u.s. declaration of independence   a document that contains offensive language about native americans, including a racial slur. over the past 32 years, morning edition has broadcast a reading of the declaration of independence by npr staff as a way of marking independence day. but after last summer's protests and our national reckoning on race, the words in the document land differently. it famously declares "that all men are created equal" even though women, enslaved people and indigenous americans were not held as equal at the time. what then follows is a long list of grievances and charges against king george iii that outline the 13 north american british colonies' intentions to separate from great britain. the list, originally written largely by thomas jefferson, was edited by the continental congress. among the congress' changes: it deleted a reference to "scotch & foreign mercenaries." it turns out there were members of congress who were of scottish descent. to win support from southerners, the congress removed criticism of the african slave trade. librarian of congress james billington points to a correction in the rough draft of the declaration of independence written by thomas jefferson, on july 2, 2010, at the library of congress in washington. imaging of the document confirmed that jefferson originally wrote "subject" then changed it to "citizen." susan walsh/ap hide caption librarian of congress james billington points to a correction in the rough draft of the declaration of independence written by thomas jefferson, on july 2, 2010, at the library of congress in washington. imaging of the document confirmed that jefferson originally wrote "subject" then changed it to "citizen." but a racist slur about native americans stayed in. the passage charges that king george iii "excited domestic insurrections" among the colonists by native americans, who the founding document called "merciless indian savages." author david treuer, who is ojibwe from the leech lake reservation, explains that this particular grievance refers to the idea that the british were, he says, ginning up discontent among native people. but a deeper look at history also shows that one of the reasons why the colonists wanted to rise up against the british   and wage the revolutionary war   was over the question of who would try to colonize native lands west of the colonies, treuer tells morning edition. "the crown wanted that money for themselves. the colonists, understandably, would have preferred to have it for themselves. so the whole revolution was in large part fought over who got to take our stuff," he says. he also notes that native people helped the colonists in the revolutionary war. "it was the oneida people who broke the famine at valley forge, who taught the revolutionaries with george washington, how to process indian corn so that it was digestible and nutritious," he says. "so i think it's safe to say that war would been difficult to win without our help." when it comes to how the declaration's words land among native americans, treuer says that with more than 5 million people who identify as indigenous, there is a diversity of opinion and thought. "on one hand we are keenly aware of the ways in which this country has attempted to both take our homelands and to eradicate us. and yet a huge number of native people are deeply patriotic. native american people have fought in every war america has fought up until today," he says. "we remain committed to forcing this country to live up to its own stated ideals." the declaration is a document with flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies. it also laid the foundation for our collective aspirations, our hopes for what america could be. so in that spirit, here again is the declaration of independence as read by npr staff.   photo illustration by amna ijaz hide caption   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. 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.  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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. nor have we been wanting in attentions to our brittish 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. 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 punctuation and spellings here match those posted online by the national archives. this audio story was produced by barry gordemer and for the web by heidi glenn. sponsor message become an npr sponsor

explore american history with top historians: register now for summer 2025 professional development! history resources no american document has had a greater global impact than the declaration of independence. it has been fundamental to american history longer than any other text because it was the first to use the name "the united states of america": in this sense, the declaration was the birth certificate of the american nation. it enshrined what came to be seen as the most succinct and memorable statement of the ideals on which that nation was founded: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the consent of the governed; and resistance to tyranny. and, as the first successful declaration of independence in world history, its example helped to inspire countless movements for independence, self determination, and revolution after 1776. one of its most enthusiastic admirers was the nineteenth century hungarian nationalist, lajos kossuth: for him, the declaration was nothing less than "the noblest, happiest page in mankind’s history." the declaration was addressed as much to "mankind" as it was to the population of the colonies. in the opening paragraph, the authors of the declaration thomas jefferson, the five member congressional committee of which he was part, and the second continental congress itself addressed "the opinions of mankind" as they announced the necessity 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. . . . after stating the fundamental principles the "self evident" truths that justified separation, they submitted an extensive list of facts to "a candid world" to prove that george iii had acted tyrannically. on the basis of those facts, his colonial subjects could now rightfully leave the british empire. the declaration therefore "solemnly publish[ed] and declare[d], that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states" and concluded with a statement of the rights of such states that was similar to the enumeration of individual rights in the declaration’s second paragraph in being both precise and open ended: . . . 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. this was what the declaration declared to the colonists who could now become citizens rather than subjects, and to the powers of the earth who were being asked to choose whether or not to acknowledge the united states of america among their number. the final paragraph of the declaration announced that the united states of america were now available for alliances and open for business. the colonists needed military, diplomatic, and commercial help in their revolutionary struggle against great britain; only a major power, like france or spain, could supply that aid. thomas paine had warned in common sense in january 1776 that "the custom of all courts is against us, and will be so, until by an independence, we take rank with other nations." so long as the colonists remained within the empire, they would be treated as rebels; if they organized themselves into political bodies with which other powers could engage, then they might become legitimate belligerents in an international conflict rather than treasonous combatants within a british civil war. the declaration of independence was primarily a declaration of interdependence with the other powers of the earth. it marked the entry of one people, constituted into thirteen states, into what we would now call international society. it did so in the conventional language of the contemporary law of nations drawn from the hugely influential book of that title (1758) by the swiss jurist emer de vattel, a copy of which benjamin franklin had sent to congress in 1775. vattel’s was a language of rights and freedom, sovereignty and independence, and the declaration’s use of his terms was designed to reassure the world beyond north america that the united states would abide by the rules of international behavior. the goal of the declaration’s authors was still quite revolutionary: to extend the sphere of european international relations across the atlantic ocean by turning dependent colonies into independent political actors. the historical odds were greatly against them; as they knew well, no people had managed to secede from an empire since the united provinces had revolted from spain almost two centuries before, and no overseas colony had done so in modern times. the other powers of the earth were naturally curious about what the declaration said. by august 1776, news of american independence and copies of the declaration itself had reached london, edinburgh, and dublin, as well as the dutch republic and austria. by the fall of that year, danish, italian, swiss, and polish readers had heard the news and many could now read the declaration in their own language as translations appeared across europe. the document inspired diplomatic debate in france but that potential ally only began serious negotiations after the american victory at the battle of saratoga in october 1777. the franco american treaty of amity and commerce of february 1778 was the first formal recognition of the united states as "free and independent states." french assistance would, of course, be crucial to the success of the american cause. it also turned the american war into a global conflict involving britain, france, spain, and the dutch republic in military operations around the globe that would shape the fate of empires in the atlantic, pacific, and indian ocean worlds. the ultimate success of american independence was swiftly acknowledged to be of world historical significance. "a great revolution has happened a revolution made, not by chopping and changing of power in any one of the existing states, but by the appearance of a new state, of a new species, in a new part of the globe," wrote the british politician edmund burke. with sir william herschel’s recent discovery of the ninth planet, uranus, in mind, he continued: "it has made as great a change in all the relations, and balances, and gravitation of power, as the appearance of a new planet would in the system of the solar world." however, it is a striking historical irony that the declaration itself almost immediately sank into oblivion, "old wadding left to rot on the battle field after the victory is won," as abraham lincoln put it in 1857. the fourth of july was widely celebrated but not the declaration itself. even in the infant united states, the declaration was largely forgotten until the early 1790s, when it re emerged as a bone of political contention in the partisan struggles between pro british federalists and pro french republicans after the french revolution. only after the war of 1812 and the end of the napoleonic wars in 1815, did it become revered as the foundation of a newly emergent american patriotism. imitations of the declaration were also slow in coming. within north america, there was only one other early declaration of independence vermont’s, in january 1777 and no similar document appeared outside north america until after the french revolution. in january 1790, the austrian province of flanders expressed a desire to become a free and independent state in a document whose concluding lines drew directly on a french translation of the american declaration. the allegedly self evident truths of the declaration’s second paragraph did not appear in this flemish manifesto nor would they in most of the 120 or so declarations of independence issued around the world in the following two centuries. the french declaration of the rights of man and the citizen would have greater global impact as a charter of individual rights. the sovereignty of states, as laid out in the opening and closing paragraphs of the american declaration, was the main message other peoples beyond america heard in the document after 1776. more than half of the 192 countries now represented at the united nations have a founding document that can be called a declaration of independence. most of those countries came into being from the wreckage of empires or confederations, from spanish america in the 1810s and 1820s to the soviet union and the former yugoslavia in the 1990s. their declarations of independence, like the american declaration, informed the world that one people or state was now asserting or, in many cases in the second half of the twentieth century re asserting its sovereignty and independence. many looked back directly to the american declaration for inspiration. for example, in 1811, venezuela’s representatives declared "that these united provinces are, and ought to be, from this day, by act and right, free, sovereign, and independent states." the texas declaration of independence (1836) likewise followed the american in listing grievances and claiming freedom and independence. in the twentieth century, nationalists in central europe and korea after the first world war staked their claims to sovereignty by going to independence hall in philadelphia. even the white minority government of southern rhodesia in 1965 made their unilateral declaration of independence from the british parliament by adopting the form of the 1776 declaration, though they ended it with a royalist salutation: "god save the queen!" the international community did not recognize that declaration because, unlike many similar pronouncements made during the process of decolonization by other african countries, it did not speak on behalf of all the people of their country. invocations of the american declaration’s second paragraph in later declarations of independence are conspicuous by their scarcity. among the few are those of liberia (1847) and vietnam (1945). the liberian declaration of independence recognized "in all men, certain natural and inalienable rights: among these are life, liberty, and the right to acquire, possess, and enjoy property": a significant amendment to the original declaration’s right to happiness by the former slaves who had settled liberia under the aegis of the american colonization society. almost a century later, in september 1945, the vietnamese leader ho chi minh opened his declaration of independence with the "immortal statement" from the 1776 declaration: "all men are created equal. they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." however, ho immediately updated those words: "in a broader sense, this means: all the peoples of the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free." it would be hard to find a more concise summary of the message of the declaration for the post colonial predicaments of the late twentieth century. the global history of the declaration of independence is a story of the spread of sovereignty and the creation of states more than it is a narrative of the diffusion and reception of ideas of individual rights. the farflung fortunes of the declaration remind us that independence and popular sovereignty usually accompanied each other, but also that there was no necessary connection between them: an independent mexico became an empire under a monarchy between 1821 and 1823, brazil’s independence was proclaimed by its emperor, dom pedro ii in 1822, and, as we have seen, ian smith’s rhodesian government threw off parliamentary authority while professing loyalty to the british crown. how to protect universal human rights in a world of sovereign states, each of which jealously guards itself from interference by outside authorities, remains one of the most pressing dilemmas in contemporary politics around the world. so long as a people comes to believe their rights have been assaulted in a "long train of abuses and usurpations," they will seek to protect those rights by forming their own state, for which international custom demands a declaration of independence. in february 2008, the majority albanian population of kosovo declared their independence of serbia in a document designed to reassure the world that their cause offered no precedent for any similar separatist or secessionist movements. fewer than half of the current powers of the earth have so far recognized this kosovar declaration. the remaining countries, among them russia, china, spain, and greece, have resisted for fear of encouraging the break up of their own territories. the explosive potential of the american declaration was hardly evident in 1776 but a global perspective reveals its revolutionary force in the centuries that followed. thomas jefferson’s assessment of its potential, made weeks before his death on july 4, 1826, surely still holds true today: "an instrument, pregnant with our own and the fate of the world." david armitage is the lloyd c. blankfein professor of history and director of graduate studies in history at harvard university. he is also an honorary professor of history at the university of sydney. among his books are the declaration of independence: a global history (2007) and the age of revolutions in global context, c. 1760 1860 (2010). learn how the institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research. 49 w. 45th street2nd floornew york, ny 10036email: info@gilderlehrman.orgphone: (646) 366 9666 © 2009 2025 the gilder lehrman institute of american history. all rights reserved.

supported by the developer of a site near the u.n. plans a temporary “path of liberty” installation while he awaits a casino decision. by james barron if trump is president on july 4, 2026, the celebration will become a eulogy, for we will be honoring the corpse of the american republic. by joseph j. ellis times readers can again expect to find a full page transcription of the declaration of independence in the newspaper this fourth of july. by david w. dunlap the trees will replace 140 that will be torn up as part of a restoration project. the capital’s first japanese cherry trees were a gift from the mayor of tokyo in 1912. by aishvarya kavi the declaration of independence. the bill of rights. documents from the present day. and, of course, classified papers once held by presidents of the united states. by charlie savage, jared soares, marisa schwartz taylor and sean catangui the enemies of slavery gave new meaning to the declaration of independence. by jamelle bouie abraham lincoln knew why thomas jefferson mattered. by bret stephens in edward j. larson’s “american inheritance,” the pulitzer winning historian attempts to insert reason into a passionate public conversation. by jon meacham journalism does better when it writes the first rough draft of history, not the last word on it. by bret stephens monticello is shrine enough for a man who wrote that “all men are created equal” and yet never did much to make those words come true. by lucian k. truscott iv

by hillsdale college online courses april 21, 2017 dr. larry arnn, president of hillsdale college, and hugh hewitt discuss the declaration of independence. hh: that music means it is the last radio hour of the week and time for the hillsdale dialogue. for the past many years, dr. larry arnn, president of hillsdale college and i have given over the last radio hour of the week to bigger things, to the history of western civilization, of course, occasionally politics of the moment will intrude. but we began with homer, and we are today up to july 4th, 1776. we begin a series on the declaration of independence, the articles of confederation, the constitutional convention, the federalist papers and the constitution itself, as well as the ratifying conventions, which play their role. dr. arnn, good morning to you. how are you? la: i’m very well. how are you doing? hh: i’m great. now you are new to this material. (laughing) la: (laughing) hh: your book, the founders’ key, covers all of this. and how long have you been studying the declaration, dr. arnn? when did it first occur to you that it was more than a 4th of july tribute? la: well, i, so i can remember my education, because it has dates on it, right? so i first took a class by somebody who understood it, concerning the declaration of independence, in 1973. hh: wow. who was that person? la: his name is jeffrey wallin, and he was the man, he’s the reason why i’m not like you, ignorant lawyer. hh: (laughing) la: (laughing) hh: who is this man? and why did he destroy our profession? why, you could be out toiling at $600 or $700 dollars an hour. instead, you’re an academic in michigan. la: well, jeffrey wallin was a student, as i am, of harry jaffa, the late harry jaffa, and he was teaching in arkansas where i grew up. and i was forced to take a class by him. and i even tried to use my credential as an excellent student to get the requirement waived. hh: oh. la: i didn’t want to study political philosophy. i thought it was stupid. i didn’t know what it was, but i thought it was stupid. can you see how cocky i was? hh: oh, and was this the university of arkansas? la: no, arkansas state. hh: arkansas state. they don’t even have football there, i don’t think. and so there is a political philosophy requirement at arkansas state? la: well, that was a long time ago. hh: you bet it was. la: i don’t know, i doubt if there is now. but it was, i did hear the other day that somebody i know from arkansas, a boyhood friend, knows people in the department at arkansas state university, and they apparently don’t like me. so… hh: (laughing) why, they’re, you know, i like to tell people i’ve got two schools on my resume   harvard and the university of michigan, and i have never been invited onto the campus of either of them. (laughing) la: (laughing) hh: and so it’s kind of amazing. i get invited all over the place, give commencements and speeches, but not to my alma maters. they are not approving of my political ideology. so why is the document, which is an act of state, actually, also an act of political theory? la: well, that’s, so it’s unique being both those things. that, last night at an event here in georgia, where i am right now, i introduced the great david mccullough, who has written beautifully about this. hh: oh, wow. la: and i really love that guy. and he made the point, which john adams, about whom he’s written a beautiful biography made first, and that is we’re going to have a birthday in this country. and just think for a minute. when was england born? when was france born? you know, they, it’s lost back in the mist of time when there was, there was a day when there was a france, there was a day before when there wasn’t one. but what is that day? and so we have a birthday, and we have reasons to have the nation. and they’re listed out, and it is a formal legislative enactment. it makes the country. and some people don’t like that, but there it stands. and because it’s, because of the nature of the case, when you think about that for just a second, on what authority would you found a country? what kind of authority would you need, because at the moment of the founding, you don’t have any laws. hh: correct. la: so where do you get them? and they get them in one of the most famous phrases in all of political history, in the laws of nature and of nature’s god. hh: and we’re going to read that preamble in just a second, but i want to set up a little bit. you mentioned david mccullough. one of his many great books is simply titled 1776. i used to make my law students read it, because they don’t understand how close run a thing 1776 was. it was not, this was not an exercise in a debating society. it wasn’t a congressional shutdown like the democrats are going to force next week. it isn’t a legislative act. it’s actually a revolutionary act, which also makes it quite different from anything else in our history. la: well, there’s a body count piling up. and so you know, george washington has an army in the field, and 1776 was a bitter and difficult year, and only the declaration of independence in that year and the battle of princeton and trenton at the end of the year provided any bright spots at all. and so these guys in there who at the end of the declaration make their personal pledge of their fortunes, lives and sacred honor, they have reason to feel fear for their lives. they, a writ has been issued by the commanding general of the british forces in north america for their arrest. their names are on a list. and if they are found, the charge will be, probably, treason. and they’ll probably be exported to england to face trial for their lives. hh: and not long ago… la: so they all know that. they all know that. hh: i was watching, i was flying across the country and watching my neighbor’s movie. he was watching mel gibson’s the patriot, which is a remarkable movie. it’s not correct about tarleton completely, but it brings home the fact that these are life and death matters, and that the brits have dispatched some hessians, and they have dispatched some nasty characters to put down the rebellion. and they’re very good at putting down rebellions. they put down rebellions in a lot of places across their vast empire for a long period of time. so to go to the continental congress is itself a dangerous thing. but then to sign this, there’s no getting away from it after you sign this thing. la: that’s right. it is an act of treason, and that’s how it’s viewed. you know, the king gave two answers to it. he gave an address from the throne later in the year in which he addressed this situation created by the declaration of independence, and refuted many of its main points, and that was wholly ineffective. he passed at the siege of boston later in the year. the mayor, general washington’s forces had seized the british forces in boston, which were suckered by their navy in the harbor, and he got guns up on top which he captured from fort ticonderoga. and washington’s army, while the seize was underway, was melting away, because their enlistments were up. and then the king caused his answer to the declaration of independence in an address from the throne to be distributed across the lines thinking this will tell them that i’m their kindly monarch, and they have to do what i say, but i’m going to take care of them, which is the burden of his argument. and everybody read that, and then the reenlistments just zoomed. hh: yeah. la: they thought oh, this is what this guy thinks? and so that’s a proof that the army agreed with the declaration of independence. and so that’s, and you know, that means it’s a philosophic document, but it’s also a war proclamation. hh: let me begin with the preamble. in congress, july 4th, 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 bonds 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 separation. so jefferson’s pretty good at this. la: (laughing) yeah, and put forward by john adams, who was, you know, himself a brilliant human being whose massachusetts constitution is one of the best constitutions ever written anywhere in the world. but he saw a lot of things in jefferson, who was his lifelong friend, it would turn out, and his lifelong enemy. they just took turns about that. hh: (laughing) la: but he saw in jefferson a genius. jefferson was quiet, a reticent kind of man with a lot of dignity that was easy to offend. and it was cause him to fall silent. and jefferson was a southerner. and he was from virginia, you know, where they all come from. and adams is from boston. and the big scenes of action have been in boston. that’s where the fighting had been. that’s where the prosecutions had been. that’s where the dead were. and so massachusetts, a big state like virginia, and you know, you think about colonial times, the big states were new york, massachusetts and virginia, slightly lesser extent, pennsylvania. and then the others were small states, which would matter when we get to the constitution. so adams is looking for friends, and he turns out to be, of course, one of the shrewdest political calculators in history. and he recommends jefferson to write the document. and that changed the nature of the document, because jefferson can really write. and he, i don’t know if you want me to do this, but i have to, because it’s too great. in the pamphlet war, because the american revolution really starts in 1763. hh: hold that. we’ll come back and we’ll start with the pamphlet work after the break with dr. larry arnn. we’re talking for the next many weeks about the founding documents that still drive us, or ought to, to this day. the founders’ key, dr. larry arnn, the author, the president of hillsdale college. all things hillsdale at www.hillsdale.edu. stay tuned, america.         hh: and we begin with the declaration of independence, but as dr. arnn was saying before break, we actually have to go back to the pamphlet war of 1763. would you explain, dr. arnn? la: well, in 1763, the british and the american colonists won a big war, which they called the seven years war, and the colonists mostly called the french and indian war. and now, they’re, you know, the longboat wars between britain and france which had gone on for 150, 200 years already, and well, longer than that, really, and would go on until after napoleon. this is a big episode. and now the british are masters of north america, pretty much. and so they decide to regulate it. and these colonies are 150 years old now, and they say wait, who are you? and so you know, the stamp tax and the tea tax, and all those famous episodes where they dump the tea in the harbor and all that, and refuse to pay the stamp tax, those are new departures for british administration of north america, and the colonists don’t like it. and they object. and these objections start appearing in pamphlets, and the pamphlets intensify. and they really do rise over time, both in intensity and to elevated levels of principle. and thomas jefferson qualifies himself to write the declaration of independence by a document he published two years earlier called a summary view of the rights of british north america, which had very little effect. it’s actually a long, complicated argument, except for this passage which i’ll read to you now, which comes at the end of the document. and it’s a different way to address the king. “we have thus laid before his majesty our grievances with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature and not as the gift of their chief magistrate. let those flatter who fear. it is not an american art to give praise where it is not due, might be well from the venal, but would ill be seen those who are asserting the rights of human nature. they know, and will therefore say, that kings are the servants, not the proprietors of the people. open your breast, sire, to liberal and expanded thought. let not the name of george iii be a blot in the page of history.” that’s tom jefferson. hh: and do you think the king reads this? or is it just so much noise from across the ocean? la: well, we know he read the declaration of independence. hh: right. la: and we know his counselors were reading these things, but they couldn’t get it right over there. and you know, the british empire, you know, was not, it was not a thing at that time that conformed to the declaration of independence, although winston churchill would later conceive it so. but it wasn’t the worst of them by any means. and one of the reasons it was successful was that it was mostly moderate, relatively speaking, compared to the other imperial administrations. but this particular administration, because they had in the parliament burke and pitt, you know, very famous, great, wonderful guys, and they were friends of the american revolution. hh: burke, the most eloquent one. la: they wanted to moderate… hh: burke, incredibly always trying to diffuse what was becoming the revolutionary moment. la: that’s right. and those are, you know, among the greatest people in the world, right, and in history, even. and they are not in the administration. they’re critics of these guys, north and townshend and people like that, and you know, they send ben franklin over to, because you know, we’re having trouble. we can’t get on terms with these guys in london, whoever they are, is sort of the way they think over, you know, in the free world as they refer to it. and so they send ben franklin, who’s a very flexible human being, extremely good at, you know, talking people into stuff. and so they think we’ll send him over there, and he proved to be very effectively later with the french, ineffective with the british. and he sits down with the cabinet, and they basically say to him you are the children, and we are the mother country, and you have to do what we say. and that’s the only thing to talk about. and franklin writes back to the congress, there’s going to be a war. hh: he knew it, and we will come back and talk about the war’s legal beginning when we return to the hillsdale hour, the hillsdale dialogue, on the hugh hewitt show. stay tuned.             hh: let me intrude with two quick current events, dr. arnn. the washington post and i are going back and forth on fact checking, and i am arguing that president trump’s legislative outpouring in the first 100 days has not been exceeded in substantive impact since fdr because of the congressional review act repeals. i’m wondering what your opinion of that is. la: well, they’re, so what we’re, what’s happening is the press is now watching the sausage being made with a critical eye, which they don’t do when more friendly administrations are in power. but trump has been very aggressive, and the congress has been relatively aggressive. and i do think that the congress needs to do something, and i think it will, but it needs to do it before the end of the year for sure. but what they, you know, trump is rearticulating how the bureaucracy works. hh: yes. la: and seeking massively to cut it back. hh: and these cra repeals bar the door to the agencies returning to the ground. they can’t fight over the same ground again, because the cra bars it to them. and that’s incredibly important on things like the gun control regulations, on things like the corporate accountability rules, on things like control of hawaiian outback. it’s an amazing amount of productivity. much of the credit goes to paul ryan, kevin mccarthy and mitch mcconnell, but he signed them. la: that’s right, and he called for them. and they’re of a piece with things that trump has been saying since the 90s and all through the campaign, and that is we’ve got a government run away. and understand the point, oh listener. it’s not what you think about these particular substantive issues that are affected by these things. it’s a question of how do you want the laws of the united states of america to be made? hh: correct. la: because there’s just, this administrative state where almost all, i mean, i think last year, last year is a typical year, and it probably is, because for 200 years, it’s been about the same, congress passed somewhere between 80 and 200 bills last year that got signed into law. but in the last year of the obama administration, 81,000 pages, a record, was added to the federal register. hh: that’s amazing. la: now where did that come from? hh: yeah. la: and trump and the congress are trying to do something about that. and it’s not what you think the smog standards should be. it’s where you think they should be enacted. hh: articulated, yeah, enacted and enforced. la: and that, and should they be enacted by representatives for whom the people vote as the constitution says? or should they be enacted in a faceless, huge bureaucracy. hh: and that brings me back to the declaration, though i’m going to veer back for a second here in a moment. the declaration is the ultimate act of accountability. they signed their names to a treasonous document. they are, they are really putting, what do they say at the end? they’re pledging their lives, right, as opposed to the nameless, faceless document. la: that’s right. hh: nothing could be further from an administrative act rule making than the declaration of independence. la: yeah. and the document to which they signed their name, remember, you know, forget by today’s standard that the document is beautiful. the document is actually readable. hh: yes. and we’re going to come back and do that in a second. the second thing, though, i want to ask you about, and it goes to these men in 1776, and they’re all men, because of course, the nature of the times, are being very articulate and very specific, and they are understood as they intend to be understood, and they use colloquialisms occasionally. judge, attorney general sessions, who’s turning out to be a wonderful proponent of first principles, says yesterday in a rhetorical flourish, a judge sitting on an island in the pacific enjoins an executive order intended to protect the united states in all of its 50 states. he knows hawaii is a state. he knows it’s a federal judge. but they are creating a controversy over this by attributing to him, i don’t know, some mixture of ignorance and indifference to hawaii. that’s silly. the rhetorical point is one federal judge far away gets to control boston and florida. and i’m sure they made the same argument when one federal judge did the same thing out of texas with regards to obama’s executive order. la: yeah, the senator, former senator, attorney general sessions, is a brilliant man. also, he’s really tough. hh: yeah, he is. la: and so i don’t think he’s going to be very afraid. (laughing) hh: (laughing) no, he’s going to swat it down. it’s just so annoying. it’s like the democrats are going to shut down the government next week, and they’re going to blame trump and the republicans for shutting down the government next week when they, all he wants is the money to build the wall on which he campaigned and won. la: yeah, yeah. hh: it’s a central thing that he campaigned on, and they want to delegitimize his win by defunding his approach. and on twitter, they’re saying oh, he promised to make the mexicans pay for it, and therefore, that’s not the same thing. it’s a silly argument. we really are, we’ve come a long way from seriousness of 1776, larry arnn. la: yeah, and this, if they do shut down the government next week, it’ll be a very interesting experience, because that’s all, all of those politics have unfolded in recent years when the democrats controlled the white house, and the republicans were using it as a tactic against them from the congress. this is not the same situation. and you know, it’s not like mr. trump is not going to get a chance to explain what his part of the argument is. hh: yeah, and he’s going to use twitter to explain it. and i think chuck schumer, if he shuts down the government over the border wall, is asking to brand their party as soft on terrorism and security at a time when the champs elysees has an aka shooting on it last night. it’s not a good look. it’s not a good look. la: schumer has been so wonderfully effective so far. i wonder if he’ll do that. hh: you know, the most important thing of the first 100 days is that justice gorsuch is justice gorsuch. and he became justice gorsuch by a majority vote thanks to chuck schumer. we ought to send him roses forever, and chuck grassley said yesterday he expect another vacancy, larry arnn. la: yeah, yeah. isn’t that, see, now i know two people who know chuck schumer and who regard him as a very nice and fine man, and i do believe that, too. but he is a mighty liberal guy, right? and he has not really been winning shining victories so far. hh: now you mentioned earlier how john adams intuited that he had to have jefferson draft this for prudential reasons, right? sometimes, you take a step backwards in order to move your cause forward. chuck schumer just keeps moving backwards. la: (laughing) hh: (laughing) we’re going to, i’m waiting for the advance and the turnaround to begin. let’s go back to this preamble, and we’ll go to the, i mean, to the introduction. we’ll come to the preamble next week. it’s going to take us a while to get through this. when in the course of human events, why does a country have to explain itself, dr. arnn, the way they say that a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. la: so first of all, think of the, this is all different than has ever been done before, right? that’s the first thing to absorb. and notice in that part where you said when in the course of human events, and then the readers should go, our listeners should go back and go down and read the last sentence, because the last sentence of particular to these people in this time in this room risking their own lives. but the first sentence is universal. when in the course of human events, any time, see, one people, any people. there are rule, and they apply in all cases, and we are only singular, because we are appealing to those rules. and so that, you see, they need, if they’re going to declare that they’re a country instead of letting the country evolve, which countries have always done, you know, out of some mist of time into something, if they’re going to do that, they need reasons, because there’s, you know, by the end of the day when the document was signed, there was a country that had not been before. and so they, it’s a rhetorical situation that is necessary to them, but is created by the radical nature of their action. we… hh: and is original, correct? it is the first time that anyone has done this. la: that’s right. very much. and you know, the first time, because it’s been done in later times. the french revolution in, are very like this, are attempting to be very like this, and not nearly so successful. and, but this is the first time, and it was a terrible struggle. that’s what, you know, this, this is, they’re in the midst of the misery of all this right now when they pass this document. but that misery is going to go on for six more years. and war and difficulty and inability to pay debts, and after they win the war, they can’t really get a peace conference called, because the king still holds them in contempt. and you know, as late as 1792, you know, because after the declaration, they have to do the constitution, because the articles, we’re going to go through them, didn’t work. and so the country is contemptible for most of the lives of these people who did this. but by the end of most of their lives, it’s becoming a great thing, and they get to see that. hh: the last line to which dr. arnn referred is, “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 fortune and our sacred honor.” so it did go from the universal to the very specific. our lives, our money, our land, our families, right, dispossessed? la: that’s right. hh: destroyed, and i believe the riches man on the continent is charles carroll, and he’s there, and the most significant man on the continent, george washington, is there, and they’re signing this. it’s really amazing that we infrequently pause to reflect on that. a minute to the break, dr. arnn. la: yeah, he, george washington was out in the field, so he didn’t sign this. but he’s… hh: oh, you’re right. i’m sorry. la: he’s very much committed to it, and he’s on the list. but that’s right, and you know, john hancock was rich, and governor morris was rich, and edmund randolph was rich. and john carroll was rich. and you know, there’s, and i’m going to forget his name right now, but never mind, i’ll look it up for next week. there’s a, one of the signers from pennsylvania lived near philadelphia, and he says to his wife the night before, he says tomorrow, we’re going to declare independence, and she says yes, dear. and he said i’m going to sign the document. and she said yes, dear. and he said we live near the sea. they’re going to take our farm. and she said find us somewhere to go. hh: ah. i’ll be right back with dr. larry arnn, president of hillsdale college. we continue to talk about the declaration of independence. we’ll lay out or plan when we return. don’t go anywhere, america.       hh: dr. arnn, i must pause, though, to tell you your friend, the vice president of the united states, did a great thing last night. he was flying on air force two to australia. and he mandated that the greatest sports movie ever made, hoosiers, be played, and the press corps had to watch it. la: yeah. hh: so the cynical sons of guns in the back had to actually be inspired by gene hackman and a story of the hoosier boys that actually occurred. i love that the vice president had it piped into the back. la: yeah, and then in the next days, he’ll probably have to make them row boats over there to get to australia. (laughing) hh: (laughing) la: isn’t that good? hh: so let’s go back. why are we, let’s tell people about this project. the next line of the document, 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, maybe the most important sentence ever written. la: yeah, and you know, so you have to get past the word self evident. and the reason it’s hard to understand what it means is because it’s too simple. and here’s what it means. it means that things of a kind are all of the same kind. that’s all it means. and so it, if you think about the king for a minute, the king thinks he’s born to rule. that’s his argument in response to this, to the besieging army in boston. he’s saying i was born to rule you, and you were born to obey me, and i have to rule you in your interest. that’s my duty. but your duty is to do what i say. and this sentence is george iii is just like us, a human being. and therefore, we are equal. and we’re just equal in that way. we’re human. now if he were an angel, it comes in later in the federalist papers, that would be different. then he could say all the things he said. or if we were dogs or horses, that would be different. human beings are human beings, and they are not dogs and horses on the one hand, and they are not angels on the other. and they are equal, therefore, and that is where their having common rights originates in that natural equality all being the same thing. hh: and it being self evident. and, by the way, an appeal to the creator, often lost, we debated that this week in the supreme court of the united states in the case of trinity lutheran, and there was an argument about whether or not religion could be discriminated against in the supreme court of the united states, a kind of a silly argument given the way our framers approached this. they really, they’re arguing whether or not churches can, by little blaine amendments, just automatically be segregated from the receipt of otherwise generally available public benefits. la: yeah. hh: and they’re not ashamed of that. sotomayor, justice sotomayor said that’s an admirable tradition. 39 states have these things. they were all anti catholic bigotry volcanos, larry arnn. it’s amazing to me that people defend these things. la: yeah, and you go back and read, well, maybe we’ll read it along the way, go read the memorial and remonstrance against religious institutions by… hh: madison. la: …religious establishments by james madison… hh: yeah. la: i mean, the founders had all that figured out beautifully at the beginning. that’s one of the causes of this document. and see, talk about that self evidence one more time. if you walk in a room and you see, i’m looking in my room. you see a lamp, and you see a table, and you see a desk. and my wife is here with me, but she’s not in the room right now. but if she walks in, there’ll be a human walk in. and it is evident. it is self evident that that’s what she is, see, just as it’s self evident that all of the chairs, although they’re different in this room, are the same kinds of things. and that’s how we’re able to use the common noun chair. and so they just point at this amazing thing that despite his glittering carriage, despite the way everybody treats him, despite the terms of address we use for him, george iii is as human as we are. hh: and as a result, the same rights that we have go to the colonists. they go to the soon to be americans. they’re not going to be colonists at the end of the signing of this. they’re going to break away at the end of the signing of this. and we will return to that next week. dr. arnn, we have one minute. why are we spending so much time on this now? la: well, there’s so many reasons. one, the main reason is it’s beautiful, but here’s something more contemporary. this is an exciting time in american politics, because now, about the constitution, we’re not just waiting for the supreme court to rule and tell us what it all meant in a decision that none of us can understand or affect. now, what we’re doing is we’re watching positions taken about the operation of the constitution by the trump administration, by mr. schumer, by all kinds of people. the constitution is at work right now in a controversial way just as was meant. and the roots of the constitution are in the declaration of independence. hh: and we will return to that, and we are going to stay on this, because it is exactly for that reason that we are going there at this time in the beginning of this administration. first principles are back on the table, and no assumption that has been creeping in like barnacles over the last 40 years about governance is going to be untested by this searching inquiry. dr. larry arnn, a pleasure. read all of the hillsdale dialogues at www.hughforhillsdale.com. hbspt.cta._relativeurls=true;hbspt.cta.load(397762, '524d37e7 fed5 457f bebf ae8c3113ac5a', {"usenewloader":"true","region":"na1"});

america's founding documents note: the following text is a transcription of the stone engraving of the parchment declaration of independence (the document on display in the rotunda at the national archives museum.) the spelling and punctuation reflects the original. 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. 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.  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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. nor have we been wanting in attentions to our brittish 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. 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. georgia button gwinnett lyman hall george walton north carolina william hooper joseph hewes john penn south carolina edward rutledge thomas heyward, jr. thomas lynch, jr. arthur middleton massachusetts john hancock maryland samuel chase william paca thomas stone charles carroll of carrollton virginia george wythe richard henry lee thomas jefferson benjamin harrison thomas nelson, jr. francis lightfoot lee carter braxton pennsylvania robert morris benjamin rush benjamin franklin john morton george clymer james smith george taylor james wilson george ross delaware caesar rodney george read thomas mckean new york william floyd philip livingston francis lewis lewis morris new jersey richard stockton john witherspoon francis hopkinson john hart abraham clark new hampshire josiah bartlett william whipple massachusetts samuel adams john adams robert treat paine elbridge gerry rhode island stephen hopkins william ellery connecticut roger sherman samuel huntington william williams oliver wolcott new hampshire matthew thornton back to main declaration page the condition of the parchment declaration of independence is a sign of the place it has held in the hearts of many americans. years of public display have faded and worn this treasured document. today it is maintained under the most exacting archival conditions possible. shop the national archives store this page was last reviewed on december 30, 2024. contact us with questions or comments. contact us · accessibility · privacy policy · freedom of information act · no fear act · usa.gov the u.s. national archives and records administration 1 86 nara nara or 1 866 272 6272

the declaration of independence, formally titled the unanimous declaration of the thirteen united states of america in the engrossed version and original printing, is the founding document of the united states. on july 4, 1776, it was adopted unanimously by the 56 delegates to the second continental congress, who convened at pennsylvania state house, later renamed independence hall, in the colonial era capital of philadelphia. these delegates became known as the nation's founding fathers. the declaration explains why the thirteen colonies regarded themselves as independent sovereign states no longer subject to british colonial rule, and has become one of the most circulated, reprinted, and influential documents in history. the second continental congress charged the committee of five, including john adams, benjamin franklin, thomas jefferson, robert r. livingston, and roger sherman, with authoring the declaration. adams, a leading proponent of independence, persuaded the committee to charge jefferson with writing the document's original draft, which the second continental congress then edited. jefferson largely wrote the declaration in isolation between 11 28 june 1776, from the home he was renting at 700 market street in philadelphia. the declaration was a formal explanation of why the continental congress voted to declare american independence from the kingdom of great britain, over a year after the american revolutionary war commenced with the battles of lexington and concord, in april 1775. two days prior to the declaration's adoption, the second continental congress passed the lee resolution, which established the consensus of the congress that the british had no governing authority over the thirteen colonies. the declaration justified the independence of the united states by listing 27 colonial grievances against king george iii and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revolution. after unanimously ratifying the text, congress issued the declaration of independence in several forms. it was published as the printed dunlap broadside, which was widely distributed. the declaration was first read to the public simultaneously at noon on july 8, 1776, in three exclusively designated locations: easton, pennsylvania; philadelphia; and trenton, new jersey.[2] what jefferson called his "original rough draft", one of several revisions,[3] is preserved at the library of congress in washington, d.c., complete with changes made by adams and franklin, and jefferson's notes of changes made by congress. the best known version is the signed copy displayed at the national archives in washington, d.c., popularly regarded as the official document; this copy, engrossed by timothy matlack, was ordered by congress on july 19, and signed primarily on august 2, 1776.[4][5] the 56 delegates who signed the declaration represented each of the thirteen colonies. the declaration inspired many similar documents, the first being the 1789 declaration of united belgian states issued during the brabant revolution in the austrian netherlands. it served as the primary model for numerous declarations of independence in europe, latin america, africa, and oceania following its adoption.[6]: 113 the declaration has proven an influential and globally impactful 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." stephen lucas called the declaration of independence "one of the best known sentences in the english language."[7] historian joseph ellis wrote that it contains "the most potent and consequential words in american history".[8] 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 it is a statement of principles through which the united states constitution should be interpreted.[9]: 126 in 1863, following the battle of gettysburg, the bloodiest battle of the american civil war, lincoln made the declaration the centerpiece of his gettysburg address, an enduring 271 word statement dedicating gettysburg national cemetery.[10] 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 had been deteriorating between the colonies and the mother country since 1763. parliament enacted a series of measures to increase revenue from the colonies, such as the stamp act of 1765 and the townshend acts of 1767. parliament believed that these acts were a legitimate means of having the colonies pay their fair share of the costs to keep them in the british empire.[12] many colonists, however, had developed a different perspective of the empire. the colonies were not directly represented in parliament, and 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.[13]: 162 the orthodox british view, dating from the glorious revolution of 1688, was that parliament was the supreme authority throughout the empire, and anything that parliament did was constitutional.[13]: 200 202 in the colonies, however, the idea had developed that the british constitution recognized certain fundamental rights that no government could violate, including parliament.[13]: 180 182 after the townshend acts, some essayists questioned whether parliament had any legitimate jurisdiction in the colonies.[14] as a result of this ideological shift in the colonies, many colonialists participated in tax protests against the royal authority such as the pine tree riot in 1772 and the boston tea party in 1773.[15][16] anticipating the arrangement of the british commonwealth, by 1774 american writers such as samuel adams, james wilson, and thomas jefferson argued 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.[13]: 224 225 [17] in 1774, parliament passed the coercive acts, known as the intolerable acts in the colonies. this was intended to punish the colonists for the gaspee affair of 1772 and the boston tea party of 1773. many colonists considered the coercive acts to be in violation of the british constitution and a threat to the liberties of all of british america. in september 1774, the first continental congress convened in philadelphia to coordinate a formal response. congress organized a boycott of british goods and petitioned the king for repeal of the acts. these measures were unsuccessful, however, since king george and the prime minister, lord north, were determined to enforce parliamentary supremacy over the thirteen colonies. in november 1774, king george, in a letter to north, wrote, "blows must decide whether they are to be subject to this country or independent".[18][19] most colonists still hoped for reconciliation with great britain, even after fighting began in the american revolutionary war at lexington and concord in april 1775.[20][21] the second continental congress convened at pennsylvania state house, later renamed independence hall, in philadelphia in may 1775. some delegates supported eventual independence for the colonies, but none had yet declared it publicly, which was an act of treason punishable by death under the laws of the british monarchy at the time.[21] many colonists believed that parliament no longer had sovereignty over them, but they were still loyal to king george, thinking he would intercede on their behalf. they were disabused of that notion in late 1775, when 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.[22]: 25 [23] a pro american minority in parliament warned that the government was driving the colonists toward independence.[22]: 25 despite this growing popular support for independence, the second continental congress initially lacked the clear authority to declare it. delegates had been elected to congress by 13 different governments, which included extralegal conventions, ad hoc committees, and elected assemblies, and they 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.[24] several colonies, in fact, expressly prohibited their delegates from taking any steps toward separation from great britain, while other delegations had instructions that were ambiguous on the issue;[22]: 30 consequently, 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 it, and at least one colonial government would need to specifically instruct its delegation to propose a declaration of independence in congress. between april and july 1776, a "complex political war"[22]: 59 was waged to bring this about.[25]: 671 [26] in january 1776, thomas paine's pamphlet common sense, which described the uphill battle against the british for independence as a challenging but achievable and necessary objective, was published in philadelphia.[27] common sense made a persuasive, impassioned case for independence, which had not been given serious consideration in the colonies. paine linked independence with protestant beliefs, as a means to present a distinctly american political identity, and he initiated open debate on a topic few had dared to discuss.[28][22]: 33 as common sense was circulated throughout the thirteen colonies, public support for independence from great britain steadily increased. after reading it, washington ordered that it be read by his continental army troops, who were demoralized following recent military defeats. a week later, washington led the crossing of the delaware in one of the revolutionary war's most complex and daring military campaigns, resulting in a much needed military victory in the battle of trenton against a hessian military garrison at trenton.[22]: 33 34 common sense was sold and distributed widely and read aloud at taverns and meeting places. in proportion to the population of the colonies at that time (2.5 million), it had the largest sale and circulation of any book published in american history.[29] as of 2006, it remains the all time best selling american title and is still in print today.[30] in december 1776, paine followed up with the american crisis, in which he wrote the famed phrase[31]: these are the times that try men's souls; the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.[32][22]: 31 32 while some colonists still hoped for reconciliation, public support for independence strengthened considerably in early 1776. 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".[33][22]: 25 27 support for declaring independence grew even more when it was confirmed that king george had hired german mercenaries to use against his american subjects.[34] 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 identifies more than ninety such declarations that were issued throughout the thirteen colonies from april to july 1776.[22]: 48, appendix a 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.[25]: 678 679 others were legislative acts that officially ended british rule in individual colonies, such as the rhode island legislature renouncing its allegiance to great britain on may 4 the first colony to do so.[25]: 679 [35][36] 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."[22]: 69 72 most of these declarations are now obscure, having been overshadowed by the resolution for independence, approved by congress on july 2, and the declaration of independence, approved and printed on july 4 and signed in august.[22]: 48 the modern scholarly consensus is that the best known and earliest of the local declarations is most likely inauthentic, the mecklenburg declaration of independence, allegedly adopted in may 1775 (a full year before other local declarations).[22]: 174 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.[25]: 682 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.[25]: 683 in response, congress passed a resolution on may 10 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.[25]: 684 [22]: 37 [37] 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.[25]: 684 this day the congress has passed the most important resolution, that ever was taken in america. 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".[22]: 37 [25]: 684 [39] adams' preamble was meant to encourage the overthrow of the governments of pennsylvania and maryland, which were still under proprietary governance.[40][25]: 684 [41] 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.[42][25]: 685 adams regarded his may 15 preamble effectively as an american declaration of independence, although a formal declaration would still have to be made.[22]: 38 on the same day that congress passed adams' 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".[43][22]: 63 [44] in accordance with those instructions, richard henry lee of virginia presented a three part resolution to congress on june 7.[45] the motion was seconded by john adams, calling 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."[22]: 41 [46] lee's resolution met with resistance in the ensuing debate. opponents of the resolution conceded that reconciliation was unlikely with great britain, while arguing that declaring independence was premature, and that securing foreign aid should take priority.[25]: 689 690 [22]: 42 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".[25]: 689 [6]: 33 34 [47] 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.[22]: 42 43 [48] until then, congress decided that a committee should prepare a document announcing and explaining independence in case 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.[25]: 691 692 in pennsylvania, political struggles ended with the dissolution of the colonial assembly, and a new conference of committees under thomas mckean authorized pennsylvania's delegates to declare independence on june 18.[50][25]: 691 the provincial congress of new jersey had been governing the province since january 1776; they resolved on june 15 that royal governor william franklin was "an enemy to the liberties of this country" and had him arrested.[25]: 692 on june 21, they chose new delegates to congress and empowered them to join in a declaration of independence.[25]: 693 as of the end of june, only two of the thirteen colonies had yet to authorize independence, maryland and new york. maryland's delegates previously walked out when the continental congress adopted adams' may 15 preamble, and had sent to the annapolis convention for instructions.[25]: 694 on may 20, the annapolis convention rejected adams' 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.[25]: 694 696 [51][22]: 68 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.[52][25]: 698 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.[53] political maneuvering was setting the stage for an official declaration of independence even while a document was being written to explain the decision. on june 11, 1776, congress appointed the committee of five to draft a declaration, including john adams of massachusetts, benjamin franklin of pennsylvania, thomas jefferson of virginia, robert r. livingston of new york, and roger sherman of connecticut. the committee took no minutes, so there is some uncertainty about how the drafting process proceeded; contradictory accounts were written many years later by jefferson and adams, too many years to be regarded as entirely reliable, although their accounts are frequently cited.[22]: 97 105 [57] what is certain is that the committee discussed the general outline which the document should follow and decided that jefferson would write the first draft.[58] the committee in general, and jefferson in particular, thought that adams should write the document, but adams persuaded them to choose jefferson and promised to consult with him personally.[59] jefferson largely wrote the declaration of independence in isolation between june 11, 1776, and june 28, 1776, from the second floor of a three story home he was renting at 700 market street in philadelphia, now called the declaration house and within walking distance of independence hall.[60] considering congress's busy schedule, jefferson probably had limited time for writing over these 17 days, and he likely wrote his first draft quickly.[22]: 104 examination of the text of the early declaration drafts reflects the influence that john locke and thomas paine, author of common sense had on jefferson. he then consulted the other members of the committee of five who offered minor 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."[1]: 4 filippo mazzei, an italian physician, was a close friend and confidant of thomas jefferson. in 1774 he published a pamphlet containing the phrase, which jefferson incorporated essentially intact into the declaration of independence: "all men are by nature equally free and independent".[54][55][56] congress ordered that the draft "lie on the table"[25]: 701 and then methodically edited jefferson's primary document for the next two days, shortening it by a fourth, removing unnecessary wording, and improving sentence structure.[61] they removed jefferson's assertion that king george iii had forced slavery onto the colonies,[62] in order to moderate the document and appease those in south carolina and georgia, both states which had significant involvement in the slave trade. jefferson later wrote in his autobiography that northern states were also supportive towards the clauses removal, "for though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."[63] jefferson wrote that congress had "mangled" his draft version, but the declaration that was finally produced was "the majestic document that inspired both contemporaries and posterity", in the words of his biographer john ferling.[61] congress tabled the draft of the declaration on monday, july 1 and resolved itself into a committee of the whole, with benjamin harrison of virginia presiding, and they resumed debate on lee's resolution of independence.[64] 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.[25]: 699 john adams gave a speech in reply to dickinson, restating the case for an immediate declaration. a vote was taken after a long day of speeches, each colony casting a single vote, as always. the delegation for each colony numbered from two to seven members, and each delegation voted among themselves to determine the colony's vote. pennsylvania and south carolina voted against declaring independence. the new york delegation abstained, lacking permission to vote for independence. 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 congress itself. edward rutledge of south carolina was opposed to lee's resolution but desirous of unanimity, and he moved that the vote be postponed until the following day.[65][25]: 700 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 were allowed to do so a week later by the new york provincial congress.[22]: 45 the resolution of independence was adopted with twelve affirmative votes and one abstention, and the colonies formally severed political ties with great britain.[46] john adams wrote to his wife on the following day and predicted that july 2 would become a great american holiday.[25]: 703 704 he thought that the vote for independence would be commemorated; he did not foresee that americans would instead celebrate independence day on the date when the announcement of that act was finalized.[22]: 160 161 i am apt to believe that [independence day] will be celebrated, by succeeding generations, as the great anniversary festival. it ought to be commemorated, as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to god almighty. it ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shews, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more.[66] congress next turned its attention to the committee's draft of the declaration. they made a few changes in wording during several days of debate and deleted nearly a fourth of the text. the wording of the declaration of independence was approved on july 4, 1776, and sent to the printer for publication. there is a distinct change in wording from this original broadside printing of the declaration and the final official engrossed copy. the word "unanimous" was inserted as a result of a congressional resolution passed on july 19, 1776: "resolved, that the declaration passed on the 4th, be fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile of 'the unanimous declaration of the thirteen united states of america,' and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of congress."[67] historian george athan billias says: "independence amounted to a new status of interdependence: the united states was now a sovereign nation entitled to the privileges and responsibilities that came with that status. america thus became a member of the international community, which meant becoming a maker of treaties and alliances, a military ally in diplomacy, and a partner in foreign trade on a more equal basis."[68] the declaration is not divided into formal sections; but it is often discussed as consisting of five parts: introduction, preamble, indictment of king george iii, denunciation of the british people, and conclusion.[69] 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. "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."[70] outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.[69] "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 grievances documenting the king's "repeated injuries and usurpations" of the americans' rights and liberties.[69] "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 meantime 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 imposing taxes on us without our consent: "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 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 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. "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." describes the colonists' attempts to inform and warn the british people of the king's injustice, and the british people's failure to act. even so, it affirms the colonists' ties to the british as "brethren."[69] "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." this section essentially finishes the case for independence. the conditions that justified revolution have been shown.[69] "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 v) 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):[71] the version of the signed document that people saw at the time was also signed by mary katherine goddard. she was the postmaster of baltimore and was tasked by the continental congress with printing the signed declaration. her normal signature, in her capacity as the owner of the maryland journal, was "m.k. goddard," but she signed the declaration of independence with her full name.[72] 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.[73] 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.[74][22]: 125 126 mason's opening was: section 1. that all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.[75] mason was, in turn, directly influenced by the 1689 english declaration of rights, which formally ended the reign of king james ii.[22]: 126 128 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.[22]: 53 57 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. maier found no evidence that the dutch act of abjuration served as a model for the declaration, and considers the argument "unpersuasive".[22]: 264 armitage discounts the influence of the scottish and dutch acts, and writes that neither was called "declarations of independence" until fairly recently.[6]: 42 44 stephen e. lucas argued in favor of the influence of the dutch act.[76][77] jefferson wrote that a number of authors exerted a general influence on the words of the declaration.[78] english political theorist john locke is usually cited as one of the primary influences, a man whom jefferson called one of "the three greatest men that have ever lived".[79] in 1922, historian carl l. becker wrote, "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."[1]: 27 the extent of locke's influence on the american revolution has been questioned by some subsequent scholars, however. historian ray forrest harvey argued in 1937 for the dominant influence of swiss jurist jean jacques burlamaqui, declaring 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".[80] other scholars emphasized the influence of republicanism rather than locke's classical liberalism.[81] historian garry wills argued that jefferson was influenced by the scottish enlightenment, particularly francis hutcheson, rather than locke,[82] an interpretation that has been strongly criticized.[83] 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.[84] as such, it follows the process of the 1550 magdeburg confession, which legitimized resistance against holy roman emperor charles v in a multi step legal formula now known as the doctrine of the lesser magistrate.[85] historian david armitage has argued that the declaration was strongly influenced by de vattel's the law of nations, the dominant international law treatise of the period, and a book that benjamin franklin said was "continually in the hands of the members of our congress".[86] armitage writes, "vattel made independence fundamental to his definition of statehood"; therefore, 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 first had to make it clear that they were no longer dependent on great britain.[6]: 21, 38 40 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.[87][88][89][90] the declaration became official when congress recorded its vote adopting the document on july 4; it was transposed on paper and signed by john hancock, president of the congress, on that day. signatures of the other delegates were not needed to further authenticate it.[91] the signatures of fifty six delegates are affixed to the declaration, though the exact date when each person signed became debatable.[91] jefferson, franklin, and adams all wrote that the declaration was signed by congress on july 4.[92] but in 1796, signer thomas mckean disputed that, because some signers were not then present, including several who were not even elected to congress until after that date.[91][93] historians have generally accepted mckean's version of events.[94][95][96] history particularly shows most delegates signed on august 2, 1776, and those who were not then present added their names later.[97] the signatories include then future presidents john adams and thomas jefferson, though the most legendary signature is john hancock's.[99] his large, flamboyant signature became iconic, and the term john hancock emerged in the united states as a metaphor of "signature".[100] 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 report indicates that hancock proudly declared, "there! i guess king george will be able to read that!"[101] a legend emerged years later about the signing of the declaration, after the document had become an important national symbol. john hancock is supposed to have 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." that quotation first appeared in print in an 1837 london humor magazine.[102] the syng inkstand used at the signing was also used at the signing of the united states constitution in 1787. 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. the source copy used for this printing has been lost and may have been a copy in thomas jefferson's hand.[103] it was read to audiences and reprinted in newspapers throughout the 13 states. the first formal public readings of the document took place on july 8, in philadelphia (by john nixon in the yard of independence hall), trenton, new jersey, and easton, pennsylvania; the first newspaper to publish it was the pennsylvania evening post on july 6.[22]: 156 a german translation of the declaration was published in philadelphia by july 9.[6]: 72 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".[22]: 155 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 that the declaration would inspire the soldiers, and encourage others to join the army.[22]: 156 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.[22]: 156 157 one of the first readings of the declaration by the british is believed to have taken place at the rose and crown tavern on staten island, new york in the presence of general howe.[104] british officials in north america sent copies of the declaration to great britain.[6]: 73 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.[105] news of the declaration managed to reach russia on august 13 via a dispatch from the russian chargé d'affaires in london, nikita panin.[106] it reached portuguese america by brazilian medical student "vendek" josé joaquim maia e barbalho, who had met with thomas jefferson in nîmes. the spanish american authorities banned the circulation of the declaration, but it was widely transmitted and translated: by venezuelan manuel garcía de sena, by colombian miguel de pombo, by ecuadorian vicente rocafuerte, and by 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.[107] the north ministry did not give an official answer to the declaration, but instead secretly commissioned pamphleteer john lind to publish a response entitled answer to the declaration of the american congress.[6]: 75 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.[108] thomas hutchinson, the former royal governor of massachusetts, also published a rebuttal.[109][6]: 74 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.[13]: 155 156 lind's pamphlet had an anonymous attack on the concept of natural rights written by jeremy bentham, an argument that he repeated during the french revolution.[6]: 79 80 both pamphlets questioned how the american slaveholders in congress could proclaim that "all men are created equal" without freeing their own slaves.[6]: 76 77 william whipple, a signer of the declaration of independence who had fought in the war, freed his slave prince whipple because of his 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.[110] northern states began abolishing slavery shortly after the war for independence began, and all had abolished slavery by 1804. later in late november 1776, a group of 547 loyalists, largely from new york, signed a declaration of dependence in new york city at fraunces tavern in manhattan pledging their loyalty to the crown.[111] the official copy of the declaration of independence was the one printed on july 4, 1776, under jefferson's supervision. it was sent to the states and to 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 that the opening lines differ between the two versions.[3] 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.[112] a facsimile made in 1823 has become the basis of most modern reproductions rather than the original because of poor conservation of the engrossed copy through the 19th century.[112] in 1921, custody of the engrossed copy of the declaration was transferred from the state department to the library of congress, along with the united states constitution. 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.[113] 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".[114] the document signed by congress and enshrined in the national archives is usually regarded as the declaration of independence, but 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.[115] in 1777, congress commissioned mary katherine goddard to print a new broadside that listed the signers of the declaration, unlike the dunlap broadside.[112][116] nine copies of the goddard broadside are known to still exist.[116] a variety of broadsides printed by the states are also extant, including seven copies of the solomon southwick broadside, one of which was acquired by washington university in st. louis in 2015.[116][117] 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".[118] historians now understand that jefferson's rough draft was one in a series of drafts used by the committee of five before being submitted to congress for deliberation. according to boyd, the first, "original" handwritten draft of the declaration of independence that predated jefferson's rough draft, was lost or destroyed during the drafting process.[119] it is not known how many drafts jefferson wrote prior to this one, and how much of the text was contributed by other committee members. in 1947, boyd discovered a fragment of an earlier draft in jefferson's handwriting that predates jefferson's rough draft.[120] in 2018, the thomas paine national historical association published findings on an additional early handwritten draft of the declaration, referred to as the "sherman copy", that john adams copied from the lost original draft for committee of five members roger sherman and benjamin franklin's initial review. an inscription on the document noting "a beginning perhaps...", the early state of the text, and the manner in which this document was hastily taken, appears to chronologically place this draft earlier than both the fair adams copy held in the massachusetts historical society collection and the jefferson "rough draft".[121] after the text was finalized by congress as a whole, jefferson and adams sent copies of the rough draft to friends, with variations noted from the original drafts. during the writing process, jefferson showed the rough draft to adams and franklin, and perhaps to other members of the drafting committee,[118] 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".[1]: 1:427 28 jefferson incorporated these changes into a copy that was submitted to congress in the name of the committee.[118] the copy that was submitted to congress on june 28 has been lost and was perhaps destroyed in the printing process,[122] or destroyed during the debates in accordance with congress's secrecy rule.[123] on april 21, 2017, it was announced that a second engrossed copy had been discovered in the archives at west sussex county council in chichester, england.[124] named by its finders the "sussex declaration", it differs from the national archives copy (which the finders refer to as the "matlack declaration") in that the signatures on it are not grouped by states. how it came to be in england is not yet known, but the finders believe that the randomness of the signatures points to an origin with signatory james wilson, who had argued strongly that the declaration was made not by the states but by the whole people.[125][126] years of exposure to damaging lighting resulted in the original declaration of independence document having much of its ink fade by 1876.[127][128] the declaration was given little attention in the years immediately following the american revolution, having served its original purpose in announcing the independence of the united states.[6]: 87 88 [22]: 162, 168 169 early celebrations of independence day largely ignored the declaration, as did early histories of the revolution. the act of declaring independence was considered important, whereas the text announcing that act attracted little attention.[129][22]: 160 the declaration was rarely mentioned during the debates about the united states constitution, and its language was not incorporated into that document.[6]: 92 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.[6]: 90 [22]: 165 167 "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."[22]: 167 many leaders of the french revolution admired the declaration of independence[22]: 167 but were also interested in the new american state constitutions.[6]: 82 the inspiration and content of the french declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen (1789) emerged largely from the ideals of the american revolution.[130] lafayette prepared its key drafts, working closely in paris with his friend thomas jefferson. it also borrowed language from george mason's virginia declaration of rights.[131][132] the declaration also influenced the russian empire, and it had a particular impact on the decembrist revolt and other russian thinkers. according to historian david armitage, the declaration of independence did prove to be internationally influential, but not as a statement of human rights. armitage argues that the declaration was the first in a new genre of declarations of independence which 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;[6]: 113 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).[6]: 120 135 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.[6]: 104, 113 other countries have used the declaration as inspiration or have directly copied sections from it. these include the haitian declaration of january 1, 1804, during 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 is based on the american one, as well, ratified in november 1965, although it omits the phrases "all men are created equal" and "the consent of the governed".[107][133][134][135] the south carolina declaration of secession from december 1860 also mentions the u.s. declaration of independence, though it omits references to "all men are created equal" and "consent of the governed". interest in the declaration was revived in the 1790s with the emergence of the united states's first political parties.[136] throughout the 1780s, few americans knew or cared who wrote the declaration.[137] 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.[138][22]: 168 171 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 it.[139][22]: 171 but this view faded away, like the federalist party itself, and, before long, the act of declaring independence became 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.[140]: 571 572 [22]: 175 178 in 1817, congress commissioned john trumbull's famous painting of the signers, which was exhibited to large crowds before being installed in the capitol.[140]: 572 [22]: 175 the earliest commemorative printings of the declaration also appeared at this time, offering many americans their first view of the signed document.[140]: 572 [22]: 175 176 [141][142] collective biographies of the signers were first published in the 1820s,[22]: 176 giving birth to what garry wills called the "cult of the signers".[143] in the years that followed, many stories about the writing and signing of the document were published for the first time. when interest in the declaration was revived, the sections that were most important in 1776 were no longer relevant: the announcement of the independence of the united states and the grievances against king george. but the second paragraph was applicable long after the war had ended, with its talk of self evident truths and unalienable rights.[6]: 93 the identity of natural law since the 18th century has seen increasing ascendancy towards political and moral norms versus the law of nature, god, or human nature as seen in the past.[144] the constitution and the bill of rights lacked sweeping statements about rights and equality, and advocates of groups with grievances turned to the declaration for support.[22]: 196 197 starting in the 1820s, variations of the declaration were issued to proclaim the rights of workers, farmers, women, and others.[22]: 197 [145] in 1848, for example, the seneca falls convention of women's rights advocates declared that "all men and women are created equal".[22]: 197 [6]: 95 john trumbull's painting declaration of independence has played a significant role in popular conceptions of the declaration of independence. the painting is 12 by 18 foot (3.7 by 5.5 m) in size and was commissioned by the united states congress in 1817; it has hung in the united states capitol rotunda since 1826. it is sometimes described as the signing of the declaration of independence, but it actually shows the committee of five presenting their draft of the declaration to the second continental congress on june 28, 1776, and not the signing of the document, which took place later.[147] trumbull painted the figures from life whenever possible, but some had died and images could not be located; hence, the painting does not include all the signers of the declaration. one figure had participated in the drafting but did not sign the final document; another refused to sign. in fact, the membership of the second continental congress changed as time passed, and the figures in the painting were never in the same room at the same time. it is, however, an accurate depiction of the room in independence hall, the centerpiece of the independence national historical park in philadelphia, pennsylvania. trumbull's painting has been depicted multiple times on u.s. currency and postage stamps. its first use was on the reverse side of the $100 national bank note issued in 1863. a few years later, the steel engraving used in printing the bank notes was used to produce a 24 cent stamp, issued as part of the 1869 pictorial issue. an engraving of the signing scene has been featured on the reverse side of the united states two dollar bill since 1976. the apparent contradiction between the claim that "all men are created equal" and the existence of slavery in the united states attracted comment when the declaration was first published. many of the founders understood the incompatibility of the statement of natural equality with the institution of slavery, but continued to enjoy the "rights of man".[148] jefferson had included a paragraph in his initial rough draft of the declaration of independence vigorously condemning the evil of the slave trade, and condemning king george iii for forcing it onto the colonies, but this was deleted from the final version.[22]: 146 150 [62] 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. determined to keep open a market where men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.[149] jefferson himself was a prominent virginia slaveowner, owning six hundred enslaved africans on his monticello plantation.[150] referring to this 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."[6][151] the african american writer lemuel haynes expressed similar viewpoints in his essay "liberty further extended", where he wrote that "liberty is equally as pre[c]ious to a black man, as it is to a white one".[152] 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".[153] 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. he wrote, "as long as there remains a single copy of the declaration of independence, or of the bible, in our land, we will not despair."[154] for radical abolitionists such as 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.[22]: 198 199 on july 5, 1852, frederick douglass delivered a speech asking the question, "what to the slave is the fourth of july?". the controversial question of whether to allow additional slave states into 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.[155] anti slavery 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.[155]: 604 pro slavery congressmen led by senator nathaniel macon of north carolina argued that the declaration was not a part of the constitution and therefore had no relevance to the question.[155]: 605 with the abolitionist 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.[22]: 199 [13]: 246 during the debate over the kansas nebraska act in 1853, for example, senator john pettit of indiana argued that the statement "all men are created equal" was not a "self evident truth" but a "self evident lie".[22]: 200 opponents of the kansas nebraska act, including salmon p. chase and benjamin wade, defended the declaration and what they saw as its antislavery principles.[22]: 200 201 in preparing for his raid on harper's ferry, said by frederick douglass to be the beginning of the end of slavery in the united states,[156]: 27 28 abolitionist john brown had many copies printed of a provisional constitution. when the seceding states created the confederate states of america 16 months later, they operated for over a year under a provisional constitution. it outlines the three branches of government in the quasi country he hoped to set up in the appalachian mountains. it was widely reproduced in the press, and in full in the select senate committee report on john brown's insurrection (the mason report).[157] brown did not have it printed, and his declaration of liberty, dated july 4, 1859, was found among his papers at the kennedy farm.[158]: 330 331 it was written out on sheets of paper attached to fabric, to allow it to be rolled, and it was rolled when found. the hand is that of owen brown, who often served as his father's amanuensis.[159] imitating the vocabulary, punctuation, and capitalization of the 73 year old u.s. declaration, the 2000 word document begins: july 4th 1859 when in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for an oppressed people to rise, and assert their natural rights, as human beings, as native & mutual citizens of a free republic, and break that odious yoke of oppression, which is so unjustly laid upon them by their fellow countrymen, and to assume among the powers of earth the same equal privileges to which the laws of nature, & natures god entitle them; a moderate respect for the opinions of mankind, requires that they should declare the causes which incite them to this just & worthy action. 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; & the persuit of happiness. that nature hath freely given to all men, a full supply of air. water, & land; for their sustinance, & mutual happiness, that no man has any right to deprive his fellow man, of these inherent rights, except in punishment of crime. that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. that when any form of government, becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people, to alter, amend, or remoddel it, laying its foundation on such principles, & organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect the safety, & happiness of the human race.[160] the document was apparently intended to be read aloud, but so far as is known brown never did so, even though he read the provisional constitution aloud the day the raid on harpers ferry began.[161]: 74 very much aware of the history of the american revolution, he would have read the declaration aloud after the revolt had started. the document was not published until 1894, and by someone who did not realize its importance and buried it in an appendix of documents.[158]: 637 643 it is missing from most but not all studies of john brown.[162][161]: 69 73 the declaration's relationship to slavery was taken up in 1854 by abraham lincoln, a little known former congressman who idolized the founding fathers.[22]: 201 202 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.[9]: 126 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.[9]: 126 127 the meaning of the declaration was a recurring topic in the famed debates between lincoln and stephen douglas in 1858. douglas argued that the phrase "all men are created equal", which appears 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".[22]: 204 lincoln, however, thought that the language of the declaration was deliberately universal, setting a high moral standard to which the american republic should aspire. "i had thought the declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere", he said.[22]: 204 205 during the seventh and last joint debate with stephen douglas at alton, illinois, on october 15, 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.[163] 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".[22]: 207 [t]here is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the declaration of independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. 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.[164]: 129 131 the constitution did not use the word "equality", yet lincoln believed that the concept that "all men are created equal" remained a part of the nation's founding principles.[164]: 145 he famously expressed this belief, referencing the year 1776, in the opening sentence of his 1863 gettysburg address: "four score and seven years ago 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 became influential, seeing it as a moral guide to interpreting the constitution. "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."[164]: 147 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.[164]: 39, 145 146 [165][166][167][168] in july 1848, the seneca falls convention was held in seneca falls, new york, the first women's rights convention. it was organized by elizabeth cady stanton, lucretia mott, mary ann mcclintock, and jane hunt. they patterned their "declaration of sentiments" on the declaration of independence, in which they demanded social and political equality for women. their motto was that "all men and women are created equal", and they demanded the right to vote.[169][170] excerpt from "declaration of sentiments": we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men and women are created equal in 1963, in washington, d.c., at the march on washington for jobs and freedom, reverend martin luther king jr. delivered his famous "i have a dream" speech. this speech was meant to inspire the nation, to take up the causes of the civil rights movement. king uses quotations from the declaration of independence to encourage equal treatment of all persons regardless of race. excerpt from king's speech: i have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "we hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal." in 1978, at the gay pride celebration in san francisco, activist and later politician harvey milk delivered a speech. milk alluded to the declaration of independence, emphasizing that the inalienable rights established by the declaration apply to all persons and cannot be hindered because of one's sexual orientation. excerpt from milk's speech: all men are created equal and they are endowed with certain inalienable rights... that's what america is. no matter how hard you try, you cannot erase those words from the declaration of independence. in 2020, the unitarian universalist association, responding to threats from the trump administration to undermine civil rights protections for transgender individuals, mirrored the language of the declaration of independence, stating any such actions would "threaten the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."[171] the declaration was one of the first texts to be made into an ebook (1971).[172] the memorial to the 56 signers of the declaration of independence was dedicated in 1984 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 residence, and occupations. the new one world trade center building in new york city (2014) is 1776 feet high to symbolize the year that the declaration of independence was signed.[173][174][175] the adoption of the declaration of independence was dramatized in the 1969 tony award winning musical 1776 and the 1972 film version, as well as in the 2008 television miniseries john adams.[176][177] in 1970, the 5th dimension recorded the opening of the declaration on their album portrait in the song "declaration". it was first performed on the ed sullivan show on december 7, 1969, and it was taken as a song of protest by some opposed to the vietnam war.[178] the declaration of independence is a plot device in the 2004 american film national treasure.[179] fallout 3 involves a quest where the playable character acquires the declaration of independence from the national archives. the player is tasked with bringing the document back to a history lover who wants to reclaim pieces of america following a nuclear war.[180] after the 2009 death of radio broadcaster paul harvey, focus today aired a clip of harvey speaking about the lives of all the signers of the declaration of independence.[181] tutti gli uomini sono per natura egualmente liberi e indipendenti. quest'eguaglianza è necessaria per costituire un governo libero. bisogna che ognuno sia uguale all'altro nel diritto naturale. all men are by nature equally free and independent. such equality is necessary in order to create a free government. all men must be equal to each other in natural law

america's founding documents nations come into being in many ways. military rebellion, civil strife, acts of heroism, acts of treachery, a thousand greater and lesser clashes between defenders of the old order and supporters of the new  all these occurrences and more have marked the emergences of new nations, large and small. the birth of our own nation included them all. that birth was unique, not only in the immensity of its later impact on the course of world history and the growth of democracy, but also because so many of the threads in our national history run back through time to come together in one place, in one time, and in one document: the declaration of independence. the clearest call for independence up to the summer of 1776 came in philadelphia on june 7. on that date in session in the pennsylvania state house (later independence hall), the continental congress heard richard henry lee of virginia read his resolution beginning: "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." the lee resolution was an expression of what was already beginning to happen throughout the colonies. when the second continental congress, which was essentially the government of the united states from 1775 to 1788, first met in may 1775, king george iii had not replied to the petition for redress of grievances that he had been sent by the first continental congress. the congress gradually took on the responsibilities of a national government. in june 1775 the congress established the continental army as well as a continental currency. by the end of july of that year, it created a post office for the "united colonies." in august 1775 a royal proclamation declared that the king's american subjects were "engaged in open and avowed rebellion." later that year, parliament passed the american prohibitory act, which made all american vessels and cargoes forfeit to the crown. and in may 1776 the congress learned that the king had negotiated treaties with german states to hire mercenaries to fight in america. the weight of these actions combined to convince many americans that the mother country was treating the colonies as a foreign entity. one by one, the continental congress continued to cut the colonies' ties to britain. the privateering resolution, passed in march 1776, allowed the colonists "to fit out armed vessels to cruize [sic] on the enemies of these united colonies." on april 6, 1776, american ports were opened to commerce with other nations, an action that severed the economic ties fostered by the navigation acts. a "resolution for the formation of local governments" was passed on may 10, 1776. at the same time, more of the colonists themselves were becoming convinced of the inevitability of independence. thomas paine's common sense, published in january 1776, was sold by the thousands. by the middle of may 1776, eight colonies had decided that they would support independence. on may 15, 1776, the virginia convention passed a resolution that "the delegates appointed to represent this colony in general congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the united colonies free and independent states." it was in keeping with these instructions that richard henry lee, on june 7, 1776, presented his resolution. there were still some delegates, however, including those bound by earlier instructions, who wished to pursue the path of reconciliation with britain. on june 11 consideration of the lee resolution was postponed by a vote of seven colonies to five, with new york abstaining. congress then recessed for 3 weeks. the tone of the debate indicated that at the end of that time the lee resolution would be adopted. before congress recessed, therefore, a committee of five was appointed to draft a statement presenting to the world the colonies' case for independence. the committee consisted of two new england men, john adams of massachusetts and roger sherman of connecticut; two men from the middle colonies, benjamin franklin of pennsylvania and robert r. livingston of new york; and one southerner, thomas jefferson of virginia. in 1823 jefferson wrote that the other members of the committee "unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught [sic]. i consented; i drew it; but before i reported it to the committee i communicated it separately to dr. franklin and mr. adams requesting their corrections. . . i then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee, and from them, unaltered to the congress." (if jefferson did make a "fair copy," incorporating the changes made by franklin and adams, it has not been preserved. it may have been the copy that was amended by the congress and used for printing, but in any case, it has not survived. jefferson's rough draft, however, with changes made by franklin and adams, as well as jefferson's own notes of changes by the congress, is housed at the library of congress.) jefferson's account reflects three stages in the life of the declaration: the document originally written by jefferson; the changes to that document made by franklin and adams, resulting in the version that was submitted by the committee of five to the congress; and the version that was eventually adopted. on july 1, 1776, congress reconvened. the following day, the lee resolution for independence was adopted by 12 of the 13 colonies, new york not voting. immediately afterward, the congress began to consider the declaration. adams and franklin had made only a few changes before the committee submitted the document. the discussion in congress resulted in some alterations and deletions, but the basic document remained jefferson's. the process of revision continued through all of july 3 and into the late morning of july 4. the declaration had been officially adopted. the declaration of independence is made up of five distinct parts: the introduction; the preamble; the body, which can be divided into two sections; and a conclusion. the introduction states that this document will "declare" the "causes" that have made it necessary for the american colonies to leave the british empire. having stated in the introduction that independence is unavoidable, even necessary, the preamble sets out principles that were already recognized to be "self evident" by most 18th  century englishmen, closing with the statement that "a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce [a people] 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." the first section of the body of the declaration gives evidence of the "long train of abuses and usurpations" heaped upon the colonists by king george iii. the second section of the body states that the colonists had appealed in vain to their "british brethren" for a redress of their grievances. having stated the conditions that made independence necessary and having shown that those conditions existed in british north america, the declaration concludes 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." although congress had adopted the declaration submitted by the committee of five, the committee's task was not yet completed. congress had also directed that the committee supervise the printing of the adopted document. the first printed copies of the declaration of independence were turned out from the shop of john dunlap, official printer to the congress. after the declaration had been adopted, the committee took to dunlap the manuscript document, possibly jefferson's "fair copy" of his rough draft. on the morning of july 5, copies were dispatched by members of congress to various assemblies, conventions, and committees of safety as well as to the commanders of continental troops. also on july 5, a copy of the printed version of the approved declaration was inserted into the "rough journal" of the continental congress for july 4. the text was followed by the words "signed by order and in behalf of the congress, john hancock, president. attest. charles thomson, secretary." it is not known how many copies john dunlap printed on his busy night of july 4. there are 26 copies known to exist of what is commonly referred to as "the dunlap broadside," 21 owned by american institutions, 2 by british institutions, and 3 by private owners. (see appendix a.) on july 9 the action of congress was officially approved by the new york convention. all 13 colonies had now signified their approval. on july 19, therefore, congress was able to order that the declaration be "fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile [sic] of 'the unanimous declaration of the thirteen united states of america,' and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of congress." engrossing is the process of preparing an official document in a large, clear hand. timothy matlack was probably the engrosser of the declaration. he was a pennsylvanian who had assisted the secretary of the congress, charles thomson, in his duties for over a year and who had written out george washington's commission as commanding general of the continentalarmy. matlack set to work with pen, ink, parchment, and practiced hand, and finally, on august 2, the journal of the continental congress records that "the declaration of independence being engrossed and compared at the table was signed." one of the most widely held misconceptions about the declaration is that it was signed on july 4, 1776, by all the delegates in attendance. john hancock, the president of the congress, was the first to sign the sheet of parchment measuring 24¼ by 29¾ inches. he used a bold signature centered below the text. in accordance with prevailing custom, the other delegates began to sign at the right below the text, their signatures arranged according to the geographic location of the states they represented. new hampshire, the northernmost state, began the list, and georgia, the southernmost, ended it. eventually 56 delegates signed, although all were not present on august 2. among the later signers were elbridge gerry, oliver wolcott, lewis morris, thomas mckean, and matthew thornton, who found that he had no room to sign with the other new hampshire delegates. a few delegates who voted for adoption of the declaration on july 4 were never to sign in spite of the july 19 order of congress that the engrossed document "be signed by every member of congress." nonsigners included john dickinson, who clung to the idea of reconciliation with britain, and robert r. livingston, one of the committee of five, who thought the declaration was premature. over the next 200 years, the nation whose birth was announced with a declaration "fairly engrossed on parchment" was to show immense growth in area, population, economic power, and social complexity and a lasting commitment to a testing and strengthening of its democracy. but what of the parchment itself? how was it to fare over the course of two centuries? in the chronicle of the declaration as a physical object, three themes necessarily entwine themselves: the relationship between the physical aging of the parchment and the steps taken to preserve it from deterioration; the relationship between the parchment and the copies that were made from it; and finally, the often dramatic story of the travels of the parchment during wartime and to its various homes. chronologically, it is helpful to divide the history of the declaration after its signing into five main periods, some more distinct than others. the first period consists of the early travels of the parchment and lasts until 1814. the second period relates to the long sojourn of the declaration in washington, dc, from 1814 until its brief return to philadelphia for the 1876 centennial. the third period covers the years 1877 1921, a period marked by increasing concern for the deterioration of the document and the need for a fitting and permanent washington home. except for an interlude during world war ii, the fourth and fifth periods cover the time the declaration rested in the library of congress from 1921 to 1952 and in the national archives from 1952 to the present. once the declaration was signed, the document probably accompanied the continental congress as that body traveled during the uncertain months and years of the revolution. initially, like other parchment documents of the time, the declaration was probably stored in a rolled format. each time the document was used, it would have been unrolled and re rolled. this action, as well as holding the curled parchment flat, doubtless took its toll on the ink and on the parchment surface through abrasion and flexing. the acidity inherent in the iron gall ink used by timothy matlack allowed the ink to "bite" into the surface of the parchment, thus contributing to the ink's longevity, but the rolling and unrolling of the parchment still presented many hazards. after the signing ceremony on august 2, 1776, the declaration was most likely filed in philadelphia in the office of charles thomson, who served as the secretary of the continental congress from 1774 to 1789. on december 12, threatened by the british, congress adjourned and reconvened 8 days later in baltimore, md. a light wagon carried the declaration to its new home, where it remained until its return to philadelphia in march of 1777. on january 18, 1777, while the declaration was still in baltimore, congress, bolstered by military successes at trenton and princeton, ordered the second official printing of the document. the july 4 printing had included only the names of john hancock and charles thomson, and even though the first printing had been promptly circulated to the states, the names of subsequent signers were kept secret for a time because of fear of british reprisals. by its order of january 18, however, congress required that "an authentic copy of the declaration of independency, with the names of the members of congress subscribing to the same, be sent to each of the united states, and that they be desired to have the same put upon record." the "authentic copy" was duly printed, complete with signers' names, by mary katherine goddard in baltimore. assuming that the declaration moved with the congress, it would have been back in philadelphia from march to september 1777. on september 27, it would have moved to lancaster, pa, for 1 day only. from september 30, 1777, through june 1778, the declaration would have been kept in the courthouse at york, pa. from july 1778 to june 1783, it would have had a long stay back in philadelphia. in 1783, it would have been at princeton, nj, from june to november, and then, after the signing of the treaty of paris, the declaration would have been moved to annapolis, md, where it stayed until october 1784. for the months of november and december 1784, it would have been at trenton, nj. then in 1785, when congress met in new york, the declaration was housed in the old new york city hall, where it probably remained until 1790 (although when pierre l'enfant was remodeling the building for the convening of the first federal congress, it might have been temporarily removed). in july 1789 the first congress under the new constitution created the department of foreign affairs and directed that its secretary should have "the custody and charge of all records, books and papers" kept by the department of the same name under the old government. on july 24 charles thomson retired as secretary of the congress and, upon the order of president george washington, surrendered the declaration to roger alden, deputy secretary of foreign affairs. in september 1789 the name of the department was changed to the department of state. thomas jefferson, the drafter of the declaration, returned from france to assume his duties as the first secretary of state in march of 1790. appropriately, those duties now included custody of the declaration. in july 1790 congress provided for a permanent capital to be built among the woodlands and swamps bordering the potomac river. meanwhile, the temporary seat of government was to return to philadelphia. congress also provided that "prior to the first monday in december next, all offices attached to the seat of the government of the united states" should be removed to philadelphia. the declaration was therefore back in philadelphia by the close of 1790. it was housed in various buildings  on market street, at arch and sixth, and at fifth and chestnut. in 1800, by direction of president john adams, the declaration and other government records were moved from philadelphia to the new federal capital now rising in the district of columbia. to reach its new home, the declaration traveled down the delaware river and bay, out into the ocean, into the chesapeake bay, and up the potomac to washington, completing its longest water journey. for about 2 months the declaration was housed in buildings built for the use of the treasury department. for the next year it was housed in one of the "seven buildings" then standing at nineteenth street and pennsylvania avenue. its third home before 1814 was in the old war office building on seventeenth street. in august 1814, the united states being again at war with great britain, a british fleet appeared in the chesapeake bay. secretary of state james monroe rode out to observe the landing of british forces along the patuxent river in maryland. a message from monroe alerted state department officials, in particular a clerk named stephen pleasonton, of the imminent threat to the capital city and, of course, the government's official records. pleasonton "proceeded to purchase coarse linen, and cause it to be made into bags of convenient size, in which the gentlemen of the office" packed the precious books and records including the declaration. a cartload of records was then taken up the potomac river to an unused gristmill belonging to edgar patterson. the structure was located on the virginia side of the potomac, about 2 miles upstream from georgetown. here the declaration and the other records remained, probably overnight. pleasonton, meanwhile, asked neighboring farmers for the use of their wagons. on august 24, the day of the british attack on washington, the declaration was on its way to leesburg, va. that evening, while the white house and other government buildings were burning, the declaration was stored 35 miles away at leesburg. the declaration remained safe at a private home in leesburg for an interval of several weeks  in fact, until the british had withdrawn their troops from washington and their fleet from the chesapeake bay. in september 1814 the declaration was returned to the national capital. with the exception of a trip to philadelphia for the centennial and to fort knox during world war ii, it has remained there ever since. the declaration remained in washington from september 1814 to may 1841. it was housed in four locations. from 1814 to 1841, it was kept in three different locations as the state department records were shifted about the growing city. the last of these locations was a brick building that, it was later observed, "offered no security against fire." one factor that had no small effect on the physical condition of the declaration was recognized as interest in reproductions of the declaration increased as the nation grew. two early facsimile printings of the declaration were made during the second decade of the 19th century: those of benjamin owen tyler (1818) and john binns (1819). both facsimiles used decorative and ornamental elements to enhance the text of the declaration. richard rush, who was acting secretary of state in 1817, remarked on september 10 of that year about the tyler copy: "the foregoing copy of the declaration of independence has been collated with the original instrument and found correct. i have myself examined the signatures to each. those executed by mr. tyler, are curiously exact imitations, so much so, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the closest scrutiny to distinguish them, were it not for the hand of time, from the originals." rush's reference to "the hand of time" suggests that the signatures were already fading in 1817, only 40 years after they were first affixed to the parchment. one later theory as to why the declaration was aging so soon after its creation stems from the common 18th century practice of taking "press copies." press copies were made by placing a damp sheet of thin paper on a manuscript and pressing it until a portion of the ink was transferred. the thin paper copy was retained in the same manner as a modern carbon copy. the ink was reimposed on a copper plate, which was then etched so that copies could be run off the plate on a press. this "wet transfer" method may have been used by william j. stone when in 1820 he was commissioned by secretary of state john quincy adams to make a facsimile of the entire declaration, signatures as well as text. by june 5, 1823, almost exactly 47 years after jefferson's first draft of the declaration, the (washington) national intelligencer was able to report "that mr. william j. stone, a respectable and enterprising engraver of this city, has, after a labor of three years, completed a fac simile of the original of the declaration of independence, now in the archives of the government; that it is executed with the greatest exactness and fidelity; and that the department of state has become the purchaser of the plate." as the intelligencer went on to observe: "we are very glad to hear this, for the original of that paper which ought to be immortal and imperishable, by being so much handled by copyists and curious visitors, might receive serious injury. the facility of multiplying copies of it now possessed by the department of state will render further exposure of the original unnecessary." the language of the newspaper report, like that of rush's earlier comment, would seem to indicate some fear of the deterioration of the declaration even prior to stone's work. the copies made from stone's copperplate established the clear visual image of the declaration for generations of americans. the 200 official parchment copies struck from the stone plate carry the identification "engraved by w. j. stone for the department of state, by order" in the upper left corner followed by "of j. q. adams, sec. of state july 4th 1823." in the upper right corner. "unofficial" copies that were struck later do not have the identification at the top of the document. instead the engraver identified his work by engraving "w. j. stone sc. washn." near the lower left corner and burnishing out the earlier identification. the longest of the early sojourns of the declaration was from 1841 to 1876. daniel webster was secretary of state in 1841. on june 11 he wrote to commissioner of patents henry l. ellsworth, who was then occupying a new building (now the national portrait gallery), that "having learned that there is in the new building appropriated to the patent office suitable accommodations for the safe keeping, as well as the exhibition of the various articles now deposited in this department, and usually, exhibited to visitors . . . i have directed them to be transmitted to you." an inventory accompanied the letter. item 6 was the declaration. the "new building" was a white stone structure at seventh and f streets. the declaration and washington's commission as commander in chief were mounted together in a single frame and hung in a white painted hall opposite a window offering exposure to sunlight. there they were to remain on exhibit for 35 years, even after the patent office separated from the state department to become administratively a part of the interior department. this prolonged exposure to sunlight accelerated the deterioration of the ink and parchment of the declaration, which was approaching 100 years of age toward the end of this period. during the years that the declaration was exhibited in the patent office, the combined effects of aging, sunlight, and fluctuating temperature and relative humidity took their toll on the document. occasionally, writers made somewhat negative comments on the appearance of the declaration. an observer in the united states magazine (october 1856) went so far as to refer to "that old looking paper with the fading ink." john b. ellis remarked in the sights and secrets of the national capital (chicago, 1869) that "it is old and yellow, and the ink is fading from the paper." an anonymous writer in the historical magazine (october 1870) wrote: "the original manuscript of the declaration of independence and of washington's commission, now in the united states patent office at washington, d.c., are said to be rapidly fading out so that in a few years, only the naked parchment will remain. already, nearly all the signatures attached to the declaration of independence are entirely effaced." in may 1873 the historical magazine published an official statement by mortimer dormer leggett, commissioner of patents, who admitted that "many of the names to the declaration are already illegible." the technology of a new age and the interest in historical roots engendered by the approaching centennial focused new interest on the declaration in the 1870s and brought about a brief change of home. in 1876 the declaration traveled to philadelphia, where it was on exhibit for the centennial national exposition from may to october. philadelphia's mayor william s. stokley was entrusted by president ulysses s. grant with temporary custody of the declaration. the public ledger for may 8, 1876, noted that it was in independence hall "framed and glazed for protection, and . . . deposited in a fireproof safe especially designed for both preservation and convenient display. [when the outer doors of the safe were opened, the parchment was visible behind a heavy plate glass inner door; the doors were closed at night.] its aspect is of course faded and time worn. the text is fully legible, but the major part of the signatures are so pale as to be only dimly discernible in the strongest light, a few remain wholly readable, and some are wholly invisible, the spaces which contained them presenting only a blank." other descriptions made at philadelphia were equally unflattering: "scarce bears trace of the signatures the execution of which made fifty six names imperishable," "aged dimmed." but on the fourth of july, after the text was read aloud to a throng on independence square by richard henry lee of virginia (grandson of the signer richard henry lee), "the faded and crumbling manuscript, held together by a simple frame was then exhibited to the crowd and was greeted with cheer after cheer." by late summer the declaration's physical condition had become a matter of public concern. on august 3, 1876, congress adopted a joint resolution providing "that a commission, consisting of the secretary of the interior, the secretary of the smithsonian institution, and the librarian of congress be empowered to have resort to such means as will most effectually restore the writing of the original manuscript of the declaration of independence, with the signatures appended thereto." this resolution had actually been introduced as early as january 5, 1876. one candidate for the task of restoration was william j. canby, an employee of the washington gas light company. on april 13 canby had written to the librarian of congress: "i have had over thirty years experience in handling the pen upon parchment and in that time, as an expert, have engrossed hundreds of ornamental, special documents." canby went on to suggest that "the only feasible plan is to replenish the original with a supply of ink, which has been destroyed by the action of light and time, with an ink well known to be, for all practical purposes, imperishable." the commission did not, however, take any action at that time. after the conclusion of the centennial exposition, attempts were made to secure possession of the declaration for philadelphia, but these failed and the parchment was returned to the patent office in washington, where it had been since 1841, even though that office had become a part of the interior department. on april 11, 1876, robert h. duell, commissioner of patents, had written to zachariah chandler, secretary of the interior, suggesting that "the declaration of independence, and the commission of general washington, associated with it in the same frame, belong to your department as heirlooms. chandler appears to have ignored this claim, for in an exchange of letters with secretary of state hamilton fish, it was agreed with the approval of president grant to move the declaration into the new, fireproof building that the state department shared with the war and navy departments (now the old executive office building). on march 3, 1877, the declaration was placed in a cabinet on the eastern side of the state department library, where it was to be exhibited for 17 years. it may be noted that not only was smoking permitted in the library, but the room contained an open fireplace. nevertheless this location turned out to be safer than the premises just vacated; much of the patent office was gutted in a fire that occurred a few months later. on may 5, 1880, the commission that had been appointed almost 4 years earlier came to life again in response to a call from the secretary of the interior. it requested that william b. rogers, president of the national academy of sciences appoint a committee of experts to consider "whether such restoration [of the declaration] be expedient or practicable and if so in what way the object can best be accomplished." the duly appointed committee reported on january 7, 1881, that stone used the "wet transfer" method in the creation of his facsimile printing of 1823, that the process had probably removed some of the original ink, and that chemical restoration methods were "at best imperfect and uncertain in their results." the committee concluded, therefore, that "it is not expedient to attempt to restore the manuscript by chemical means." the group of experts then recommended that "it will be best either to cover the present receptacle of the manuscript with an opaque lid or to remove the manuscript from its frame and place it in a portfolio, where it may be protected from the action of light." finally, the committee recommended that "no press copies of any part of it should in future be permitted." recent study of the declaration by conservators at the national archives has raised doubts that a "wet transfer" took place. proof of this occurrence, however, cannot be verified or denied strictly by modern examination methods. no documentation prior to the 1881 reference has been found to support the theory; therefore we may never know if stone actually performed the procedure. little, if any, action was taken as a result of the 1881 report. it was not until 1894 that the state department announced: "the rapid fading of the text of the original declaration of independence and the deterioration of the parchment upon which it is engrossed, from exposure to light and lapse of time, render it impracticable for the department longer to exhibit it or to handle it. for the secure preservation of its present condition, so far as may be possible, it has been carefully wrapped and placed flat in a steel case." a new plate for engravings was made by the coast and geodetic survey in 1895, and in 1898 a photograph was made for the ladies' home journal. on this latter occasion, the parchment was noted as "still in good legible condition" although "some of the signatures" were "necessarily blurred." on april 14, 1903, secretary of state john hay solicited again the help of the national academy of sciences in providing "such recommendations as may seem practicable . . . touching [the declaration's] preservation." hay went on to explain: "it is now kept out of the light, sealed between two sheets of glass, presumably proof against air, and locked in a steel safe. i am unable to say, however, that, in spite of these precautions, observed for the past ten years, the text is not continuing to fade and the parchment to wrinkle and perhaps to break." on april 24 a committee of the academy reported its findings. summarizing the physical history of the declaration, the report stated: "the instrument has suffered very seriously from the very harsh treatment to which it was exposed in the early years of the republic. folding and rolling have creased the parchment. the wet press copying operation to which it was exposed about 1820, for the purpose of producing a facsimile copy, removed a large portion of the ink. subsequent exposure to the action of light for more than thirty years, while the instrument was placed on exhibition, has resulted in the fading of the ink, particularly in the signatures. the present method of caring for the instrument seems to be the best that can be suggested." the committee added its own "opinion that the present method of protecting the instrument should be continued; that it should be kept in the dark and dry as possible, and never placed on exhibition." secretary hay seems to have accepted the committee's recommendation; in the following year, william h. michael, author of the declaration of independence (washington, 1904), recorded that the declaration was "locked and sealed, by order of secretary hay, and is no longer shown to anyone except by his direction." world war i came and went. then, on april 21, 1920, secretary of state bainbridge colby issued an order creating yet another committee: "a committee is hereby appointed to study the proper steps that should be taken for the permanent and effective preservation from deterioration and from danger from fire, or other form of destruction, of those documents of supreme value which under the law are deposited with the secretary of state. the inquiry will include the question of display of certain of these documents for the benefit of the patriotic public." on may 5, 1920, the new committee reported on the physical condition of the safes that housed the declaration and the constitution. it declared: "the safes are constructed of thin sheets of steel. they are not fireproof nor would they offer much obstruction to an evil disposed person who wished to break into them." about the physical condition of the declaration, the committee stated: "we believe the fading can go no further. we see no reason why the original document should not be exhibited if the parchment be laid between two sheets of glass, hermetically sealed at the edges and exposed only to diffused light." the committee also made some important "supplementary recommendations." it noted that on march 3, 1903, president theodore roosevelt had directed that certain records relating to the continental congress be turned over by the department of state to the library of congress: "this transfer was made under a provision of an act of february 25, 1903, that any executive department may turn over to the library of congress books, maps, or other material no longer needed for the use of the department." the committee recommended that the remaining papers, including the declaration and the constitution, be similarly given over to the custody of the library of congress. for the declaration, therefore, two important changes were in the offing: a new home and the possibility of exhibition to "the patriotic public." there was no action on the recommendations of 1920 until after the harding administration took office. on september 28, 1921, secretary of state charles evans hughes addressed the new president: "i enclose an executive order for your signature, if you approve, transferring to the custody of the library of congress the original declaration of independence and constitution of the united states which are now in the custody of this department. . . . i make this recommendation because in the library of congress these muniments will be in the custody of experts skilled in archival preservation, in a building of modern fireproof construction, where they can safely be exhibited to the many visitors who now desire to see them." president warren g. harding agreed. on september 29, 1921, he issued the executive order authorizing the transfer. the following day secretary hughes sent a copy of the order to librarian of congress herbert putnam, stating that he was "prepared to turn the documents over to you when you are ready to receive them." putnam was both ready and eager. he presented himself forthwith at the state department. the safes were opened, and the declaration and the constitution were carried off to the library of congress on capitol hill in the library's "mail wagon," cushioned by a pile of leather u.s. mail sacks. upon arrival, the two national treasures were placed in a safe in putnam's office. on october 3, putnam took up the matter of a permanent location. in a memorandum to the superintendent of the library building and grounds, putnam proceeded from the premise that "in the library" the documents "might be treated in such a way as, while fully safe guarding them and giving them distinction, they should be open to inspection by the public at large." the memorandum discussed the need for a setting "safe, dignified, adequate, and in every way suitable . . . material less than bronze would be unworthy. the cost must be considerable." the librarian then requested the sum of $12,000 for his purpose. the need was urgent because the new bureau of the budget was about to print forthcoming fiscal year estimates. there was therefore no time to make detailed architectural plans. putnam told an appropriations committee on january 16, 1922, just what he had in mind. "there is a way . . . we could construct, say, on the second floor on the western side in that long open gallery a railed inclosure, material of bronze, where these documents, with one or two auxiliary documents leading up to them, could be placed, where they need not be touched by anybody but where a mere passer by could see them, where they could be set in permanent bronze frames and where they could be protected from the natural light, lighted only by soft incandescent lamps. the result could be achieved and you would have something every visitor to washington would wish to tell about when he returned and who would regard it, as the newspapermen are saying, with keen interest as a sort of 'shrine.'" the librarian's imaginative presentation was successful: the sum of $12,000 was appropriated and approved on march 20, 1922. before long, the "sort of 'shrine'" was being designed by francis h. bacon, whose brother henry was the architect of the lincoln memorial. materials used included different kinds of marble from new york, vermont, tennessee, the greek island of tinos, and italy. the marbles surrounding the manuscripts were american; the floor and balustrade were made of foreign marbles to correspond with the material used in the rest of the library. the declaration was to be housed in a frame of gold plated bronze doors and covered with double panes of plate glass with specially prepared gelatin films between the plates to exclude the harmful rays of light. a 24 hour guard would provide protection. on february 28, 1924, the shrine was dedicated in the presence of president and mrs. calvin coolidge, secretary hughes, and other distinguished guests. not a word was spoken during a moving ceremony in which putnam fitted the declaration into its frame. there were no speeches. two stanzas of america were sung. in putnam's words: "the impression on the audience proved the emotional potency of documents animate with a great tradition." with only one interruption, the declaration hung on the wall of the second floor of the great hall of the library of congress until december 1952. during the prosperity of the 1920s and the depression of the 1930s, millions of people visited the shrine. but the threat of war and then war itself caused a prolonged interruption in the steady stream of visitors. on april 30, 1941, worried that the war raging in europe might engulf the united states, the newly appointed librarian of congress, archibald macleish, wrote to the secretary of the treasury, henry morgenthau, jr. the librarian was concerned for the most precious of the many objects in his charge. he wrote "to enquire whether space might perhaps be found" at the bullion depository in fort knox for his most valuable materials, including the declaration, "in the unlikely event that it becomes necessary to remove them from washington." secretary morgenthau replied that space would indeed be made available as necessary for the "storage of such of the more important papers as you might designate." on december 7, 1941, the japanese attacked pearl harbor. on december 23, the declaration and the constitution were removed from the shrine and placed between two sheets of acid free manilla paper. the documents were then carefully wrapped in a container of all rag neutral millboard and placed in a specially designed bronze container. it was late at night when the container was finally secured with padlocks on each side. preparations were resumed on the day after christmas, when the attorney general ruled that the librarian needed no "further authority from the congress or the president" to take such action as he deemed necessary for the "proper protection and preservation" of the documents in his charge. the packing process continued under constant armed guard. the container was finally sealed with lead and packed in a heavy box; the whole weighed some 150 pounds. it was a far cry from the simple linen bag of the summer of 1814. at about 5 p.m. the box, along with other boxes containing vital records, was loaded into an armed and escorted truck, taken to union station, and loaded into a compartment of the pullman sleeper eastlake. armed secret service agents occupied the neighboring compartments. after departing from washington at 6:30 p.m., the declaration traveled to louisville, ky, arriving at 10:30 a.m., december 27, 1941. more secret service agents and a cavalry troop of the 13th armored division met the train, convoyed its precious contents to the bullion depository at fort knox, and placed the declaration in compartment 24 in the outer tier on the ground level. the declaration was periodically examined during its sojourn at fort knox. one such examination in 1942 found that the declaration had become detached in part from its mount, including the upper right corner, which had been stuck down with copious amounts of glue. in his journal for may 14, 1942, verner w. clapp, a library of congress official, noted: "at one time also (about january 12, 1940) an attempt had been made to reunite the detached upper right hand corner to the main portion by means of a strip of 'scotch' cellulose tape which was still in place, discolored to a molasses color. in the various mending efforts glue had been splattered in two places on the obverse of the document." the opportunity was taken to perform conservation treatment in order to stabilize and rejoin the upper right corner. under great secrecy, george stout and evelyn erlich, both of the fogg museum at harvard university, traveled to fort knox. over a period of 2 days, they performed mending of small tears, removed excess adhesive and the "scotch" tape, and rejoined the detached upper right corner. finally, in 1944, the military authorities assured the library of congress that all danger of enemy attack had passed. on september 19, the documents were withdrawn from fort knox. on sunday, october 1, at 11:30 a.m., the doors of the library were opened. the declaration was back in its shrine. with the return of peace, the keepers of the declaration were mindful of the increasing technological expertise available to them relating to the preservation of the parchment. in this they were readily assisted by the national bureau of standards, which even before world war ii, had researched the preservation of the declaration. the problem of shielding it from harsh light, for example, had in 1924 led to the insertion of a sheet of yellow gelatin between the protective plates of glass. yet this procedure lessened the visibility of an already faded parchment. could not some improvement be made? following reports of may 5, 1949, on studies in which the library staff, members of the national bureau of standards, and representatives of a glass manufacturer had participated, new recommendations were made. in 1951 the declaration was sealed in a thermopane enclosure filled with properly humidified helium. the exhibit case was equipped with a filter to screen out damaging light. the new enclosure also had the effect of preventing harm from air pollution, a growing peril. soon after, however, the declaration was to make one more move, the one to its present home. (see appendix b.) in 1933, while the depression gripped the nation, president hoover laid the cornerstone for the national archives building in washington, dc. he announced that the declaration of independence and the constitution would eventually be kept in the impressive structure that was to occupy the site. indeed, it was for their keeping and display that the exhibition hall in the national archives had been designed. two large murals were painted for its walls. in one, thomas jefferson is depicted presenting the declaration to john hancock, president of the continental congress while members of that revolutionary body look on. in the second, james madison is portrayed submitting the constitution to george washington. the final transfer of these special documents did not, however, take place until almost 20 years later. in october 1934 president franklin d. roosevelt appointed the first archivist of the united states, robert digges wimberly connor. the president told connor that "valuable historic documents," such as the declaration of independence and the u.s. constitution, would reside in the national archives building. the library of congress, especially librarian herbert putnam, objected. in a meeting with the president 2 months after his appointment, connor explained to roosevelt how the documents came to be in the library and that putnam felt another act of congress was necessary in order for them to be transferred to the archives. connor eventually told the president that it would be better to leave the matter alone until putnam retired. when herbert putnam retired on april 5, 1939, archibald macleish was nominated to replace him. macleish agreed with roosevelt and connor that the two important documents belonged in the national archives. because of world war ii, during much of which the declaration was stored at fort knox, and connor's resignation in 1941, macleish was unable to enact the transfer. by 1944, when the declaration and constitution returned to washington from fort knox, macleish had been appointed assistant secretary of state. solon j. buck, connor's successor as archivist of the united states (1941 48), felt that the documents were in good hands at the library of congress. his successor, wayne grover, disagreed. luther evans, the librarian of congress appointed by president truman in june 1945, shared grover's opinion that the documents should be transferred to the archives. in 1951 the two men began working with their staff members and legal advisers to have the documents transferred. the archives position was that the documents were federal records and therefore covered by the federal records act of 1950, which was "paramount to and took precedence over" the 1922 act that had appropriated money for the shrine at the library of congress. luther evans agreed with this line of reasoning, but he emphasized getting the approval of the president and the joint committee on the library. senator theodore h. green, chairman of the joint committee on the library, agreed that the transfer should take place but stipulated that it would be necessary to have his committee act on the matter. evans went to the april 30, 1952, committee meeting alone. there is no formal record of what was said at the meeting, except that the joint committee on the library ordered that the documents be transferred to the national archives. not only was the archives the official depository of the government's records, it was also, in the judgment of the committee, the most nearly bombproof building in washington. at 11 a.m., december 13, 1952, brigadier general stoyte o. ross, commanding general of the air force headquarters command, formally received the documents at the library of congress. twelve members of the armed forces special police carried the 6 pieces of parchment in their helium filled glass cases, enclosed in wooden crates, down the library steps through a line of 88 servicewomen. an armored marine corps personnel carrier awaited the documents. once they had been placed on mattresses inside the vehicle, they were accompanied by a color guard, ceremonial troops, the army band, the air force drum and bugle corps, two light tanks, four servicemen carrying submachine guns, and a motorcycle escort in a parade down pennsylvania and constitution avenues to the archives building. both sides of the parade route were lined by army, navy, coast guard, marine, and air force personnel. at 11:35 a.m. general ross and the 12 special policemen arrived at the national archives building, carried the crates up the steps, and formally delivered them into the custody of archivist of the united states wayne grover. (already at the national archives was the bill of rights, protectively sealed according to the modern techniques used a year earlier for the declaration and constitution.) the formal enshrining ceremony on december 15, 1952, was equally impressive. chief justice of the united states fred m. vinson presided over the ceremony, which was attended by officials of more than 100 national civic, patriotic, religious, veterans, educational, business, and labor groups. after the invocation by the reverend frederick brown harris, chaplain of the senate, governor elbert n. carvel of delaware, the first state to ratify the constitution, called the roll of states in the order in which they ratified the constitution or were admitted to the union. as each state was called, a servicewoman carrying the state flag entered the exhibition hall and remained at attention in front of the display cases circling the hall. president harry s. truman, the featured speaker, said: senator green briefly traced the history of the three documents, and then the librarian of congress and the archivist of the united states jointly unveiled the shrine. finally, justice vinson spoke briefly, the reverend bernard braskamp, chaplain of the house of representatives gave the benediction, the u.s. marine corps band played the "star spangled banner," the president was escorted from the hall, the 48 flagbearers marched out, and the ceremony was over. (the story of the transfer of the documents is found in milton o. gustafson, " the empty shrine: the transfer of the declaration of independence and the constitution to the national archives," the american archivist 39 (july 1976): 271 285.) the present shrine provides an imposing home. the priceless documents stand at the center of a semicircle of display cases showing other important records of the growth of the united states. the declaration, the constitution, and the bill of rights stand slightly elevated, under armed guard, in their bronze and marble shrine. the bill of rights and two of the five leaves of the constitution are displayed flat. above them the declaration of independence is held impressively in an upright case constructed of ballistically tested glass and plastic laminate. ultraviolet light filters in the laminate give the inner layer a slightly greenish hue. at night, the documents are stored in an underground vault. in 1987 the national archives and records administration installed a $3 million camera and computerized system to monitor the condition of the three documents. the charters monitoring system was designed by the jet propulsion laboratory to assess the state of preservation of the constitution, the declaration of independence, and the bill of rights. it can detect any changes in readability due to ink flaking, off setting of ink to glass, changes in document dimensions, and ink fading. the system is capable of recording in very fine detail 1 inch square areas of documents and later retaking the pictures in exactly the same places and under the same conditions of lighting and charge coupled device (ccd) sensitivity. (the ccd measures reflectivity.) periodic measurements are compared to the baseline image to determine if changes or deterioration invisible to the human eye have taken place. the declaration has had many homes, from humble lodgings and government offices to the interiors of safes and great public displays. it has been carried in wagons, ships, a pullman sleeper, and an armored vehicle. in its latest home, it has been viewed with respect by millions of people, everyone of whom has had thereby a brief moment, a private moment, to reflect on the meaning of democracy. the nation to which the declaration gave birth has had an immense impact on human history, and continues to do so. in telling the story of the parchment, it is appropriate to recall the words of poet and librarian of congress archibald macleish. he described the declaration of independence and the constitution as "these fragile objects which bear so great a weight of meaning to our people." the story of the declaration of independence as a document can only be a part of the larger history, a history still unfolding, a "weight of meaning" constantly, challenged, strengthened, and redefined. the 26 copies of the dunlap broadside known to exist are dispersed among american and british institutions and private owners. the following are the current locations of the copies. national archives, washington, dc library of congress, washington, dc (two copies) maryland historical society, baltimore, md university of virginia, charlottesville, va (two copies) independence national historic park, philadelphia, pa american philosophical society, philadelphia, pa historical society of pennsylvania, philadelphia, pa scheide library, princeton university, princeton, nj new york public library, new york morgan library, new york massachusetts historical society, boston, ma harvard university, cambridge, ma chapin library, williams college, williamstown, ma yale university, new haven, ct american independence museum, exeter, nh maine historical society, portland, me indiana university, bloomington, in chicago historical society, chicago, il j. erik jonsson central library, dallas public library, dallas, tx declaration of independence road trip [norman lear and david hayden] private collector national archives, united kingdom (three copies) the locations given for the declaration from 1776 to 1789 are based on the locations for meetings of the continental and confederation congresses: philadelphia: august december 1776 baltimore: december 1776 march 1777 philadelphia: march september 1777 lancaster, pa: september 27, 1777 york, pa: september 30, 1777 june 1778 philadelphia: july 1778 june 1783 princeton, nj: june november 1783 annapolis, md: november 1783 october 1784 trenton, nj: november december 1784 new york: 1785 1790 philadelphia: 1790 1800 washington, dc (three locations): 1800 1814 leesburg, va: august september 1814 washington, dc (three locations): 1814 1841 washington, dc (patent office building): 1841 1876 philadelphia: may november 1876 washington, dc (state, war, and navy building): 1877 1921 washington, dc (library of congress): 1921 1941 fort knox*: 1941 1944 washington, dc (library of congress): 1944 1952 washington, dc (national archives): 1952 present *except that the document was displayed on april 13, 1943, at the dedication of the thomas jefferson memorial in washington, dc. back to main declaration of independence page learn about our national treasure, interesting and informative facts about the declaration and its history. nationalarchivesstore.org this page was last reviewed on may 14, 2018. contact us with questions or comments. contact us · accessibility · privacy policy · freedom of information act · no fear act · usa.gov the u.s. national archives and records administration 1 86 nara nara or 1 866 272 6272

frederick douglass, c. 1879. wikimedia commons frederick douglass (1818 1895) was a former slave who became a nationally recognized abolitionist orator during the antebellum period. during the civil war he worked tirelessly for the emancipation of enslaved african americans and during the decades following the war, he was arguably the most influential african american leader in the nation. what is now known as the "what to the slave is the fourth of july?" speech was delivered on july 5, 1852 as an address to the rochester ladies' anti slavery society in rochester, new york. before you read the speech you can follow these links to learn more about douglass’s life and the evolution of his thought in this period. at the time of the delivery of this speech, douglass had been living in rochester, new york for several years editing a weekly abolitionist newspaper. he was invited to give a fourth of july speech by the ladies anti slavery society of rochester. in the early 1850s, tensions over slavery were high across the county. the compromise of 1850 had failed to resolve the controversy over the admission of new slaveholding states to the union. the fugitive slave act passed by congress as part of this compromise was bitterly resented by the northern states. harriet beecher stowe’s novel about slavery, uncle tom’s cabin: or life among the lowly had been published a few months before and unexpectedly became a national bestseller. across the country, people were thinking and arguing about slavery, abolitionism, and the future of the nation. yale historian david blight analyzes douglass's speech and discusses its historical context in an episode of the podcast backstory with the american history guys (scroll down to the episode "what to the slave is the fourth of july?"). an edited version of douglass’s speech is provided below. the headings in brackets have been supplied by the editor to guide your reading as have the questions after each section. they are not part of the original. read each part and answer the questions at the end of that part. the above audio reading by actor ossie davis can be used alongside the full text of frederick douglass's speech delivered on july 5, 1852 at corinthian hall to the rochester ladies' anti slavery society in rochester, new york. this, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of july. it is the birthday of your national independence, and of your political freedom. this, to you, is what the passover was to the emancipated people of god. it carries your minds back to the day, and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated with that act, and that day. this celebration also marks the beginning of another year of your national life; and reminds you that the republic of america is now 76 years old. i am glad, fellow citizens, that your nation is so young. seventy six years, though a good old age for a man, is but a mere speck in the life of a nation. three score years and ten is the allotted time for individual men; but nations number their years by thousands. according to this fact, you are, even now, only in the beginning of your national career, still lingering in the period of childhood. i repeat, i am glad this is so. there is hope in the thought, and hope is much needed, under the dark clouds which lower above the horizon. the eye of the reformer is met with angry flashes, portending disastrous times; but his heart may well beat lighter at the thought that america is young, and that she is still in the impressible stage of her existence. may he not hope that high lessons of wisdom, of justice and of truth, will yet give direction to her destiny? were the nation older, the patriot’s heart might be sadder, and the reformer’s brow heavier. its future might be shrouded in gloom, and the hope of its prophets go out in sorrow. there is consolation in the thought that america is young. great streams are not easily turned from channels, worn deep in the course of ages. they may sometimes rise in quiet and stately majesty, and inundate the land, refreshing and fertilizing the earth with their mysterious properties. they may also rise in wrath and fury, and bear away, on their angry waves, the accumulated wealth of years of toil and hardship. they, however, gradually flow back to the same old channel, and flow on as serenely as ever. but, while the river may not be turned aside, it may dry up, and leave nothing behind but the withered branch, and the unsightly rock, to howl in the abyss sweeping wind, the sad tale of departed glory. as with rivers so with nations. ………… on the 2nd of july, 1776, the old continental congress, to the dismay of the lovers of ease, and the worshipers of property, clothed that dreadful idea [i.e., the idea of total separation of the colonies from the crown] with all the authority of national sanction. they did so in the form of a resolution; and as we seldom hit upon resolutions, drawn up in our day whose transparency is at all equal to this, it may refresh your minds and help my story if i read it. "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, dissolved." citizens, your fathers made good that resolution. they succeeded; and to day you reap the fruits of their success. the freedom gained is yours; and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary. the 4th of july is the first great fact in your nation’s history the very ring bolt in the chain of your yet undeveloped destiny pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance. i have said that the declaration of independence is the ring bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, i regard it. the principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. from the round top of your ship of state, dark and threatening clouds may be seen. heavy billows, like mountains in the distance, disclose to the leeward huge forms of flinty rocks! that bolt drawn, that chain broken, and all is lost. cling to this day cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm tossed mariner to a spar at midnight. ……… fellow citizens, i am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. the signers of the declaration of independence were brave men. they were great men too great enough to give fame to a great age. it does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. the point from which i am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet i cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. they were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, i will unite with you to honor their memory. they loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. he who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country. in their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests. they were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. they were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. they showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. they believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. with them, nothing was "settled" that was not right. with them, justice, liberty and humanity were "final;" not slavery and oppression. you may well cherish the memory of such men. they were great in their day and generation. their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times. how circumspect, exact and proportionate were all their movements! how unlike the politicians of an hour! their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment, and stretched away in strength into the distant future. they seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defense. mark them! fully appreciating the hardship to be encountered, firmly believing in the right of their cause, honorably inviting the scrutiny of an on looking world, reverently appealing to heaven to attest their sincerity, soundly comprehending the solemn responsibility they were about to assume, wisely measuring the terrible odds against them, your fathers, the fathers of this republic, did, most deliberately, under the inspiration of a glorious patriotism, and with a sublime faith in the great principles of justice and freedom, lay deep the corner stone of the national superstructure, which has risen and still rises in grandeur around you. the above audio (11:35) can be used with the following section of frederick douglass's speech. fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am i called upon to speak here to day? what have i, or those i represent, to do with your national independence? are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that declaration of independence, extended to us? and am i, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?would to god, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. for who is there so cold, that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? i am not that man. in a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart."but such is not the state of the case. i say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. i am not included within the pale of glorious anniversary! your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. the blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. the rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. the sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. this fourth july is yours, not mine. you may rejoice, i must mourn. to drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to day? if so, there is a parallel to your conduct. and let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the almighty, burying that nation in irrevocable ruin! i can to day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe smitten people!"by the rivers of babylon, there we sat down. yea! we wept when we remembered zion. we hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. for there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, sing us one of the songs of zion. how can we sing the lord's song in a strange land? if i forget thee, o jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. if i do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth."fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, i hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. if i do forget, if i do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!" to forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before god and the world. my subject, then, fellow citizens, is american slavery. i shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. standing there identified with the american bondman, making his wrongs mine, i do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of july! whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. america is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. standing with god and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, i will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis i can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery the great sin and shame of america! "i will not equivocate; i will not excuse"; i will use the severest language i can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.but i fancy i hear some one of my audience say, "it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. would you argue more, and denounce less; would you persuade more, and rebuke less; your cause would be much more likely to succeed." but, i submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. what point in the anti slavery creed would you have me argue? on what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? must i undertake to prove that the slave is a man? that point is conceded already. nobody doubts it. the slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. they acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. there are seventy two crimes in the state of virginia which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment. what is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? the manhood of the slave is conceded. it is admitted in the fact that southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. when you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then i may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. when the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then will i argue with you that the slave is a man!for the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the negro race. is it not astonishing that, while we are ploughing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver and gold; that, while we are reading, writing and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators and teachers; that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in california, capturing the whale in the pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hill side, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the christian's god, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men!would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body? you have already declared it. must i argue the wrongfulness of slavery? is that a question for republicans? is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? how should i look to day, in the presence of americans, dividing, and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom? speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively. to do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. there is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.what, am i to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? must i argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? no! i will not. i have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.what, then, remains to be argued? is it that slavery is not divine; that god did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? there is blasphemy in the thought. that which is inhuman, cannot be divine! who can reason on such a proposition? they that can, may; i cannot. the time for such argument is passed.at a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. o! had i the ability, and could reach the nation's ear, i would, to day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. for it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. we need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. the feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against god and man must be proclaimed and denounced.what, to the american slave, is your 4th of july? i answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. to him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. there is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the united states, at this very hour.go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through south america, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, america reigns without a rival ... but it is answered in reply to all this, that precisely what i have now denounced is, in fact, guaranteed and sanctioned by the constitution of the united states; that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that constitution framed by the illustrious fathers of this republic. then, i dare to affirm, notwithstanding all i have said before, your fathers stooped, basely stooped "to palter with us in a double sense: and keep the word of promise to the ear, but break it to the heart." and instead of being the honest men i have before declared them to be, they were the veriest imposters that ever practiced on mankind. this is the inevitable conclusion, and from it there is no escape. but i differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the constitution of the united states. it is a slander upon their memory, at least, so i believe. there is not time now to argue the constitutional question at length nor have i the ability to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. the subject has been handled with masterly power by lysander spooner, esq., by william goodell, by samuel e. sewall, esq., and last, though not least, by gerritt smith, esq. these gentlemen have, as i think, fully and clearly vindicated the constitution from any design to support slavery for an hour. "[l]et me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it." fellow citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the north have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro slavery character of the constitution. in that instrument i hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the constitution is a glorious liberty document. read its preamble, consider its purposes. is slavery among them? is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? it is neither. while i do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it. what would be thought of an instrument, drawn up, legally drawn up, for the purpose of entitling the city of rochester to a track of land, in which no mention of land was made? now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. these rules are well established. they are plain, common sense rules, such as you and i, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. i scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. i hold that every american citizen has a fight to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. without this fight, the liberty of an american citizen would be as insecure as that of a frenchman. ex vice president dallas tells us that the constitution is an object to which no american mind can be too attentive, and no american heart too devoted. he further says, the constitution, in its words, is plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home bred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow citizens. senator berrien tell us that the constitution is the fundamental law, that which controls all others. the charter of our liberties, which every citizen has a personal interest in understanding thoroughly. the testimony of senator breese, lewis cass, and many others that might be named, who are everywhere esteemed as sound lawyers, so regard the constitution. i take it, therefore, that it is not presumption in a private citizen to form an opinion of that instrument. now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and i defy the presentation of a single pro slavery clause in it. on the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery. i have detained my audience entirely too long already. at some future period i will gladly avail myself of an opportunity to give this subject a full and fair discussion. allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture i have this day presented of the state of the nation, i do not despair of this country. there are forces in operation, which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. "the arm of the lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery is certain. i, therefore, leave off where i began, with hope. while drawing encouragement from the declaration of independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of american institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. no nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world, and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. the time was when such could be done. long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. but a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. the arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. it makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. from boston to london is now a holiday excursion. space is comparatively annihilated. thoughts expressed on one side of the atlantic are, distinctly heard on the other. the far off and almost fabulous pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. the celestial empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. the fiat of the almighty, "let there be light," has not yet spent its force. no abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all pervading light. the iron shoe, and crippled foot of china must be seen, in contrast with nature. africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. "ethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto god." in the fervent aspirations of william lloyd garrison, i say, and let every heart join in saying it: god speed the year of jubileethe wide world o’erwhen from their galling chains set free,th’ oppress’d shall vilely bend the knee,and wear the yoke of tyrannylike brutes no more.that year will come, and freedom’s reign,to man his plundered fights againrestore. god speed the day when human bloodshall cease to flow!in every clime be understood,the claims of human brotherhood,and each return for evil, good,not blow for blow;that day will come all feuds to end.and change into a faithful friendeach foe. god speed the hour, the glorious hour,when none on earthshall exercise a lordly power,nor in a tyrant’s presence cower;but all to manhood’s stature tower,by equal birth!that hour will, come, to each, to all,and from his prison house, the thrallgo forth. until that year, day, hour, arrive,with head, and heart, and hand i’ll strive,to break the rod, and rend the gyve,the spoiler of his prey deprive so witness heaven!and never from my chosen post,whate’er the peril or the cost,be driven. edsitement is a project of thenational endowment for the humanities

there was a problem retrieving the news feed. you can find the current doe updates on the state's news site. visit archives for state of delaware news date: february 10, 2025, 4:30   8:30 pm location: legislative hall, house hearing room 2nd floor pefc will continue the comprehensive review of public education funding for all students and populations served by district and charter schools, develop a roadmap of recommendations to implement improvements to the public education funding system, and serve as an ongoing body to review the funding annually and recommend updates and changes. more » date: february 13, 2025, 10:00 am   12:00 pm location: townsend building, cabinet room public school transportation committee mtg. more » date: february 18, 2025, 5:00   6:00 pm location: to be announced the extended learning opportunities subcommittee is established to oversee coordination, research, and planning statewide for before and after school and summer learning programs for school age children and advise the general assembly and the governor. more » de dept of education follow 5,985 6,226 join tomorrow's think thursday screening of pushout. watch and discuss the film beginning at 5:30 p.m. register here: https://bit.ly/ejlnzoom join this week's think thursday screening of the road to justice. watch and discuss the film beginning at 5:30 p.m. register here: https://bit.ly/ejlnzoom congratulations to melissa wilson from @smyrnaschools! smyrna administrative assistant named 2025 delaware educational support professional of the year  ... a registration administrative assistant from smyrna school district’s smyrna elementary school is the state’s 2025 d... news.delaware.gov delaware's governor state directory elected officials general assembly delaware courts state employees cities & towns delaware state code state regulations business first steps phone directory public meetings guides to services foia transparency choose health de tax center personal income tax privacy policy weather & travel contact us corporations franchise tax gross receipts tax withholding tax e mail / text alerts social media using readspeaker responsible disclosure report an accessibility error

top of page a timeline of george washington's military and political career during the american revolution, 1774 1783. 1774 | 1775 | 1776 | 1777 | 1778 | 1779 | 1780 | 1781 | 1782 | 1783 attends meetings in alexandria, virginia, which address the growing conflict between the colonies and parliament. washington co authors with george mason the fairfax county resolves, which protest the british "intolerable acts"  punitive legislation passed by the british in the wake of the december 16th, 1773, boston tea party. the fairfax resolves call for non importation of british goods, support for boston, and the meeting of a continental congress. the resolves are presented to the public at the fairfax county courthouse. fairfax resolves the first continental congress meets in philadelphia. washington serves as a delegate from virginia. while attending the first continental congress, washington responds to a letter from captain robert mackenzie, then in boston. mackenzie, a fellow virginia officer, criticizes the behavior of the city's rebellious inhabitants. washington sharply disagrees and defends the actions of boston's patriots. yet, like many members of congress who still hope for reconciliation, washington writes that no "thinking man in all north america," wishes "to set up for independency." george washington to robert mackenzie, october 9, 1774 the battles of lexington and concord. ethan allen and his green mountain boys, and benedict arnold and the massachusetts and connecticut militia, take fort ticonderoga on the western shore of lake champlain, capturing its garrison and munitions. the second continental congress convenes. washington attends as a delegate from virginia. congress learns of the capture of fort ticonderoga and that military reinforcements from britain are on their way to north america. british generals william howe, henry clinton, and john burgoyne arrive in boston with reinforcements for military commander thomas gage. july 12, howe's brother admiral richard howe will arrive in north america with a large fleet of warships. congress resolves to begin preparations for military defense but also sends a petition of reconciliation, the "olive branch petition," to king george iii. british general thomas gage declares massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion. he offers amnesty for all who lay down their arms  except for samuel adams and john hancock. debate begins in congress on the appointment of a commander in chief of continental forces. john hancock expects to be nominated but is disappointed when his fellow massachusetts delegate, john adams, suggests george washington instead as a commander around whom all the colonies might unite. june 15, washington is appointed commander in chief of the continental army. the forces from several colonies gathered in cambridge and boston become the founding core of that army. washington makes his acceptance speech in congress. as a gesture of civic virtue, he declines a salary but requests that congress pay his expenses at the close of the war. on july 1, 1783, washington submits to the continental board of treasury his expense account. george washington's revolutionary war expense account the battle of bunker or breeds hill. congress establishes the northern army under the command of major general philip schuyler, and to prevent attacks from the north, begins planning a campaign against the british in canada. washington assumes command of the main american army in cambridge, massachusetts, where it has been laying siege to british occupied boston. washington issues general orders to the army, announcing that they and those who enlist "are now troops of the united provinces of north america," and expressing hope "that all distinctions of colonies will be laid aside; so that one and the same spirit may animate the whole, and the only contest be, who shall render, on this great and trying occasion, the most essential service to the great and common cause in which we are all engaged." general orders, july 4, 1775 congress approves and arranges for publication of a declaration by the representatives of the united colonies of north america...., written by thomas jefferson and john dickinson. unlike jefferson's declaration of independence of a year later, this document blames parliament primarily and king george iii secondarily for the colonies' grievances. congress establishes commissions on indian relations for the north, middle, and southern regions of the colonies. congress rejects a proposal for reconciliation from the north ministry. the proposal is sent to prominent private individuals instead of to congress and falls short of independence. washington establishes a naval force to battle the british off the new england coast and to prey on british supply ships. king george iii declares all the colonies to be in a state of rebellion. washington's final draft of his "address to the inhabitants of canada" calls for their support in the war for independence. benedict arnold will carry the address on his march through the maine wilderness to take quebec. on the same day, washington calls for volunteers from among his own army to accompany benedict arnold and his virginia and pennsylvania militia. address to the inhabitants of canada, september 6, 1775 | george washington's revolutionary war expense account: september 28, 1775, expenses for printing copies of the "address" by ebenezer gray washington writes the massachusetts general court, introducing an oneida chief who has arrived at the continental army encampment in cambridge. washington believes he has come "principaly to satisfy his curiosity." but washington hopes he will take a favorable report back to his people, with "important consequences" to the american cause. the oneidas are members of the iroquois or six nation league of the upper new york region. to preserve their lands from incursions by either side, the league attempts a policy of neutrality. the revolution, however, causes a civil war among the iroquois, and the oneidas are one of the few tribes to side with the americans. george washington to massachusetts general court, september 28, 1775 washington writes congress about the treasonous activities of dr. benjamin church. church, a leading physician in boston, has been active in the sons of liberty, in the boston committee of correspondence, and the massachusetts committee of safety and provincial congress. at the same time, however, he has been spying for british military commander of boston thomas gage. in his october 5 letter to congress, washington describes how one of church's letters to gage was intercepted. eventually church is tried by several different courts and jailed. in 1778, he is allowed to go into exile. he is lost at sea on his way to the west indies. congress passes more severe penalties for treason as a result of this case. george washington to congress, october 5, 1775 a british squadron under command of lieutenant henry mowat bombards and burns the falmouth (portland, maine) waterfront after providing inhabitants time to evacuate the area. washington writes the governors of rhode island and connecticut, october 24, enclosing an account of the attack by a falmouth citizen, pearson jones, and severely criticizing the british for not allowing enough time for inhabitants to remove their belongings. when mowat briefly comes ashore on may 9, he is captured by brunswick, maine, citizens, but they are persuaded by falmouth town leaders to let him go. pearson jones's account of the destruction of falmouth, october 24, 1775 washington writes to the falmouth, maine, safety committee to explain why he cannot send the detachment from his army they request. throughout the war, the british attempt to lure washington into committing his whole army to battles he cannot win, or, into weakening it by sending out detachments to meet british incursions. george washington to falmouth, maine, safety committee, october 24, 1775 congress learns of king george's rejection of the olive branch petition, his declaration that the colonies are in rebellion, and of reports that british regulars sent to subdue them will be accompanied by german mercenaries. general orders, washington reprimands the troops in cambridge for celebrating the anti catholic holiday, guy fawkes day, while congress and the army are attempting to win the friendship of french canadian catholics. he also writes commander of the northern army, philip schuyler, on the importance of the acquisition of canada to the american cause. george washington, general orders, november 5, 1775 | george washington to philip schuyler, november 5, 1775 benedict arnold and richard montgomery and their forces join on the st. lawrence river to attack quebec. montgomery has recently taken montreal and has replaced philip schuyler, then weakened by illness, as commander of the northern army. during the attack, montgomery is killed immediately and arnold is wounded. the attack fails, but arnold follows it with a siege of the city, which also fails. on june 18, 1776, arnold will be the last to retreat from canada and the still undefeated city of montreal, then commanded by sir guy carleton. on january 27, washington will write arnold to commiserate with him on the failure of the campaign. arnold is commissioned a brigadier general in the continental army on january 10, 1776. george washington to benedict arnold, january 27, 1776 washington writes connecticut governor jonathan trumbull from cambridge. washington has "undoubted intelligence" that the british plan to shift the focus of their campaign to new york city. the capture of this city "would give them the command of the country and the communication with canada." he intends to send major general charles lee to new york to raise a force there to defend the city. george washington to jonathan trumbull, january 7, 1776 | george washington to charles lee, january 30, 1776 major general charles lee and british general henry clinton both arrive in new york city on the same day. lee writes that clinton claims "it is merely a visit to his friend tryon" [william tryon, the former royal governor of new york]. "if it is really so, it is the most whimsical piece of civility i ever heard." clinton claims that he intends heading south where he will receive british reinforcements. lee writes, "to communicate his plan to the enemy is too novel to be creditted." clinton does eventually head south, receiving his reinforcements at cape fear on march 12. the british evacuate boston. washington writes congress with the news of this and of his plans for detaching regiments of the army in cambridge to new york under brigadier general john sullivan, with the remainder of the army to follow. george washington to congress, march 27, 1776 washington leaves cambridge, massachusetts with the army and by april 14 is in new york. washington writes the new york committee of safety. new york has not yet come down decisively on the side of independence, and merchants and government officials are supplying the british ships still in the harbor. washington, angry at the continued communication with the enemy, asks the committee if the evidence about them does not suggest that the former colonies and great britain are now at war. he insists that such communications should cease. george washington to the new york safety committee, april 17, 1776 south carolina, north carolina, and virginia begin campaigns to crush the overhill cherokees. the british proclamation of 1763 limited frontier settlement to the eastern side of the appalachians to prevent incursions into indian lands and resulting costly wars. but the proclamation has not been observed and hostilities between white settlers and cherokees have grown over the decades. supplied with arms by the british, the overhill cherokees begin a series of raids. state militias respond with expeditions and raids of their own. by the treaty of dewitt's corner, may 1777, the cherokees cede almost all their land in south carolina. similar treaties result in land cessions to north carolina and virginia. a british fleet under command of commodore sir peter parker with clinton and his reinforcements approaches the harbor of charleston, south carolina. the british begin bombardment of fort sullivan in charleston harbor. failing to take the fort, the british retreat to new york. general william howe, and his brother, admiral richard howe, arrive in new york harbor from boston. in late june, the american army from the campaign against montreal and quebec reassembles at fort ticonderoga. washington leads an american independence celebration in new york city, reading the declaration of independence to the troops and sending copies of it to generals in the continental army. george washington to general artemas ward, july 9, 1776 the howe brothers attempt to contact washington to open negotiations, but washington refuses their letter which is addressed to "george washington, esq., etc., etc.," a form of address appropriate for a private gentleman rather than for the commander of an army. british forces, concentrated on staten island, cross over to long island for the war's first major battle. washington has approximately 23,000 troops, mostly militia. commanding continental officers participating are lord stirling (william alexander), israel putnam, john sullivan, and nathanael greene. howe has approximately 20,000 troops. howe attacks on long island and the american lines retreat. lord stirling holds out the longest before surrendering the same day. robert h. harrison, one of washington's aides, writes congress with news of the day's battle and information on washington's current whereabouts on long island. robert h. harrison to congress, august 27, 1776 during a heavy night fog, washington and his army silently evacuate long island by boat to manhattan, escaping almost certain capture by howe's army. washington writes congress about the evacuation and about a forthcoming request from british general william howe to meet with members of congress. a formal request from howe is sent to congress via captured american general, john sullivan. a committee made up of benjamin franklin, john adams, and edward rutledge meet with howe on september 6. but discussions cease when the committee learns that howe's only offer is that if the rebels lay down their arms, they may await the generosity of the british government. george washington to congress, august 31, 1776 howe's army attacks manhattan at kip's bay, where a connecticut militia unit flees in fear and confusion. washington writes congress, calling the rout "disgraceful and dastardly conduct," and describing his own efforts to halt it. on september 16, the same unit redeems itself in the battle of harlem heights. in his september 17 general orders, washington praises the officers and soldiers, noting the contrast to the "behavior of yesterday." george washington to congress, september 16, 1776 | george washington, general orders, september 17, 1776 washington writes congress on the obstacles to creating a permanent, well trained continental army to face the regulars of the british army and describes his frustrations in employing local militia units. he closes by acknowledging the traditional fears of a "standing army" in a republic but urges congress to consider that the war may be lost without one. george washington to congress, september 24, 1776 benjamin franklin, silas deane, and thomas jefferson are named american commissioners to france by congress. benedict arnold wins the naval battle of valcour island off crown point. a small victory, it nonetheless causes sir guy carleton to delay plans for an invasion from canada. washington orders the retreat of the army off manhattan island. new york city is lost to the british. british general william howe wins a knighthood for his successes in the campaign of 1776. fort washington and its garrison of 250 men on the east side of the hudson river fall to the british, commanded by general charles cornwallis. fort lee, on the west side, is abandoned by the americans two days later. under command of general charles cornwallis, the british invade new jersey. cornwallis takes newark november 28 and pursues washington and his army to new brunswick. british general henry clinton takes newport, rhode island. washington's army finishes crossing the delaware, with the british close behind. once on the western side of the river, washington awaits reinforcements. by mid december, he is joined by horatio gates, john sullivan, and their continental army forces. the british establish winter camps in various new jersey locations, with the hessians primarily at bordentown and trenton, and the british regulars at princeton. washington orders readings to the assembled troops from thomas paine's the crisis, with its famous passage, "these are the times that try men's souls." the crisis had just been published december 23 in philadelphia. during the night, general washington, general henry knox, and troops cross the delaware in freezing winter weather to launch a surprise attack on british and hessian mercenaries encamped at trenton. early morning, december 26, the attack begins, with generals nathanael greene and john sullivan leading the infantry assault against the hessians, commanded by colonel johann rall. after a short battle, washington's army takes trenton. congress gives washington special powers for six months. he may raise troops and supplies from states directly, appoint officers and administer the army, and arrest inhabitants who refuse to accept continental currency as payment or otherwise show themselves to be disloyal. washington acknowledges these extraordinary powers, assuring congress that he will use them to its honor. george washington to congress, january 1, 1777 washington writes congress with a general report of the state of the troops. toward the end, he notes that "free negroes who have served in the army, are very much dissatisfied at being discarded." to prevent them from serving the british instead, he has decided to re enlist them. in 1775, washington had opposed enlisting not just slaves but free blacks as well. his general orders of november 12, 1775, direct that "neither negroes, boys unable to bare arms, nor old men unfit to endure the fatigues of the campaign" are to be recruited. in 1776 and thereafter, he reverses himself on both counts. george washington, general orders, november 12, 1775 | george washington to congress, december 31, 1775 washington's army captures the british garrison at nearby princeton. washington sets up winter quarters at morristown, new jersey, where he spends the next several months rebuilding the continental army with new enlistments. british general charles cornwallis opens the 1777 campaign in new jersey in an attempt to lure washington and his army out from winter headquarters at morristown. washington writes general william maxwell, commander of the continental light infantry and also of the new jersey militia, to ready himself and his troops for the 1777 campaign. george washington to william maxwell, april 17, 1777 washington moves his headquarters to middlebrook, south of morristown. washington writes congress and general philip schuyler on the success of the new jersey militia in forcing the british out of new jersey and on the general failure of the british to win the inhabitants there back to allegiance to the crown. george washington to congress, june 20, 1777 | george washington to philip schuyler, june 20, 1777 the british evacuate new brunswick, new jersey, to amboy, and then back to staten island. the marquis de lafayette arrives in philadelphia from france to offer his services to the american cause. he is nineteen years old. he is commissioned a major general by congress and meets washington on august 1. he and washington form a close friendship. washington moves his army to the hudson above the highlands of new york. the highlands are a range of hills across the hudson valley. american forts built on each side of the hudson river, a giant thirty five ton, 850 link chain, and a series of spiked logs on the river bottom all guard access to the interior of the country. washington writes congress requesting that it order benedict arnold to join philip schuyler in halting british general john burgoyne's invasion of new york from canada, which began on june 23. general sir william howe sets sail from new york city with approximately 15,000 men. he embarks on a campaign to take philadelphia, the seat of the continental congress. general henry clinton remains in command in new york city with british and loyalist forces. howe and his force land at head of elk on chesapeake bay august 25. british colonel barry st. leger with a force of british regulars, canadians, and indian allies, lays siege to fort stanwix (schuyler) in the western mohawk valley. benedict arnold and 900 continentals arrive, forcing st. leger to retreat back to canada. the battle of oriskany, british colonel barry st. leger and seneca indians and loyalists ambush patriot german militia and oneida indian allies under command of general nicholas herkimer. the hand to hand fighting is so severe that st. leger's indian allies abandon him in disgust. herkimer dies of his wounds. the battle brings to a head a long impending civil war among the nations of the iroquois league. in the battle of bennington, where burgoyne has sent a detachment to forage for much needed supplies, the american brigadier general john stark and local militia kill or capture nearly 1,000 of burgoyne's 7,000 troop invading army, further slowing british invasion plans. in the battle of brandywine, howe and washington clash, with major engagements near birmingham meeting house hill. washington is forced to retreat. washington's army is camped about twenty miles from germantown, where howe is concentrated for his invasion of philadelphia. the british inflict 1000 casualties in a night attack on general anthony wayne's brigade near paoli's tavern. the attack on wayne is led by british general charles grey, called "no flint" grey because of his preference for the bayonet over the musket. the "paoli massacre" becomes an american rallying cry among continental troops. wayne requests a court martial to clear his name of any dishonor, a not unusual request. washington's general orders of november 1, 1777, report the court's favorable decision. george washington, general orders, november 1, 1777 at 7pm in the evening, washington's forces begin the march to germantown, where washington hopes to encircle howe's army. commanding 8,000 continentals and 3,000 militia are generals adam stephen, nathanael greene, alexander mcdougall, john sullivan, anthony wayne, and thomas conway. george washington, general orders, october 3, 1777 washington's forces are defeated at germantown. one wing marches down the wrong road, and general conway's brigade inadvertently alerts the british to the impending attack. in the course of battle, wayne and stephen's men fire upon each other in confusion. greene's retreat is mistakenly taken by the rest of the troops as a signal for a general retreat. washington writes congress an account of the battle, attempting to allay congress's and his own disappointment by describing it as "rather unfortunate than injurious" in the large scale of things. george washington to congress, october 5, 1777 washington responds to a letter from british general william howe, who has written about the destruction of mills belonging to "peaceable inhabitants" during the recent engagement. howe allows that washington probably did not order these depredations but requests that he put a stop to them. washington responds heatedly, citing depredations by the british in charles town, massachusetts, which was burned at the beginning of the war, and of other instances. in a short additional letter of the same date, washington writes howe that his pet dog has fallen into american hands and he is returning him. washington and howe correspond regularly in the course of the war, most often about prisoner exchanges. george washington to william howe, october 6, 1777 | george washington to william howe, october 6, 1777 british general john burgoyne surrenders at saratoga, to general horatio gates, the new commander of the northern army. the "convention of saratoga," negotiated by gates, allows burgoyne's army of 5,871 british regulars and german mercenaries to return to england and europe on the promise that they will not fight in north america again. congress finds various reasons for not allowing burgoyne's army to leave, for fear that its return to england or the continent will free an equal number of other troops to come to north america to fight. burgoyne's army will be detained in various locations in massachusetts and then settled on a tract of land in virginia near charlottesville. in september 1781, the "convention army" is removed to maryland because of cornwallis's invasion of virginia. at the close of the war, burgoyne's army has dwindled to a mere 1,500 due to escapes, desertions, but most significantly to the number of the troops deciding to stay and settle in america. howe and the british enter philadelphia. congress has fled to york, pennsylvania. general henry clinton in new york receives substantial reinforcements of british regulars and german mercenaries. clinton receives a note from general john burgoyne who warns him about horatio gates's army, which is growing with additions of militia. clinton and his forces attack and take fort montgomery and make a bayonet attack on fort clinton. both forts are on the west side of the hudson river. the highlands region is commanded by israel putnam, a continental major general. the forts are commanded by newly elected governor of new york, george clinton, and his brother, james, both of whom are distant cousins of british general henry clinton. george and james clinton and most of the forts' defenders manage to escape. american troops burn fort constitution on the east side of the hudson river and depart. george clinton and israel putnam decide to retreat north with the remnant of their troops. british major general john vaughn, commodore sir james wallace, and former royal governor of new york, william tryon, and their forces continue up the hudson river. october 14, they burn the shipyards of poughkeepsie, and a number of small villages and large houses, among the latter that of william livingston, governor of new jersey. the british force which began its invasion up the hudson river reaches albany. there, major general john vaughn learns of burgoyne's surrender at saratoga the previous day. british forces under major general vaughn begin their return back down the hudson river to new york city, and in early november they evacuate the highlands and the forts they have captured there. general lord stirling (william alexander) of new jersey writes washington, enclosing a note that recounts general thomas conway's criticisms of washington and of conway's preference for horatio gates as commander in chief of the continental army. october 28, gates's aide, james wilkinson, had incautiously related the matter over drink in a tavern in reading, where stirling was also staying. washington writes conway, november 5, tersely informing him of his knowledge of the affair. george washington to thomas conway, november 5, 1777 in the wake of his victory over burgoyne, horatio gates, the "hero of saratoga," has been appointed by congress as the head of a reorganized board of war. thomas conway is appointed inspector general of the army. december 13, conway visits washington and his troops at winter quarters at valley forge. there the troops have been suffering severe hardships and to some critics they no longer resemble an organized army. after exchanges between conway and congress, and washington and congress, the board's congressional members decide to visit valley forge. carrying out a thorough investigation, the board places blame on congress and thomas mifflin, quartermaster general, for the low condition of the army at valley forge. washington writes lafayette december 31, 1777, and patrick henry, february 19 and march 28, 1778. washington describes the conditions at valley forge as at times "little less than a famine." george washington to lafayette, december 31, 1777 | george washington to patrick henry, february 19, 1778 | george washington to patrick henry, march 28, 1778 washington forwards to governor nicholas cooke a letter from general james varnum advising him that rhode island's troop quota should be completed with blacks. washington urges cooke to give the recruiting officers every assistance. in february, the rhode island legislature approves the action. enlisted slaves will receive their freedom in return for their service. the resulting black regiment, commanded by white quaker christopher greene, has its first engagement at the battle of rhode island (or, newport) july 29 august 31, where it holds off two hessian regiments. the regiment also fights at the battle of yorktown. slaves enlisted in the continental army typically receive a subsistence, their freedom, and a cash payment at the end of the war. slaves and free blacks rarely receive regular pay or land bounties. in 1777, the new jersey militia act allows for the recruitment of free blacks but not slaves, as does maryland's legislature in 1781. on march 20, 1781, new york authorizes the enlistment of slaves in militia units, for which they receive their freedom at the end of the war. virginia rejects james madison's arguments for enlisting slaves in addition to free blacks, but many enlist anyway, presenting themselves for freedom after the war. george washington to nicholas cooke, january 2, 1778 the franco american treaty of amity and commerce is signed in paris. since 1776, the french government has been secretly providing congress with military supplies and financial aid. march 13, the french minister in london informs king george iii that france recognizes the united states. may 4, congress ratifies the treaty of alliance with france, and further military and financial assistance follows. by june, france and england are at war. the american revolution has become an international war. washington addresses a letter to the inhabitants of new jersey, pennsylvania, maryland, and virginia, requesting cattle for the army for the period of may through june. washington writes them that the "states have contended, not unsuccessfully, with one of the most powerful kingdoms upon earth." after several years of war, "we now find ourselves at least upon a level with our opponents." george washington to the inhabitants of new jersey, pennsylvania, maryland, and virginia, february 18, 1778 baron wilhelm ludolf gerhard augustin steuben, a volunteer from germany, arrives at valley forge with a letter of introduction from the president of congress, henry laurens. congress publishes his military training manual, which he has had translated into english. he trains a model company of forty seven men at valley forge and then proceeds to the general training of the army. congress commissions steuben a major general and makes him an inspector general of the continental army. steuben becomes an american citizen after the war. congress orders the board of war to recruit indians into the continental army. march 13, washington writes the commissioners of indian affairs on how he thinks he may employ the indians recruited. george washington to philip schuyler, james duane, and volkert douw, march 13, 1778 lord germain (george sackville), colonial secretary in london, sends british general henry clinton orders for a change of direction in the conduct of the war. the british are to focus on the south, where germain estimates loyalists to be more numerous. actions in the north are to be limited to raids and blockades of the coast. may 8, clinton will replace general sir william howe as commander of british forces in north america. the british government sends the carlisle commission to north america. the commission is made up of the earl of carlisle (frederick howard), william eden, and george johnston, and their secretary. parliament has repealed all laws opposed by the american colonies since 1763. the commission is instructed to offer home rule to the colonies and hopes to begin negotiations before congress receives news of the franco american treaty (which it does on may 8). congress ratifies the treaty and ignores the commission. april 22, congress resolves not to engage in negotiations on terms that fall short of complete independence. late in 1778, the commission returns to england. british general henry clinton begins to move the main part of the british army from pennsylvania to new york via new jersey. washington's army, also located in pennsylvania, gives chase. washington sends six brigades ahead and on june 21 he crosses the delaware river with the rest of the army. by june 22, the british are in new jersey, and benedict arnold is fast approaching the twelve mile long baggage train that makes up the end of clinton's marching army. the battle of monmouth courthouse. washington's army catches up with clinton's. the one day battle is fought to a stalemate, both armies exhausted by the day's unusual heat. but washington is impressed with the performance of the american troops against the well trained veteran british regulars. clinton and his army continue on to new york, while washington establishes camp at white plains. washington writes in his general orders of the day about the success of the new jersey militia in "harrassing and impeding their [the british] motions so as to allow the continental troops time to come up with them" before the battle of monmouth courthouse. german captain john ewald, fighting for the british, in his diary of the american war: a hessian journal (new haven and london, 1979), observes during the march through new jersey that the "whole province was in arms, following us with washington's army, constantly surrounding us on our marches and besieging our camps." "each step," ewald writes, "cost human blood." from now on, washington begins to employ local militia units in this manner more often. loyalist colonel john butler with local troops and seneca indian allies invades wyoming valley, north of the susquehanna river, and attacks at "forty fort." in the frontier war along the new york and pennsylvania frontier, onandagas, cayugas, senecas, and mohawks of the iroquois league ally with the british. joseph brant (joseph fayadanega), a mohawk war chief educated in english missionary schools and an anglican convert, has significant influence among british government and military leaders. oneidas and tuscororas ally with the americans. washington writes philip schuyler, a member of the indian commission for the northern department. george washington to philip schuyler, july 22, 1778 george rogers clark defeats the british and captures kaskaskia near the mississippi river. clark has been organizing the defense of the sparsely settled kentucky region against british and indian ally raids. in october 1777, clark puts before virginia governor patrick henry a plan to capture several british posts in the illinois country, of which kaskaskia is one. clark and about 175 men take the fort and town, which is inhabited mainly by french settlers. clark convinces them and their indian allies on the wabash river to support the american cause. the british continue to hold sway at fort detroit, commanded by lieutenant governor henry hamilton, and clark spends the next several years attempting to dislodge him. washington writes governor of virginia, thomas jefferson, december 28, 1780, in support of clark's efforts to take fort detroit. george washington to thomas jefferson, december 28, 1780 charles hector, comte d'estaing and his french fleet plan to participate with general john sullivan in a combined assault on the british position in newport, rhode island. sullivan's troops are delayed and d'estaing's fleet is battered by a hurricane after an indecisive battle. he withdraws to boston and later sails for the caribbean islands where he attacks british islands. british general henry clinton sends approximately 3,000 troops south under lieutenant colonel archibald campbell, and a fleet under command of admiral hyde parker is assembled to coordinate an invasion of south carolina and georgia with general augustine prevost and his regular and loyalist troops in florida. campbell and his troops land at savannah in late december. washington writes henry laurens, president of the continental congress, confidentially, about a plan for a french campaign against the british in canada that lafayette very much wants to lead. in 1759, during the seven years war, the french had been driven out of canada by the british and american colonial forces. washington has become personally attached to the young lafayette. but he is also aware of the eagerness of all the french officers serving with the american cause to regain canadian territories. washington expresses concerns about the future independence of the american republic should european powers retain a strong presence in north america: a french presence able to "dispute" the sea power of great britain, and spain "certainly superior, possessed of new orleans, on our right." george washington to henry laurens, november 14, 1778 washington detaches general lachlan mcintosh from valley forge to command the western department of the ohio country where bitter frontier war has erupted. mcintosh establishes fort mcintosh on the ohio river, 30 miles from pittsburgh, and fort laurens, further west, as bases from which to launch campaigns against british and shawnee, wyandot, and mingo allies operating out of fort detroit. after bitter warfare, mcintosh is forced to abandon the forts in june of 1779. augusta, the capital of georgia, falls to british forces. general benjamin lincoln, whose army is camped at purysburg, south carolina, sends a detachment toward augusta and on february 13, the british evacuate the town. congress directs washington to respond to british, indian, and loyalist attacks on frontier settlements in new york and pennsylvania. washington sends out an expedition under command of general john sullivan. sullivan's forces include william maxwell and a new jersey brigade, enoch poor and a new hampshire brigade, and edward hand and pennsylvania and maryland troops. after a series of savage raids and counter raids between the british and the americans, including an encounter with british indian ally joseph brant and his mohawks, and captain walter butler (john butler's son) and his loyalists, the expedition returns home on september 14. forty iroquois villages and their extensive farms lands and crops have been destroyed. the iroquois soon return, resettle, and rejoin the british in an retaliatory invasion in the northwest. george washington to john sullivan, march 6, 1779 british major james mark prevost defeats brigadier general john ashe and his force at briar creek, georgia. in response, benjamin lincoln and the southern army cross into georgia. lincoln's and prevost's forces move back and forth between georgia and south carolina in an attempt to engage each other, but eventually summer heat and illness bring both armies to a standstill. washington responds to henry laurens's march 16th letter on the possibility of raising a black regiment for the defense of the south. washington writes laurens that he would rather wait till the british first raise such regiments before the americans do so. he also expresses some general reservations. but "this is a subject that has never employed much of my thoughts," and he describes his opinions as "no more than the first crude ideas that have struck me upon the occasion." henry laurens is from south carolina. previously president of congress, he is serving on a committee charged with forming a plan of defense for the south. the committee issues its report march 29, urging the formation of regiments of slaves for the defense of the south, for which congress will compensate slaveowners and the slaves will receive their freedom and $50. henry laurens's son, john laurens is appointed to raise the regiments. south carolina and georgia reject congress's recommendation (see entry under july 10, 1782 below). successive commanders of the southern army, benjamin lincoln and nathanael greene, support the formation of slave regiments in the south but to no avail. george washington to henry laurens and thomas burke, march 18, 1779 | george washington to henry laurens, march 20, 1779 british general henry clinton launches another campaign up the hudson river. on may 30, new york governor george clinton orders out the militia. june 1, the british take stony point and verplank's point on either side of the river. spain declares war on great britain. william tryon, former royal governor of new york, and 2,600 loyalists and british regulars on forty eight ships raid fairport, new haven, and norwalk, connecticut. tryon wants to prosecute a war of desolation against rebel inhabitants. on july 9, he orders most of fairfield burned because its militia shot at the british from within their houses, and on july 11 he burns norwalk. british general henry clinton, probably reluctant to endorse tryon's theories of warfare, never gives him an independent command again. anthony wayne and his force of light infantry force the british out of stony point, and august 18 19 major henry lee takes the british post at paulus hook. neither of these positions are maintained after their capture, but they are morale boosters in a war that has become a stalemate. washington writes state governors jonathan trumbull (connecticut), george clinton (new york), and william livingston (new jersey) about reports of the arrival of a french fleet and of the necessity of preparing the militia and raising food supplies, especially flour. george washington, circular letter, september 27, 1779 washington writes congress and comte d'estaing, who is with his fleet off georgia or in the west indies. to congress, washington summarizes his efforts at organizing a cooperative effort with the french fleet to attack the british. to d'estaing, washington writes that "new york is the first and capital object, upon which every other is dependant," its capture likely to be a severe blow to the british. in his long letter to d'estaing, washington writes that he has "not concealed the difficulties in the way of a cooperation," but has the "highest hopes of its utility to the common cause" and its contribution to ending the war victoriously. george washington to congress, october 4, 1779 | george washington to comte d'estaing, october 4, 1779 tthe americans and comte d'estaing's fleet make a combined assault on british held savannah, georgia. the assault fails, and d'estaing and the fleet sail for france before the hurricane season begins. the french government assembles troops and another fleet for a return to north america. british general henry clinton and admiral marriot arbuthnot set sail from new york city with fourteen warships, ninety transports, and approximately 8500 troops for an invasion of charleston, south carolina. at washington's urging, major general stirling crosses the ice with 3000 men to attack the british force on staten island, commanded by general wilhelm von knyphausen. stirling is forced to retreat without attacking because of the severe cold. throughout the early winter washington orders raids on british forces left in new york. british major john simcoe leads two hundred of his rangers in a foray into new jersey. his original aim is to lure washington out from morristown and capture him. but knyphausen, commanding in clinton's absence, orders simcoe to confine himself to raids. simcoe reaches woodbridge but is forced to turn back by the militia. in march, the british continue to raid new jersey in the so called "forage wars," keeping american inhabitants and militia in a constant state of emergency. washington writes congress, reporting on intelligence he has received about movements of further british troops south. the "weak state of our force there and unhappily in this quarter also, have laid me under great embarrassments, with respect to the conduct that ought to be pursued." he estimates the continental army to be at a strength of 10,000, of which 2,800 have completed their term of service and more at the end of april. nonetheless, washington intends to send maryland and delaware continental regiments to the aid of the south. george washington to congress, april 2, 1780 george washington's general orders contain an account of the major general benedict arnold's conviction by the executive council of pennsylvania on two of four charges of malfeasance while arnold was military governor of philadelphia. washington's general orders contain the reprimand he is required to make by the council. the reprimand recognizes arnold's "distinguished services to his country" but describes his conduct in one of the two charges for which he was found guilty "peculiarly reprehensible, both in a civil and military view." george washington, general orders, april 6, 1780 british general henry clinton returns to new york city from the south. general wilhelm von knyphausen and clinton attempt to lure washington's army out of morristown. knyphausen attacks nathanael greene, philemon dickinson, and their continental and militia forces on june 23 at springfield. springfield is burned but the british abandon their position there the same day. washington expects yet another invasion up the hudson with west point as a particular target. he writes congress about the engagement at springfield and to general robert howe with instructions on safeguarding west point. george washington to congress, june 25, 1780 | george washington to robert howe, june 25, 1780 the long expected french squadron arrives in newport, rhode island, with 5,000 troops under the command of lieutenant general jean baptiste donatien de vigneur, comte de rochambeau. rochambeau declines washington's suggestion of an immediate attack on new york. the ships and troops remain in newport until june 1781, when they will move toward washington's encampment in westchester county, preparatory to a cooperative engagement with the americans against the british. benedict arnold, commander of west point, flees to the british ship vulture in the hudson river. he has been planning to defect to the british and has learned that his british contact, major john andré, has been captured and that washington is due to arrive at west point to review the fort and its garrison. washington, henry knox, lafayette, and aide colonel alexander hamilton arrive not knowing the cause of arnold's absence and proceed with a review of the fort. they discover arnold's defection. in a letter to congress the next day, washington notes that the militia who had captured major andré had been offered a "large sum of money for his release, and as many goods as they would demand, but without any effect." in his september 26 general orders, washington tells the officers and troops that "great honor is due to the american army that this is the first instance of treason of the kind where many were to be expected from the nature of the dispute, and nothing is so bright an ornament in the character of the american soldiers as their having been proof against all the arts and seductions of an insidious enemy." washington also writes george clinton, governor of new york, and john laurens about arnold's defection to the british. george washington to congress, september 26 | george washington to george clinton, september 26, 1780 | george washington, general orders, september 26, 1780 | george washington to john laurens, october 13, 1780 washington writes general anthony wayne about depredations on the civilian populace by the continental army. the army is often ill supplied and sometimes starving. but washington urges wayne to protect the "persons and properties of the inhabitants....they have, from their situation, borne much of the burthen of the war and have never failed to relieve the distresses of the army, when properly called upon." washington declares that these robberies "are as repugnant to the principles of the cause in which we are engaged as oppressive to the inhabitants and subversive of that order and discipline which must characterize every well regulated army." his november 6 general orders note the "disorderly conduct of the soldiers" with passes. george washington to anthony wayne, november 27, 1780 | george washington, general orders, november 6, 1780 benedict arnold, now a brigadier general in the british army, departs new york city with 1600 men. he plans to invade virginia. british general henry clinton summons general benjamin lincoln to surrender before beginning bombardment of charleston, south carolina. lincoln responds with a declaration to fight to the last. april 13, the british begin bombarding the town, and on april 14, lieutenant colonel banastre tarleton and his legion and loyalist militia defeat isaac huger's troops at the battle of monck's corner outside the town. having sealed the american army in the city, on may 8 clinton sends another summons to surrender. lincoln again refuses and the next evening, after further summons by clinton, the army, according to german mercenary for the british, captain johann von ewald, "shouted 'hurrah' three times," opened fire, and all the city's church bells rang out in a seeming frenzy of futile resistance. lieutenant governor christopher gadsden, who had earlier opposed surrender, now requests that lincoln do so to save the much damaged city from further destruction. gadsden is supported by two petitions by citizens. general benjamin lincoln surrenders charleston, south carolina, to british general henry clinton. german mercenary for the british, captain johann von ewald, notes upon surrender that the "garrison consisted of handsome young men whose apparel was extremely ragged, and on the whole the people looked greatly starved." officers are confined on land, while enlisted soldiers are held in prison ships in the harbor. a virginia continental regiment on its way to aid charleston gets as far as the santee river before learning of the surrender and then turns back to north carolina. clinton's proclamation to the citizens of south carolina calls for a declaration of allegiance to the crown. (johann von ewald, diary of the american war: a hessian journal [new haven and london: 1979].) henry clinton sails back to new york, leaving general charles cornwallis in command with orders to move into the interior of south carolina and to finish subduing the south. washington writes connecticut governor, jonathan trumbull, that the capture of charleston may force the british to "dissipate their force." in a june 14 letter to james bowdoin, governor of massachusetts, washington writes that the loss or "something like it seems to have been necessary, to rouse us...." george washington to jonathan trumbull, june 11, 1780 | george washington to james bowdoin, june 14, 1780 american general horatio gates arrives in coxe's mill, north carolina, to take command of a reconstituted southern army. the maryland and delaware continental regiments sent by washington have arrived under command of baron johann de kalb. two thirds of gates's army will consist of virginia and north carolina militia. the battle of camden, south carolina. gates's army marches to camden in hope of surprising the british there but instead runs into them by mistake. de kalb is mortally wounded, and after heavy fighting gates is forced to retreat by lord rawdon and cornwallis and their forces. of the approximately 4,000 american troops, only about 700 are left to rejoin gates at hillsboro. washington writes thomas jefferson, governor of virginia, with news of the heavy loss. george washington to thomas jefferson, september 21, 1780 general francis marion and militia attack a british detachment, rescuing the maryland regiment captured at camden. british general charles cornwallis begins his invasion of north carolina. washington writes thomas jefferson, governor of virginia, on the state of the army and on british general cornwallis's severity in his progress through the south. washington refers to a letter cornwallis has written to a fellow british officer, a transcript of which washington has received, in which cornwallis outlines punishments for rebels. [the text of cornwallis's letter is reproduced in annotation in the transcription linked to this document.] washington closes his letter to jefferson with a full history of benedict arnold's defection to the british. george washington to thomas jefferson, october 10, 1780 the battle of king's mountain in north carolina. cornwallis sends major patrick ferguson ahead of him to raise loyalist troops in north carolina. prior to the march to king's mountain, ferguson sends a threatening message ahead that he will lay waste to the land if its inhabitants do not cease resistance. this so angers southern militia that they quickly raise a force and brutally defeat ferguson and his troops. with king's mountain, cornwallis begins to realize that loyalist sentiment has been overestimated in british plans to subdue the south. washington writes abner nash, governor of north carolina, about the "success of the militia against col ferguson." george washington to abner nash, november 6, 1780 nathanael greene replaces horatio gates as commander of the american southern army. he assumes command in charlotte, north carolina. his officers are brigadier general daniel morgan, lieutenant colonel william washington (a cousin of george washington), and lieutenant colonel henry lee and his legion. when greene arrives in the south, he is appalled at the brutality and extent of the civil war between patriots and loyalists. the pennsylvania continentals mutiny. washington orders the new jersey continentals to march to position themselves between the mutinying troops and the british on staten island. nonetheless, british general henry clinton learns of the mutiny and on january 3 gets messengers through to the pennsylvania continentals. but the mutineers turn the messengers over to congress and they are hung as british spies. washington writes anthony wayne with news of the mutiny of the pennsylvania continentals. he worries that if congress removes itself from philadelphia, apart from the "indignity," it may provoke the mutineers to "wreak their vengeance upon the persons and properties of the citizens,...." in his january 7 letter to henry knox, washington gives him instructions on where and how to obtain the supplies and necessities that he hopes will appease the mutineers. washington describes to knox the "alarming crisis to which our affairs have arrived by a too long neglect of measures essential to the existence of an army,...." (see below on the mutiny of the new jersey continentals january 20) george washington to anthony wayne, january 3, 1781 | george washington to henry knox, january 7, 1781 benedict arnold invades richmond, virginia, and governor thomas jefferson and government officials are forced to flee. general daniel morgan and lieutenant colonel william washington defeat british lieutenant colonel banastre tarleton's legion at cowpens, south carolina. tarleton escapes and is pursued unsuccessfully by william washington and a company on horseback. the expression "tarleton's quarter," used by american soldiers during war, refers to the british officer's practice of not giving any, even in surrender. (william washington is a cousin of george washington.) nathanael greene (who took command of the southern army at charlotte, north carolina, december 2, 1780) leads general charles cornwallis and his forces on a chase through south and north carolina. greene's path avoids engagements that he cannot win, exhausts cornwallis and his army, and dangerously lengthens their supply lines. january   february, greene and cornwallis race to the dan river on the virginia border, with cornwallis failing to catch up in time to cut off greene and colonel otho williams and their forces. february 14, greene and williams cross the dan river into virginia. washington's march 21 letter to greene congratulates him on saving his baggage "notwithstanding the hot pursuit of the enemy," and assures him that his "retreat before lord cornwallis is highly applauded by all ranks and reflects much honor on your military abilities." george washington to nathanael greene, march 21, 1781 the new jersey continentals mutiny. washington, fearing the total dissolution of the army, urges severe measures. he is less excusing of this mutiny because, as he writes in a circular letter to the new england state governors, congress has been working to redress the continental army's grievances. washington orders robert howe from west point to suppress the mutiny and to execute the most extreme ringleaders. howe forms a court martial that sentences three leaders to be shot by twelve of their fellow mutineers. two are executed and one pardoned. on january 27, washington writes the congressional committee formed to respond to the soldiers' grievances that "having punished guilt and supported authority, it now becomes proper to do justice" and urges the committee to provide the much needed redress. george washington to the committee for resolving the grievances of the new jersey line, january 27, 1781 the articles of confederation are ratified by maryland, the last state to ratify, and can now go into effect. the articles had been sent to the states for ratification in 1777. washington and the comte de rochambeau, commander of the french army in rhode island, meet in wethersfield, connecticut, and agree to appeal to admiral francois joseph paul, comte de grasse, to come north for a combined operation. british general charles cornwallis encamps with troops on the virginia plantation of william byrd. british lieutenant colonel banastre tarleton nearly captures thomas jefferson at monticello. jefferson, governor of virginia, and other state officials flee to the shenandoah valley. the french army and its commander rochambeau, join washington and his army at dobb's ferry, new york. washington plans a combined assault on the british on manhattan island. august 14, he learns that the french fleet, consisting of 34 warships with transports carrying 3200 troops will be arriving in the chesapeake from the west indies under the command of admiral francois joseph paul, comte de grasse, and will be available for a combined effort until october 19. washington, rochambeau, and de grasse, meet on the ville de paris at hampton roads. september 28, their combined forces are arranged for battle against british general charles cornwallis at yorktown. the americans and french begin bombarding yorktown. october 16, cornwallis orders about 1,000 of his troops to attempt an escape across the york river. cornwallis offers a white flag and negotiations for surrender begin at moore house in yorktown. cornwallis's army surrenders. washington asks benjamin lincoln to receive the surrender. lincoln had been forced to surrender to british general henry clinton at charleston may 13, 1780. cornwallis, who is reportedly ill, designates brigadier general charles o'hara to perform the formal surrender in his place. tradition has it that as the british lay down their arms, their army band played an old scottish tune adapted to the nursery rhyme, "the world turned upside down." a british fleet leaves new york harbor to come to the aid of cornwallis in virginia. having arrived too late, the fleet hovers about the area for a few days and returns home october 28 30. washington's general orders declare that free blacks in the area in the wake of the battle of yorktown should be left to go where they please, while slaves who have followed the british army must be returned to their owners. but the confusion of war allows some slaves an opportunity to gain their freedom in a variety of ways. some slaves represent themselves as free, while others offer themselves as servants to french and american officers. washington's general orders indicate that there were difficulties in returning slaves to their pre war status. george washington, general orders, october 25, 1781 john parke ("jacky") custis, washington's stepson, dies of camp fever at yorktown. washington writes his former aide colonel john laurens. laurens has failed in his attempt to get permission from the georgia legislature to raise a regiment of slaves and washington attributes this to the "selfish passion" of the legislature. laurens has been attempting to raise such a regiment since 1779, first in his native south carolina, then in georgia. laurens is killed by the british in a skirmish on august 25, 1782. he is one of the last officer casualties of the war. george washington to john laurens, july 10, 1782 the battle of blue licks, in the appalachian west, the british and their indian allies, the wyandot, ottawa, ojibwa, shawnee, mingo, and delaware inflict heavy casualties and force the retreat of daniel boone and the kentucky militia. in response, george rogers clark leads kentucky militia on an expedition against the british into ohio country. these are often considered the last formal engagements of the revolutionary war. washington addresses mutinous continental officers at newburgh, new york. their pay long in arrears, the officers fear that their pensions will also be unpaid. in december 1782, representative officers from each state's continental line had sent a petition to congress insisting on immediate payment and suggesting the substitution of lump sums for pensions. the officers, most of whom are at the army's headquarters at newburgh, learn that congress has rejected the petition. washington calls a meeting of representative officers and staff and delivers a speech and reads an extract from congress. referring to the glasses he must wear to read the extract, he says, "gentleman, you must pardon me. i have grown gray in your service and now find myself growing blind." washington's gesture defuses the crisis. after he retires from the scene the officers adopt resolutions affirming their loyalty to congress. march 18, washington writes congress an account of the proceedings of the previous days and argues on behalf of the officers' grievances. george washington to congress, march 18, 1783 washington's general orders to the officers and troops of the continental army announce the "cessation of hostilities between the united states of america and the king of great britain." he congratulates the army, noting that those who have performed the "meanest office" have participated in a great drama "on the stage of human affairs." "nothing now remains but for the actors of this mighty scene to preserve a perfect, unvarying, consistency of character through the very last act; to close the drama with applause; and to retire from the military theatre with the same approbation of angells and men which have crowned all their former vertuous actions." george washington, general orders, april 18, 1783 washington sends sir guy carleton a copy of the proclamation on the cessation of hostilities. he describes the proclamation as having been received by him from the "sovereign power of the united states." carleton has been appointed by the british government to negotiate the cessation of hostilities and the exchange and liberation of prisoners. george washington to guy carleton, april 21, 1783 in washington's farewell orders to the continental army, he writes that the "disadvantageous circumstances on our part, under which the war was undertaken can never be forgotten." george washington, farewell orders to the armies of the united states, november 2, 1783 washington formally parts from officers at fraunces tavern, new york city. december 23, at annapolis where congress is located, washington submits his resignation of his military commission as commander in chief. his willing resignation of his military powers and his return to private life are considered striking since democratic republics are thought to be especially vulnerable to military dictatorship. washington becomes as famous for his willingness to relinquish command as for his successful conduct of it in the war. washington arrives at mount vernon. something of a "celebrity" after the war, washington receives letters of approbation from england and europe as well as from people within the newly formed united states. his acknowledgments of these letters and thoughts on his recently acquired fame can be found in series 2, letterbook 11. in this letter to henry knox, washington writes about the heavy burden of correspondence this attention has generated. george washington to henry knox, january 5, 1785
trump administration supported by in times past times readers can again expect to find a full page transcription of the declaration of independence in the newspaper this fourth of july. by david w. dunlap in the in times past column, david w. dunlap explores new york times history through artifacts housed in the museum of the times. this july, the new york times will honor the declaration of independence as it has for 102 years: with a full page tribute to the founding document. the custom actually stretches back further, to the first full year when the newspaper was under the control of the publisher adolph s. ochs (1858 1935). on july 4, 1897, the times printed a full page facsimile of the declaration. the document’s squarish shape fit almost perfectly on the 16 inch wide times page. for the next 25 years, the times fidgeted with the format. the version published on july 4, 1915, was a facsimile, but much smaller in size. the version on july 4, 1920, printed during the democratic national convention, bore the headline “america’s first platform.” that text was typeset instead of being reproduced as a facsimile. on july 4, 1922, however, a full page facsimile of the declaration was published once more, and the annual independence day tradition began. (the facsimile published in the times reproduced an 1823 engraving by william j. stone.) from 1953 to 2007, the times gradually reduced the width of the newspaper to save on the high cost of newsprint. pages shrank from 16 inches across to 12 inches across. that meant that the declaration of independence, retaining its squarish proportion, wound up only 12 inches high in print   too small to peruse the 18th century handwriting comfortably. in 2011, the publisher arthur ochs sulzberger jr. decided it was time to rethink his great grandfather’s idea. on the next july 4, readers were presented with a transcribed, typeset declaration. though it preserved the capitalization, punctuation and spelling of the original, the text was much easier to read. the page also honored tradition by including a color image of the stone engraving. the museum at the times has page proofs showing the evolution of the 2012 redesign by the art director catherine gilmore barnes.