The Articles of Confederation - 1777 - 1776 - Amazing Grace An Unofficial National Hymn For America. 
A cover letter, dated in Philadelphia, July 6, 1776, was attached to the Declaration of Independence, [1] as it was sent to the British authorities, wherein John Hancock states:
So began the journey of the thirteen former British Colonies toward a
lasting union of Independent Sovereign States. In truth the journey had
begun with the first permanent settlement of European emigrant to these
shores, as the vast reaches of this continent and the vicissitudes of
life in settings markedly different from those of Europe shaped an
entirely new spirit, a new mentality, morality and ethic, opposed to
tyranny of any variety, secular or ecclesiastic.
Fifty-six men, appointed by their fellow citizens of each Colony,
meeting in Congress assembled, determined that the only logical course
of action by which they could throw off the yoke of tyranny was to
declare the independence and sovereignty of the individual colonies, and
join together in a firm league of friendship with each other, for their
common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and
general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all
force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account
of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
In so doing, these fifty-six men, on the authority of the good people of
the colonies, signed the Declaration of Independence, mutually pledging
to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.
Have you ever wondered what happened to the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured
before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost
their sons in the Revolutionary War, another had two sons captured. Nine
of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or the hardships of the
Revolutionary War.
What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven
were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners, men of
means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence
knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships
swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home and his
properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.
Thomas McKean was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move
his family almost constantly. He served in Congress without pay, and his
family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him and
poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer,
Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British
General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his Headquarters.
The owner quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home
was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
John Hart of
New Jersey (my g'g'g'g'g'grandfather) was driven from his wife's bedside
as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields
and gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in
forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children
vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.
Lewis Morris and Philip Livingston suffered similar fates.
Such are the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These
were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were softspoken men of
means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more.
Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged:
"For the support of this declaration, with the firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
They gave you and I a free and independent America. The history books of
today do not tell the student a lot of what happened leading to and
during the revolutionary war. We didn't just fight the British. We were
British subjects, a state of siege and repression of rights and
liberties had existed for many years and a state of war had existed for
two years prior to the signing of the Declaration, and we fought our own government for independence!
Most of the citizens of today take their liberties so much for granted.
They shouldn't, for in taking liberty for granted, they have lost much
of it. All governments progress from liberty to tyranny and despotism,
unless carefully watched and circumscribed. [2] Much
is to be learned in today's times from the events of that time, the
causes and the reasons for the uprising and indignation of the citizens
in opposition to tyranny. Many parallels can be drawn as we review the
happenings of today.
The events, by and large, leading to the decision to declare for
independence, are well delineated in the Declaration of Independence, a
bill of particulars and reasons.
During the 20 years prior, the British Parliament passed and tried to
enforce a series of tax and navigation measures that could scarcely have
been better calculated to arouse to the highest pitch the spirit of
resistance in America.
A state of siege and of war had existed, resulting from the stationing
of British troops in Boston in 1768, to aid in the enforcement of the
Townshend Acts. The ridicule of the "red-coats" by the colonials and the
"snow-balling" of a British sentry, March 5, 1770, led to a riot, which
cost the lives of several colonials. Among them was the negro, Crispus
Attucks, very probably the first person to die on the long road and
battle for independence and freedom.
Established Committees of Safety and Committees of Correspondence among
the colonies, inaugurated by Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, now began to
work. When the royal governor of Virginia dissolved the House of
Burgesses in June, 1774, the members meeting unofficially afterwards
adopted a resolution calling upon all the colonies to send delegates to
Continental Congress to meet in Philadelphia in September.
The First Continental Congress began its sessions in Philadelphia,
September 5, 1774, and was attended by 56 delegates representing every
colony except Georgia. It was soon apparent that the radicals were in
the majority. Nevertheless a plan of compromise that was proposed by
Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania came within one vote of adoption.
But the radicals were eager to avoid any appearance of yielding to the
British contentions, and succeeded presently in pushing through a far
less conciliatory program. A Declaration of Rights was adopted which
stated the American case against taxation without representation as
clearly as the somewhat conflicting opinions of the delegates on that
subject would permit, branded the "Intolerable Acts" as "unpolitic,
unjust, cruel and unconstitutional," and demanded their repeal. The
language of the Declaration was deferential enough, but the statement of
the
American case was thoroughly unyielding.
To insure that words would be backed by deeds, the Congress went on to
frame a continental "Association," by which the delegates bound
themselves and, so far as they could, those whom they represented, not
to import or use any British "goods, wares, or merchandise whatsoever."
Also, the slave trade was to be discontinued, and if the British
government failed to come to terms with the Americans inside of a year,
American exports to the British Isles and to the West Indies were to be
stopped. The enforcement of this measure was to be turned over to
popularly elected local committees, who should make it their business to
publish violations of the agreement, seize goods imported in defiance
of its terms, and maintain a united front against the British. And after
the lapse of a year a second Continental Congress should meet to
observe the progress of events.
The actions of the First Continental Congress were essentially
revolutionary. Without any constitutional authority whatever the
Congress had to all intents and purposes passed a law
and provided the means for its enforcement. For the Association proved
to be singularly
effective. In nearly every colony committees were organized which
resorted, when it was deemed necessary, to such acts of violence as
tarring and feathering to secure obedience to the regulations of the
revolutionary Congress. Colonial spokesmen urged also with some success
that such home industries as might serve to diminish dependence on Great
Britain be patronized, and that as a fit precaution against further governmental injustices militia companies be formed and munitions of war collected.
These measures had much the same effect upon British opinion as
Americans had learned by previous experience to expect. Burke and other
English realists urged that the various repressive acts be repealed, and
that the status which the colonists had enjoyed at the close of the
French and Indian War be restored. Pitt believed that a bargain could be
struck with the colonists by which they would agree to acknowledge the
legislative supremacy of Parliament in return for the promise that
Parliament would not construe its power to include the right to tax the
colonies.
Merchants in London and elsewhere, who were losing heavily from the
American boycott, petitioned Parliament to conciliate the Americans and
reopen trade. But this time the ministry, strongly supported by the King
and by a majority in the Parliament just elected, refused to yield to
the clamor. Instead it placed closer limits on New England trade and
voted to send more troops to America. Lord North's "Conciliatory
Proposition," which offered immunity from parliamentary taxes to any
colony which would agree to assume of its own accord its fair share of
imperial expense, was generally regarded in America as merely a device
to promote dissension among the Americans, and probably was so intended.
Meantime party lines in America became more and more definite. The day
of temporizing was soon over, and wavering citizens were gradually
forced to decide what course they meant to support. For some time even
the more militant were not precisely of one mind. All were agreed that
no concessions should be made to the British point of view, but the more
moderate, who hoped to avert the use of force unless in case of extreme
necessity, viewed with some misgivings the military preparations under
way. Similarly the conservatives disagreed among themselves. Some
thought that resistance, so long as it was strictly peaceful, might well
be continued in the hope of ultimate success; others were eager for
conciliation and compromise. Ultimately the conservatives parted
company. The most conservative, fearful of disturbing the status quo,
preferring the British connection to anything that resistance to the
mother country had to offer became the "Tories" or "Loyalists" of the
American Revolution. The moderates, on the other hand, gradually drifted
over to the militant, and ultimately joined with them as "Whigs" or
"Patriots" to take up arms and to win independence. Doubtless a minority
in the beginning, the revolutionists through their effective
organization and aggressive tactics ultimately won over a majority to
their way of thinking. But probably as many as a third of the colonists
were openly or secretly loyal to the mother country throughout the
Revolution.
The American Revolution did not start on the morning of April 19, 1775.
When the British fired upon a small group of hastily assembled patriots
on the Lexington Green, they were attempting to regain control of a
colony they had already lost. The real Revolution, the transfer of
political authority to the American patriots, occurred more than half a
year before, when thousands upon thousands of farmers and artisans
deposed every Crown-appointed official in Massachusetts outside of
Boston.
During the late summer of 1774, each time a court was slated to meet
under British authority in some Massachusetts town, great numbers of
angry citizens made sure it did not. These patriots were furious because
they had just been disenfranchised by the Massachusetts Government Act.
Having lost control of the governmental apparatus, and in particular of
the courts, they feared that arbitrary rulers might soon seize their
tools, their livestock, or even their farms.
Worcester was at the center of this massive uprising. It was the
patriots of Worcester who first called for a meeting of several counties
to coordinate the resistance. It was at Worcester, on September 6,
1774, that the British conceded control of the countryside. For the
preceding month, General Thomas Gage had proclaimed he would hold the
line at Worcester by sending troops to protect the court, but on the
appointed day he backed down. When British troops failed to show, 4,722
militiamen from 37 towns in Worcester County lined both sides of Main
Street and forced every official and every prominent Tory in town to
resign or recant thirty times over, hats in hand, as they made their way
through the gauntlet from Heywood's Tavern (at Exchange Street) to the
County Court House. (This was by far the greatest assembly of people
ever to convene in the town of Worcester, which had fewer than 250
voters. Some towns, having armed and trained for a month, sent virtually
every adult male.) Shortly thereafter, the town of Worcester was the
first to urge that a new government be formed "as from the Ashes of the
Phoenix."
Through it all, the revolutionaries engaged in a participatory democracy
so thorough it is difficult for us to fathom today. At every turn, all
decisions were made by the full body of the people. No action could be
taken without running the matter through the entire rank-and-file.
According to the dictionary, a "revolution" is "a forcible overthrow of
an established government or political system by the people governed."
There can be no doubt that the people of Worcester County staged a
full-scale revolution, long before Lexington and Concord. This
Revolution has been obscured for many reasons: it was bloodless, it had
no famous leaders, it was basically middle-class, it was far from the
media center in Boston, it has been overwhelmed by the repeated telling
of Paul Revere¹s ride. But we should not be misled: the patriots of 1774
staged a very potent Revolution precisely because they were nameless
yet ubiquitous, aggressive yet bloodless. The staggering power of "the
body of the people" precluded serious resistance. Local Tories,
overwhelmingly outnumbered, had no choice but to acquiesce. Officers of
the British army looked on helplessly, not knowing where, when, or how
to deal with an uprising of such breadth and magnitude. All British
troops withdrew to Boston, and General Gage reported back to London that
"the flames of sedition" had "spread universally throughout the
country, beyond conception." For seven months the patriots reigned
supreme in rural Massachusetts, unchallenged until the
counter-revolution of April 19, 1775.
Events were now moving rapidly in the direction of that appeal to arms
which many observers on both sides of the Atlantic had long foreseen. In
Massachusetts the authority of Governor Gage was openly defied; "minute
men" citizen militias were being drilled upon the village commons, and
stores of munitions were being collected at strategic spots. Neither
side wished to precipitate hostilities, but as a necessary measure of
self-defense Gage finally felt obliged to seize the military supplies
that the militia leaders had accumulated at Concord, and to arrest, if
possible, the arch-conspirators, Samuel Adams and John Hancock.
With these ends in view a small detachment of troops left Boston on the
night of April 18, 1775. The Governor had counted on surprise, but his
opponents had been on the lookout, and thanks to the activities of Paul
Revere and others the whole countryside was soon aware of the coming of
the "redcoats." When, early on the morning of the nineteenth, the troops
entered Lexington, they found a company of armed militia drawn up on
the meeting-house green, presumably with intent to oppose the British
advance. Thereupon Major Pitcairn, in command of the British, rode
forward and ordered the Americans to disperse. Captain John Parker, who
led the colonial militia, observing that his men were badly outnumbered,
also ordered them to withdraw.
But from some quarter, whether British or American will never be known, a shot was fired, "The Shot Heard Around The World",
after which the firing became general. Resistance to the British troops
proved futile, as Parker had foreseen, and leaving the Americans to
care for a number of dead and wounded, Pitcairn marched on to Concord.
There he found and destroyed some American supplies, but he scored no
further triumphs. On the return to Boston his troops were the target for
farmers and citizen militiamen who lined the Battle Road,"
and from behind stone walls, rocks, and trees picked off so many of the
redcoats that the retreat to Boston ended in a humiliating rout. The
news of this long-awaited clash soon penetrated to every village and
hamlet throughout the colonies. From all New England armed militiamen
collected around Boston to lay siege to the city, and patriotic resolves
from far and near assured the Massachusetts militamen that in the
course they had chosen they would not lack for support. The Militia
of the People had begun defending themselves and their country from the
usurpations and tyrannies of government. To Insure the Inherent Rights
of the People against tyranny and despotism in their own government is
the primary reason the Second Article of Amendment to the Constitution for the United States was later adopted.
On the tenth of May following the affairs at Lexington and Concord the
second Continental Congress began its sessions at Philadelphia. The new
Continental Congress was a far more militant body than its predecessor,
partly because the colonial governors had received instructions from
England to prevent the election of delegates to another Congress, and
the choices had therefore to be made by strictly revolutionary groups.
There were moderates present, however, such as John Dickinson of
Pennsylvania, and they not only prevented an immediate declaration of
independence, but they also succeeded in inducing the delegates to
appeal once more to the King for redress of grievances. But the tide of
revolution could not be stemmed for long. On June 15 Congress took over
the troops gathered near Boston as the Continental Army, and assumed
authority to direct the course of the war. At the suggestion of John
Adams, it gave the command of these troops to George Washington, the
well-known Virginia aristocrat. While this selection was designed in
part to flatter the South and in part to placate the upper classes of
every section, probably no wiser choice could have been made.
Washington, present in uniform as Colonel of the Citizen's Militia of
Virginia, was a delegate to the Continental Congress from Virginia when
he was chosen to head the Continental army. He set out at once to join
his command, but before he could complete his journey another battle had
been fought. Reinforcements had brought the number of British soldiers
in Boston to about ten thousand men, and General Gage, fearful lest the
Americans should gain possession of the hills that surrounded the city
and open on him with cannon fire, planned to occupy some of the hills
himself. But the Americans anticipated him, and sent twelve hundred men
under Colonel William Prescott to occupy Bunker Hill in Charlestown,
although Prescott's command went beyond Bunker Hill to Breed's Hill, and
began fortifications there. It would have been easy for the British to
entrap the Americans, since the heights in Charlestown were connected
with the mainland by only a narrow neck of land.
But Gage, instead of attempting to cut off Prescott's chance of retreat,
ordered a direct assault up the hill from the bay. Twice the colonial
lines held, and twice the British after heavy losses retreated to
re-form their lines. On the third assault, the Americans gave way, for
they had run short of ammunition. But the battle of Bunker Hill, as it
has always been called, fought June 17, 1775, proved alike to the
British and to the colonists that as soldiers the raw American citizen's
militia were not wholly to be despised.
Nevertheless the colonial troops about Boston, numbering perhaps twenty
thousand, that Washington now undertook to command were less an army
than a mob. Organization was lacking, bickering over precedence in
military rank was rife, supplies were woefully inadequate, desertions
were dangerously numerous. Washington's ability to draw order out of
chaos never showed itself to better advantage. The troops were drilled
and taught to obey, desertions were checked, and a better plan for the
siege of Boston was evolved. All summer and fall and far into the
winter, the American army watched and waited, while the British within
the city, now under the command of General Howe, hesitated to attack. At
length, on the 4th of March, 1776, Washington occupied Dorchester
Heights, to the south of Boston, and trained his cannon on the city.
Faced by this dire threat, Howe hastily embarked his troops for Nova
Scotia, taking with him also nearly a thousand Loyalists who feared to
face the now thoroughly American occupation.
The cannon that Washington used to make Boston untenable for the British
had been dragged overland from Ticonderoga, a captured British fort at
the southern end of the Lake George -- Lake Champlain approach to
Canada. This post and Crown Point, which lay farther to the north, were
made the objectives of two expeditions, one led by Ethan Allen, who held
a Connecticut commission, and another led by Benedict Arnold, under the
authority of Massachusetts. The two expeditions combined, and on the
very day that the second Continental Congress opened, Ticonderoga
surrendered without the firing of a gun. With Crown Point also taken,
the pathway to Canada seemed open, and Congress, hoping that the French
there might be induced to join in the revolt, authorized Richard
Montgomery and Benedict Arnold, with separate commands, to continue the
northward advance. In November, 1775, Montgomery took Montreal and then
cooperated with Arnold, who had made an heroic march through the Maine
woods, in the attack on Quebec. But an assault made December 31, 1775,
which cost Montgomery his life, was unsuccessful, and the winter siege
that followed proved equally futile. With the French showing no desire
to help the Americans, and the British ably commanded by Sir Guy
Carleton, Montreal was abandoned and Arnold's troops were soon forced
back to Crown Point.
The only other military activity of consequence during the first year of
the war occurred in the Carolinas, where the British made a bid for the
support of the back-country Loyalists. An expedition was dispatched by
sea to attack Wilmington and Charleston, but before the fleet reached
Wilmington a clash at Moore's Creek Bridge, February 27, 1776, between
North Carolina Patriots and Loyalists gave a complete victory to the
former. General Clinton, in command of the British expedition, then gave
up hope of taking Wilmington, and went on to Charleston, where he met
such stiff resistance that he abandoned the entire project and retired
in June, 1776.
The first year's fighting thus ended in a kind of stalemate, with the
Americans repulsed in their effort to conquer Canada, and the British
equally unable to secure a foothold anywhere in the colonies. But
American opinion during this period had not remained stationary. At the
outbreak of hostilities, only a few extremists were ready to go the
whole length of separation from Great Britain; the great majority
thought of the conflict as merely a civil war conducted to maintain
American rights within the British Empire. Indeed, such was their
sentimental attachment for the mother country that many colonials took
up arms against her with extreme reluctance. They counted on the aid of
powerful English liberals, such as Burke and Pitt, to bring the British
government to a more conciliatory point of view and they hoped devoutly
that the fighting would not last long. But the events of the year seemed
to belie their hopes. George III had turned down the American petition
for the redress of grievances, had branded the Americans as rebels,
apparently with the full support of Parliament, and had even begun to
hire German troops - "Hessians" - to assist in the vigorous prosecution
of the war.
Furthermore, there were changes in America. The old colonial governments
had crumbled away, and to forestall anarchy new political foundations
had had to be laid. Revolution had thus taken place in fact if not yet
in name. Also, American trade was suffering acutely, and since seemingly
trade with Great Britain could not be reopened - was now forbidden by
an act of Parliament - other outlets for American trade must be found.
Such outlets only an avowedly independent nation, fully competent to
make treaties for itself, would be able to obtain. And, since the war
must needs continue, expediency demanded that help be sought from the
traditional enemies of Great Britain, particularly from France. But what
foreign nation would care to exert itself merely to secure a redress of
grievances for Americans within the British Empire? On the other hand,
if the disruption of the Empire was the American goal there was plenty
of outside interest in that.
At precisely the right moment there appeared a pamphlet by Thomas Paine, entitled Common Sense,
which stated simply and effectively the American case for independence.
Paine had only lately come from England to America, but he was a lover
of liberty, and the opportunity to strike a blow in its behalf appealed
to him strongly. He ridiculed the idea of personal loyalty to the King,
of which so much had been made in American protests against the tyranny
of Parliament, and called George III a royal "brute." He saw "something
absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an
island," since "in no instance hath nature made the satellite larger
than the primary planet." He branded reconciliation as "a fallacious
dream," and found a potent argument for separation "in the blood of the
slain." The pamphlet sold by the hundreds of thousands, and in the early
months of the year 1776 was read and quoted everywhere in America.
Neither its logic nor its language was above reproach, but the common
man liked both, and the sentiment in favor of independence grew
accordingly.
That Congress was in a mood to respond to the shift in public opinion
soon seemed evident. As early as April, 1776, the North Carolina
delegates received instructions to work for independence. On May 4,
1776, two full months before the other twelve of the thirteen original
colonies did so, independence from the mother country - Great Britain -
was formally declared by the General Assembly of the Colony of Rhode
Island. This bold and brave historic action created the first free
republic in the New World. Virginia soon followed and openly proclaimed
her own secession from the British Empire. On the seventh of June, in
Congress, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, seconded by John Adams, offered
a resolution "that these United Colonies, are, and of right ought to
be, free and independent states." Doubtless this resolution expressed
the sentiments of an overwhelming majority of the delegates, but to
satisfy a small minority it was agreed, June 10, that the vote should be
delayed three weeks. Not until July 1, however, was the debate resumed,
and at this time a vote in committee of the whole showed only nine
states favorable. But when the formal vote was taken next day, every
state save New York, whose provincial convention gave its assent a week
later, was for independence.
On June 11, in anticipation of the impending vote for independence from
Great Britain, the Continental Congress appointed five men -- Thomas
Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert
Livingston -- to write a declaration that would make clear to all the
people why this break from their sovereign, King George III, was both
necessary and inevitable.
The committee then appointed Jefferson to draft a statement. Jefferson
produced a "fair" copy of his draft declaration, which became the basic
text of his "original Rough draught." The text was first submitted to
Adams, then Franklin, and finally to the other two members of the
committee. Before the committee submitted the declaration to Congress on
June 28, they made forty-seven emendations to the document. During the
ensuing congressional debates of July 1-4, Congress adopted thirty-nine
further revisions to the committee draft.
The four-page "Rough draught" illustrates the numerous additions,
deletions, and corrections made at each step along the way. Although
most of these alterations are in Jefferson's own distinctive hand -- he
later indicated the changes he believed to have been made by Adams and
Franklin -- he opposed many of the revisions made to his original
composition.
On July 2, 1776, the same day that Congress voted for independence, the
committee presented its report. Debates took up the greater parts of the
2nd, 3rd and 4th. After striking from the document a passage which
censured the British people as well as their rulers, and another which
severely arraigned the King for forcing the slave trade upon the
colonies, the remainder of the Declaration of Independence that the
committee had formulated was, in the evening of July 4th, 1776, again
reported by the committee, agreed to by the house and signed by every
member present, except Mr. Dickinson. At the signing ceremony, John
Hancock, president of the Second Continental Congress, signed first,
boldly, so, he said, King George IV would not need his spectacles to
identify him as a traitor and double the reward for his head! Two weeks
later Congress decided that the document should be engrossed on
parchment and signed by all the delegates; and this was done. On August 2
the members of Congress who were present affixed their signatures, and
later as occasion offered those who had been absent, were given an
opportunity to sign their names. [3]
The Declaration of Independence, written almost entirely by Jefferson,
borrowed heavily from Locke's Second Essay of Government, and asserted
in language already familiar the natural rights of men, including the
right of revolution. It differed markedly from earlier American protests
in that it directed its attack primarily against the King rather than
against Parliament. Hitherto the Americans, while they had denounced
Parliament unsparingly for assuming powers unwarranted by the British
Constitution, had been content to acknowledge the King as a common
sovereign, and to protest their loyalty to him. But if, as many of the
American leaders had come to maintain, the only bond of union with the
mother country lay through the King, then to break that bond their
attack would have to be directed against George III himself, rather than
against Parliament. The Declaration of Independence even blamed the
King for the "acts of pretended legislation" to which he had given his
assent, and found in the long list of grievances it recited a kind of
breach of contract on the part of the monarch which gave the colonies
the right, if they chose, to become free and independent states.
The "original Rough draught" of the Declaration of Independence, one of
the great milestones in American history, shows the evolution of the
text from the initial "fair copy" draft by Thomas Jefferson to the final
text adopted by Congress on the morning of July 4, 1776.
Page 1, Page 2, correction flap up, Page 2, correction flap down, Page 3, Page 4
The appearance of unanimity which accompanied the Declaration quite
belied the facts. Not less than a third of the Americans would have
preferred that the colonies retain their membership in the British
Empire, and in the course of the next few years probably as many as
fifty thousand of these "Loyalists" proved their sentiments by fighting
with the British forces and against the "Patriots." So numerous were the
pro-British Americans in some localities that Washington's forces,
rather than his adversaries, sometimes suffered the disadvantage of
fighting in enemy territory. Naturally the Loyalists, unless they were
fortunate enough to live where they could receive the protection of
British troops, came in for as severe persecution as the Patriots could
inflict. Many Loyalists saw their property destroyed or confiscated,
they often suffered great personal violence, and they were driven by the
thousands to take refuge in Canada, the West Indies, or England.
Nor had complete political unification been achieved in America. When
the thirteen separate colonies became thirteen separate and independent
states, the difficulties of union that had been so overwhelming before
the Revolution were by no means eradicated. The new states did indeed
cooperate through Congress in a way that they had been unable to agree
upon before; but the Articles of Confederation
which were presently presented and adopted as a codification of the
existing practice merely provided for a loose alliance that only the
necessities of war could hold together. Congress was sadly lacking in
authority, and often proved to be a debating society when what was
needed was a powerful and efficient central war office.
Over against these political dissensions in America, however, the
British were unable to present a united front. The King's party, which
strongly favored the war, was supported by the upper classes generally -
the ministers, the nobility, the majority in Parliament, the opinion on
leading lawyers, the clergy of the established church, and even a few
of the dissenting clergy such as John Wesley, the founder of Methodism.
But the opposition party was far from enthusiastic at taking up arms
against the Americans. Liberal leaders, long convinced that such a step
was as unnecessary as it was unwise, reflected that failure to win the
war would serve their ends well by discrediting the personal power of
the King and causing the downfall of his satellites in the ministry;
merchants desirous of retaining American trade longed for normal times
and were not too particular about how they should be restored;
dissenting ministers very generally lined up against the King and the
established church; the common people, who were practically without
voice in politics, showed their resentment against being required to
fight far from home and against Englishmen by refusing to enlist; and
there was the customary trouble in Ireland.
The inefficiency of the British government as a war-making machine was
also a handicap. The King's friends in the ministry were often of little
merit as administrators. Lord George Germain, Secretary of State for
the Colonies, had himself been cashiered from the army, and was sorely
lacking in talent. Lord Sandwich, in charge of the Admiralty, was a
notorious corruptionist. The American Congress with its defective
organization and its lack of experience was at times not more inept in
the direction of affairs than the British government under these
incompetent leaders.
In the comparison of armed forces, the odds told more heavily against
the Americans. The number of enlistments in the Continental Army was
great, reaching perhaps ninety thousand
in the year 1776, but this was due to the fact that short-term
enlistments, often for only three months, were permitted. Washington
rarely had as many as sixteen thousand men under his command at any one
time, and at Valley Forge his forces had dwindled to a paltry two
thousand. As the war wore on the difficulty of obtaining enlistments
increased, for the soldier's wages, low enough in any event, were always
in arrears, while work was plentiful and brought a much higher and
surer reward. Moreover, the American troops were never adequately
supplied with munitions, and they were often clothed only in rags.
Supplementing the Continental Army which Congress created was the state
militia. These troops sometimes fought well when defending their own
homes and firesides, but otherwise they were exceedingly undependable.
Practically none of the American volunteers had had anything like
adequate training in military tactics, thanks to the short-term
enlistments, and the American officers were forced to whip a new army
into shape for practically every battle. For all their shortcomings the
American soldiers were as individuals hardy and resourceful; some of
them had profited from military service during the French and Indian
War, or other Indian wars; and at least a small nucleus were deeply
enough devoted to the cause for which they fought that they stood
together regardless of all difficulties.
To oppose the Americans the British had a well-drilled regular army of
perhaps sixty thousand men, most of whom were needed on garrison duty
somewhere in the far-flung British Empire. What might have amounted
otherwise to an embarrassing shortage of troops was made up for by the
use of "Hessians," of Loyalists, or "Tories," and of Indians. The
British commanders in America were, on the whole, adequately supplied
with troops. Clinton's army in 1781 reached a total of thirty-four
thousand men. While Howe was at Philadelphia he had under his command
about seventeen thousand men. The British redcoats, moreover, were not
"summer soldiers and sunshine patriots," but were enlisted for long
terms, were rigorously disciplined, and were adequately supplied with
the materials of war. They were backed also by almost unlimited naval
power, for Great Britain was the clearly acknowledged mistress of the
ocean. Even with the assistance of the French, the efforts of the
Americans to challenge British sea-power were painfully inadequate. And
yet all this superiority was not enough to enable the British to win.
Their armies were three thousand miles away from home; their attack had
to be delivered along a thousand miles of seacoast; and they were
confronted, once they had penetrated into the interior, with a trackless
wilderness where conquest was virtually impossible as long as the will
to resist endured.
In point of military leadership, thanks mainly to the solid qualities of
Washington, the Americans were superior to the British. It cannot be
demonstrated that as a commanding officer Washington was a genius. He
was not thoroughly versed in military tactics, and he might have had
great difficulty in commanding large armies. But whatever the limits of
his ability, he proved equal to the existing emergency. His obvious
integrity, his unflinching courage, and his dogged determination
inspired his men with confidence and paved the way to ultimate victory.
He was a master of the strategy of retreat, and he understood thoroughly that while he had an Army of Militiamen in the field the Patriot cause was not lost.
The Second Article of Amendment to the Constitution for the United States Stands as the Guarantor of All The Liberties and Rights of We The People.
Text of The Declaration of Independence - 1776
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.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have
warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend
an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our 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.
Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 - July 4, 1826) considered the
Declaration of Independence his greatest achievement. It marked the
beginning of self- government in America, kindling a flame that he
believed would eventually light the world. But the Declaration was a
personal achievement for Jefferson as well, a masterpiece of eloquence
that still inspires us today.
Near the end of his life, Jefferson explained his goal in writing the
Declaration of Independence. In a letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825 he
stated:
The last letter that Mr. Jefferson ever wrote
was in acknowledgment of an invitation from the city of Washington, to
take part in a celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of
the Declaration of Independence. In this, the wisdom that comes with
death guided him into a singularly happy formulation, the clearest and
most forceful that he ever made, of his lifelong contention "that
the mass of mankind was NOT born with saddles on their backs, nor a
favoured few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the
grace of God".
Then, almost at once, his last illness came upon him. As he grew weaker,
it became evident that his mind was being much revisited by events of
half a century before. On the night of the third of July, he sat up in
bed, went through the motions of writing, and said some words, only
partly intelligible, about the Revolutionary Committee of Safety. He
seemed to wish to live until the Fourth, and when told at last that it
was, he appeared satisfied. He died painlessly at one o'clock in the
afternoon, July 4, 1826, about five hours before his old friend and
fellow, his partner in the writing of the Declaration of Independence,
John Adams, another great defender of liberty, signer of the
Declaration, and our 2nd president .
It is the "tone and spirit" of Jefferson's writing that make the
Declaration of Independence something more than a statement of political
principles. Jefferson was the apostle of a society that constantly
responds to changes in the world, a society open to new possibilities,
reminding us not so much of what we are as Americans but of what we can
be.
The Declaration of Independence is TIMELESS in the
statement of the inherent rights of all mankind. That TRUTH is presented
in this video. Please listen closely to the words of Thomas Jefferson
and hear how true they ring today.
The Declaration of Independence Presentation
This is THE TIME in history when the Declaration of
Independence should again be shared with all, especially with our youth,
as if it were a new presentation of self-evident truths. This reading
and the message is exceptionally appropriate today in these troubled
tyrannous times.
This 30mb video file may take several minutes to download
Letter of June 24, 1826, from Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman,
declining to attend the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the
Declaration of Independence in the District of Columbia -- Page 1, Page 2
Jefferson's letter to Weightman is considered one of the sublime
exaltations of individual and national liberty -- Jefferson's vision of
the Declaration of Independence and the American nation as signals to
the world of the blessings of self-government. This was the last letter
written by Jefferson, who died ten days later, on July 4, 1826.
(Transcription of the Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman)
Notes:
1. This image of the Declaration is taken from the engraving made by printer William J. Stone in 1823 and is the most frequently reproduced version of the document. The original Declaration, now exhibited in the Rotunda of the National Archives in Washington, DC, has faded badly -- largely because of poor preservation techniques during the 19th century. Today, this priceless document is maintained under the most exacting archival conditions possible.
2. See "The Law"
by Frederick Bastiat - 1850, delineating the normal progression of
governments and societies from Independence and Liberty to socialism,
thence to tyranny and despotism, usually in less than a century, due to
the insidious threat to liberty of the "power of public plunder",
a threat about which Jefferson was much concerned, it being the
downfall of virtually all previous republics. The United States is now
two and a quarter centuries since independence, and bordering on a
totally socialistic state, heavily indulging in "public plunder" at
present, unconstitutional in most aspects, operating in receivership as a
bankrupt nation.
See also "Our Enemy, the State" by Albert J. Nock - 1935, His Classic Critique Distinguishing 'Government' from the 'STATE'. See also "Undermining the Constitution, A History of Lawless Government" by Thomas James Norton - 1951
3. On the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the following
relates to the signing of the original paper copy. It was engrossed on
parchment subsequent to that signing, and signed again on the 2d of
August and later as members became present in Congress, which copy is
now exhibited in the Rotunda of the National Archives in Washington, DC,
From Jefferson's letter to Samuel Adams Wells, dated May 12, 1819. (From
Jefferson's notes taken at the time of signing, to rebut misstatement
of fact by a Governor McKean in 1817.)
". . . But the ultimate decision in the House on the report of the
Committee being by request postponed to the next morning, all the States
voted for it, except New York, whose vote was delayed for the reason
before stated. It was not till the 2d of July that the declaration
itself was taken up, nor till the 4th that it was decided, and it was
signed by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson.
The subsequent signatures of members who were not then present, and some
of them not yet in office, is easily explained, if we observe who they
were; to wit, that they were of New York and Pennsylvania. New York did
not sign till the 15th, because it was not till the 9th, (five days
after the general signature,) that their convention authorized them to
do so. The convention of Pennsylvania, learning that it had been signed
by a minority only of their delegates, named a new delegation on the
20th, leaving out Mr. Dickinson, who had refused to sign, Willing and
Humphreys who had withdrawn, reappointing the three members who had
signed, Morris who had not been present, and five new ones, to wit,
Rush, Clymer, Smith, Taylor and Ross; and Morris and the five new
members were permitted to sign, because it manifested the assent of
their full delegation, and the express will of their convention, which
might have been doubted on the former signature of a minority only. Why
the signature of Thornton of New Hampshire was permitted so late as the
4th of November, I cannot now say; but undoubtedly for some particular
reason which we should find to have been good, had it been expressed.
These were the only post-signers, and you see, Sir, that there were
solid reasons for receiving those of New York and Pennsylvania, and that
this circumstance in no wise affects the faith of this declaratory
charter of our rights and the rights of man. . . . ."
4. John Trumbull's "Declaration of Independence"
The first painting that Trumbull completed for the Rotunda shows the
signing of the Declaration of Independence in what is now called
Independence Hall, Philadelphia. The painting features the committee
that drafted the Declaration of Independence — John Adams, Roger
Sherman, Robert Livingston, Thomas Jefferson (presenting the document)
and Benjamin Franklin — standing before John Hancock, the President of
the Continental Congress. The painting includes portraits of 42 of the
56 signers and 5 other patriots. The artist sketched many of the
individuals and the room from life.
Artist: John Trumbull Oil on canvas, 12' x 18' Commissioned 1817; purchased 1819; placed in the Rotunda 1826  Look closely to see that John Adams is standing on Thomas Jefferson's foot!
For an enlarged picture click this link -- - http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/images/trumbull-large1.jpg
The scene depicted actually never took place in the presence of all the
people in the picture. The painting is often mistakenly called the
"Signing of the Declaration of Independence," but only shows the
presentation of the draft.
Reproduction of all or any parts of the above text may be used for general information.
This HTML presentation is copyright by Barefoot, October 1996
Mirroring is not Netiquette without the Express Permission of Barefoot
 On the Web December 29, 1997
Three mighty important things, Pardn'r, LOVE And PEACE and FREEDOM
 |
No comments:
Post a Comment