of Inde intercourse with America was made to the petition of Congress of July 8, 1775 consequently, the last offer of reconciliation made by Congress. The members of that famous body were confronted with prudent submission or The armed resistance. The question of independence forced itself upon them and Notion the succeeding months were devoted to its consideration, and certain steps pendence taken before its declaration, which presupposed its adoption. Thus, on November 3, 1775, within four days of the news of the rejection of the petition to the King, the Congress recommended the Provincial Convention of New Hampshire" to call a full and free representation of the people, and that the representatives, if they think it necessary, establish such a form of government as, in their judgment, will best produce the happiness of the people, and most effectually secure peace and good order in the province, during the continuance of the present dispute between G[reat] Britain and the colonies.” 1 And on May 15, 1776, the Congress, taking general action, resolved "That it be recommended to the respective assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies, where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs have been hitherto established, to adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and America in general." 2 Final There was but one further step to take, as the Congress then thought and The as we today see, and that step was finally taken on July 4, 1776. Therefore, Step by way of preparation, Richard Henry Lee, on behalf of the delegates from Virginia, made the following motion on June 7th: 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. That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances. That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.3 This motion, appropriately made by Mr. Lee on behalf of the leading southern colony, was appropriately seconded by John Adams of the northern colony of Massachusetts. George Washington, of Virginia, had been appointed commander-in-chief upon motion of Maryland, seconded by John Adams of Massachusetts. The committee to draft the Declaration of Independence had as its chairman Thomas Jefferson of the colony, by virtue of that Declaration to be the State, of Virginia, in lieu of Richard Henry Lee, absent on account of illness in his family, who might otherwise have presided over the committee and drafted its report. The committee, consisting of Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, John Adams 1 Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. iii, p. 319. 2 Ibid., Vol. iv, p. 342. 3 Ibid., Vol. v, p. 425. The Declaration Signed and Proclaimed of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, and Robert R. Livingston of New York, was elected by ballot "to prepare a declaration to the effect of the said first resolution." On the 28th of June the committee brought in a draft of a Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson with slight emendations on the part of Dr. Franklin and John Adams, still to be seen in their handwriting on Mr. Jefferson's manuscript. On July 2nd, Richard Henry Lee's resolution was adopted. On the 4th day of July the Declaration of Independence, as reported by the committee, was agreed to with sundry amendments both of form and substance, and signed by John Hancock as President of the Congress, by Charles Thompson as Secretary, and by its members on August 2nd. The Declaration was published immediately, and in fact as well as in law the independence of the United States dates from the 4th day of July, 1776. On this same eventful day the Congress directed that copies be sent "to the several assemblies, conventions, and committees, or councils of safety, and to the several commanding officers of the continental troops; that it be proclaimed in each of the United States, and at the head of the army.' "2 The document consists of what may be called a preamble, stating the right of peoples to set up for themselves and to change their forms of government at their sovereign pleasure; of an imposing list of grievances suffered at the hands of George III, then King of Great Britain; and of a Declaration of Independence, based upon the right in behalf of the colonies asserted in the preamble and justified by the enumeration of grievances set forth in the body of the instrument, "tò 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; "and" for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance upon the protection of divine Providence," the delegates of the erstwhile colonies, speak 1 For an account of the drafting of the Declaration and the amendments suggested by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, see John H. Hazelton, The Declaration of Independence Its History, 1906, Chapter VI. - In a letter to Mr. Madison, dated August 30, 1823, forty-seven years after "the transactions of Independence," Mr. Jefferson made the following statement: the committee of 5. met, no such thing as a subcommittee was proposed, but they unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught. 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; because they were the two members of whose judgments and amendments I wished most to have the benefit before presenting it to the Committee; . . . their alterations were two or three only, and merely verbal. .. Pickering's observations, and mr. Adams's in addition, that it contained no new ideas, that it is a common place compilation, it's sentiments hacknied in Congress for two years before, and it's essence contained in Otis's pamphlet,' may all be true. of that I am not to be the judge. Rich. H. Lee charged it as copied from Locke's treatise on government. Otis's pamphlet I never saw, & whether I had gathered my ideas from reading or reflection I do not know. I know only that I turned to neither book or pamphlet while writing it. I did not consider it as any part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether & to offer no sentiment which had ever been expressed before. Hazelton, pp. 144-145. See also Ford, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. x, pp. 267–8. 2 Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. v, p. 516. ing now and the first time for the States, mutually pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Its For present purposes it is only necessary to state and to analyze the political philosophy contained in the preamble and the conclusion of this remarkable document, which, as the historian Buckle has, as we believe, aptly said, of the Political Declaration as a whole, " ought to be hung up in the nursery of every king, and blazoned on the porch of every royal palace." 1 1 In the preamble to this most famous of American state papers, the members of the Second Continental Congress set forth not only the reasons which impelled them to separate but the rights which they believed to be inherent and the principles which should lie at the basis of every form of government, expressed in language as classic as the thought was impressive: 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.2 Fortunately, this language is so clear and so broad that it is understood today as it was then, and its application to all states and conditions of men is seen by us of the present day, quite as it was felt by them to be applicable to the thirteen United Colonies. Certain observations of a very general nature may, however, be apposite. The dissolution of the political bands connecting a people with another is looked upon as necessary in the course of human as distinct from divine events. The consequence of this dissolution is not the gathering of that people into a province or subordinate political community, but the creation of a power, separate and distinct from all other powers and possessed of an equal rank and station to which, according to the statesmen of that day, "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." The matter is not labored or argued, it is merely stated, with its consequences. It was apparently felt that, although such action was in conformity with the laws of Nature and of Nature's God, it might not appear to be such to the princes and peoples of the old world. Therefore, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" suggested and required that they should declare the causes which impelled them to separate. Accordingly, fitting practice to precept, they thereupon stated the causes, basing them in the first instance upon certain principles, which they thus enumerated: 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 se 1 H. T. Buckle, History of Civilization in England, Am. ed., 1857, Vol. i, p. 846. 2 Journals, Vol. v, p. 510. Philosophy cure 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 to 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.1 By way of comment, it may be premised that the members of the Congress abstained from argument in laying down these truths, which, when stated, they proceed to apply in the form of conclusions rather than as premises to be proved. It is to be observed that, although convinced in their own minds, they are not dogmatic, inasmuch as they do not say, except by way of implication, that the truths they lay down are self-evident, but that they themselves hold them to be self-evident. In any event, they were to be self-evident in the New World, and the States of the New World, to be combined later into a more perfect Union, were to be based upon these truths. It is further to be observed that these rights with which men are endowed by their Creator were, in their conception, inalienable, and that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were so important as to be singled out as among these, not that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were the only inalienable rights with which men were endowed by their Creator. They were, however, the fundamental as well as inalienable rights, because to secure them governments were instituted among and by men which thus received. whatever powers they were to exercise from the consent of the governed; the meaning of which seems to be as plain as words can make it, that States or nations do not confer powers upon the governed, but that the people composing the State or nation confer upon the Government of that State or nation all the powers which it possesses, and therefore may lawfully exercise. In the next clause, taking note of history, it is declared that if, instead of securing to men the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for which governments are instituted, they have proved to be "destructive of these ends," the people have the right to alter or to abolish them, and by implication a duty is raised to institute a new government which shall be based upon such principles, and its powers organized in such form as shall seem to the people composing the State or nation most likely "to effect their Safety and Happiness." There is assuredly here no divine right to govern wrong. The State is composed of men and women grouped together and it only exists for the convenience and security of the people residing within the boundaries thereof. The Government of the State is for the benefit of the people, not the people for the benefit of the governors; and the form of government failing to effect the purpose for which the State exists, and for which the form of government 1 Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. v, p. 510. has been framed is to be brushed ruthlessly aside if it fail, and to be supplanted by one having a better chance of pleasing the individuals taken together, in whom the sovereignty, elsewhere attributed to the State or nation, resides. Such was the American conception then, such is the American conception today, of the origin of their government and the purpose of government in general. Because of the principles laid down in the preamble, and the grievances specifically stated in the document, the Declaration thus draws in measured and unanswerable terms the consequences of one and the other: 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 connetion 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 honour.1 Because of these premises and conclusions, the people of the Colonies, by their representatives in Congress assembled, declared the Colonies to be free and independent States, absolving them from allegiance to the British Crown and dissolving the political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, apparently applying the word "State" to Great Britain and erstwhile colony with a like significance. And the free and independent States, no longer spoken of as united or in union, are declared to 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." The immediate and the proximate results of this Declaration on the part of the Congress, drafted in faultless language by Jefferson, are thus stated by James Monroe, a younger contemporary, destined to be an illustrious successor of Jefferson in the Presidency: The first is that in wresting the power, or what is called the sovereignty, from the Crown it passed directly to the people. The second, that it passed directly to the people of each Colony and not to the people of all the Colonies in the aggregate; to thirteen distinct communities and not to one. To these two facts, each contributing its equal proportion, I am inclined to think that we are in an eminent degree indebted for the success of our Revolution.2 1 Journals, Vol. v, p. 514. 2 Views of the Presidents of the United States on the Subject of Internal Improvements Stanislaus Murray Hamilton, The Writings of James Monroe, 1902, Vol. 6, p. 224. See also James D. Richardson, Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (1896), Vol. 2, p. 149. Monroe's |