Chapter III (2)

The prime movers in the patriot cause continued to be the main workers for it, and gradually reinforced themselves by new and effective aiders. Astute and able men, well read in history and by no means without knowledge of international law and the methods of diplomacy, surveyed the field before them, provided for contingencies, and found full scope for their wits and wisdom. When we consider the distractions of the times, the overthrow of all previous authority, the presence and threats of anarchy, the lack of unanimity, and the number and virulence of discordant interests, and, above all, that Congress had only advisory, hardly instructive, powers, even with the most willing portion of its constituents, we can easily pardon excesses and errors, and heartily yield our admiration to the noble qualities and virtues of those who proved their claim to leadership. When we read the original papers and the full biographies of these men, we are impressed by the balance and force of their judgment, their power of expressing reasons and convictions, their calm self-mastery, and the fervor of their purposes.

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE source to which naturally we should first apply ourselves for the fullest information on the development of the purpose of independence would be the _Journals of Congress_. But our disappointment would be complete. The same reasons which enjoined on the members secrecy as to the proceedings seem to have deprived the record even of some things that were done and of almost every utterance in debate. We have to look to other sources, the most scattered and fragmentary, to learn the names even of the principal leaders in the debates, and from beginning to end we have not the report, scarcely a summary, of a single speech. Our reasonable inference from such hints is that some ten, or at most fifteen, members were the master-spirits in securing the adoption of measures, while they were opposed by some as earnest as themselves, but not as numerous. But whatever may have been written in the original _Journals_ was subjected to a cautious selection when they were printed by a committee. It is only from Jefferson himself, for instance, that we learn (Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 15) how, somewhat to his chagrin, "the rhetoric" of his draft of the Declaration was toned down. Especially do the _Journals_, as printed, suppress all evidences of strong dissension, of which we have abundant hints in fragments from John and Sam. Adams, Franklin, Dickinson, Galloway, Jefferson, Jay, and Livingston. But the _Journals_ do spread before us at length sundry admirable papers, drawn by able and judicious committees.[689]

The reader must turn to the notes appended to chapter i. of the present volume for an examination of some of the leading pamphlets occasioned by the Congresses of 1774 and 1775, and for an examination of their opposing views, with more or less warning of the inevitable issue of independence.

One may easily trace in the writings of Franklin, extending through the years preceding the Revolution, and through all the phases of the struggle, seeming inconsistencies in the expression of his opinions and judgment. But these are readily explicable by changes in time and circumstance. We must pause, however, upon the strong statement made by Lecky in the following sentence: "It may be safely asserted that if Franklin had been able to guide American opinion, it would never have ended in revolution."[690]

Opportune in the date of its publication, as well as of mighty cogency in its tone and substance, was that vigorous work by Thomas Paine, a pamphlet bearing the title "Common Sense." If we take merely the average between the superlatively exalted tributes paid to his work as the one supremely effective agency for bringing vast numbers of the people of the colonies to front the issue of independence, and the most moderate judgments which have estimated its real merit, we should leave to be assigned to it the credit of being the most inspiriting of all the utterances and publications of the time for popular effect. The opportuneness of the appearance of this remarkable essay consisted in the fact that it came into the hands of multitudes, greedy to read it, a few months before the burning question of independency was to be settled. The papers issued by Congress might well answer the needs of the most intelligent classes of the people, in reconciling them to the new phase of the struggle. But there were large numbers of persons who needed the help of some short and easy argument, homely in style and quotable between plain neighbors. And this eighteen-penny pamphlet met that necessity. It appeared anonymously. John Adams says it was ascribed to his pen. Paine had been in confidential intercourse with Franklin, and the sagacious judgment of that philosopher doubtless suggested the form and substance of some of its contents, and may have kept out of it some things less apt or wise. Washington, Franklin, and John Adams welcomed it as a vigorous agency for persuading masses of simple and honest men that their rights must now be taken into their own hands for vindication. The character of the writer alienated from him the regard of those who could and who would willingly have advanced his interests, and made him to multitudes an object of horror and contempt. Though his pamphlet bore the title of "Common Sense", Gouverneur Morris says that that was a quality which Paine himself wholly lacked. Posterity, however, may well accord to him as a writer the high consideration given to him by his contemporaries, of having happily met by his pen a crisis and a pause in the state of the popular mind. Franklin wrote that "the pamphlet had prodigious effects."[691]

Adam Smith's _Wealth of Nations_ was published in the same year. Wise men have often affirmed that if it had appeared a generation earlier, and if the doctrines and principles which it advocated had passed into the minds of statesmen and economists, peaceful rather than warlike measures would have disposed of the controversy. It required the lapse of twoscore years to convince English statesmen and economists of the practical wisdom of the leading principles advanced by this college professor. He maintained the general viciousness and folly of the English colonial administration; that while even the restricted commercial monopoly was more generous than the colonial rule of any other governments, the prohibition of manufactures was mischievous and oppressive. He agreed with Dean Tucker, that a peaceful separation of the colonies would benefit rather than harm the mother country. Yet, under existing circumstances, such a separation was impracticable, because neither the government nor the people of the realm would seriously entertain the proposition.[692]

One of the best expositions of the views held by some of the Tory writers, that the seeds of independency were sown with the early settlements and nurtured through their history, is given in a tract by Galloway,[693] which was published in London in 1780, as _Historical and Political Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion. In which the Causes of that Rebellion are pointed out, and the Policy and Necessity of offering to the Americans a System of Government founded in the Principles of the British Constitution, are clearly demonstrated. By the Author of Letters to a Nobleman on the Conduct of the American War_. He pleads that the rebellion has been encouraged by the assertion "of the injustice and oppression of the present reign by a plan formed by the administration for enslaving the colonies", and asserts that the mother country had fostered the infancy and weakness of the colonies, had espoused their quarrels, and, at an enormous cost of debt, had defended them. "The colonies are very rich and prosperous, with more than a quarter of the population of Great Britain, and should share its burdens. The rebellion did not spring from a dread of being enslaved." The writer then ably and justly traces its origin to the principles of the Puritan exiles, from whose passion for religious freedom has grown that for civil independence. He attributes much influence helpful to rebellion to the organization among the Presbyterians at Philadelphia, in 1764, which united by correspondence with the Congregationalists of New England. The other sects were generally averse to measures of violent opposition to authority. The measures of government are vindicated, and all trouble is traced to a faction in New England, sympathized with and led on by a similar faction at home. The "Circular Letter", bringing the colonies into accord, wrought the mischief. Two sharply divided parties at once were formed, or proved to exist: the one defining and standing for the right of the colonies with a redress of grievances, on the basis of a solid constitutional union with the mother country, and opposed to sedition and all acts of violence; the other resolved by all means, even though covert and fraudulent, to throw off allegiance, appeal to arms, run the venture of anarchy, and assert, and if possible attain, independence. The latter party, acting with some temporary reserve and caution, opposed all peaceable propositions, and covertly worked for their own ends. They used most effectively a system of expresses between Philadelphia and the other towns, Sam. Adams being the artful and diligent fomenter of all this mischief. By his guile, Congress was brought to approve the Resolves of the Mass. Suffolk Conference, which declared "that no obedience is due to acts of Parliament affecting Boston", and provided for an organization of the provincial militia against government. He proceeded to argue that "the American faction", as in the fourth resolve of their Bill of Rights, explicitly declare their colonial independence. This was followed by an address to his majesty,—not calling it a petition,—and which the writer proceeded to analyze with much acuteness, as being vague and evasive in its professions, and suggestive of conditions which would prove satisfactory. Finally, "the mask was thrown off", and the casting vote of the "timid and variable Mr. Dickinson" carried the Declaration of Independence. "Samuel Adams, the great director of their councils, and the most cautious, artful, and reserved man among them, did not hesitate, as soon as the vote of independence had passed, to declare in all companies that he had labored upwards of twenty years to accomplish the measure." Mr. Galloway closes with sharp strictures upon the bewildered and vacillating policy which the government has heretofore pursued, and pleads for a firm and generous "constitutional union" between the realm and the colonies. The growth of the spirit of independence necessarily makes a part of all general histories of the war, which are characterized in another place.

EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE claim of Chalmers that the passion for independence had latently existed from the very foundation of the New England colonies[694] had been early denied by Dummer in his _Defence of the N. E. Charters_. John Adams[695] had been outspoken in his advocacy of independence for more than a year before R. H. Lee introduced his resolution into Congress. He had avowed it in letters, which the British intercepted in July, 1775, and printed in a Boston newspaper. If Josiah Quincy, Jr. (_Memoirs_, 250, 341), can be believed, he found Franklin in London in 1774 holding ideas "extended on the broad scale of total emancipation" (Sparks's _Franklin_, i. 379). The resolves of Mecklenburg County in North Carolina, in May, 1775, were strongly indicative. John Jay traced the beginning of an outspoken desire to the rejection by the king of the petition of the Congress of 1775 (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, July, 1776). In the autumn of that year it is certain that the passion for independence animated the army round Boston (Frothingham's _Siege of Boston_, 263), and in December James Bowdoin was confident that the dispute must end in independence (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xii. 228). There was very far from any general adhesion to the belief in its inevitableness at all times during 1775. Washington was not conscious of the wish (Sparks, i. 131, ii. 401; Smyth, ii. 457). Gov. Franklin was expressing to Dartmouth the prevalence of a detestation of such views (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv 342). The English historians have dwelt on this (Mahon, vi. 92, 94; Lecky, iii. 414, 447, iv. 41).[696]

From the plate in W. D. Cooke's _Rev. Hist. of No. Carolina_, p. 64. Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 619, for another fac-simile and accounts of the signers; also see C. L. Hunter, _Sketches of Western North Carolina_ (Raleigh, 1877, p. 39). It has been strenuously claimed and denied that, at a meeting of the people of Mecklenburg County, in North Carolina, on May 20, 1775, resolutions were passed declaring their independence of Great Britain. The facts in the case appear to be these:—On the 31st of May, 1775, the people of this county did pass resolutions quite abreast of the public sentiment of that time, but not venturing on the field of independency further than to say that these resolutions were to remain in force till Great Britain resigned its pretensions. These resolutions were well written, attracted notice, and were copied into the leading newspapers of the colonies, North and South, and can be found in various later works (Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 619, etc.). A copy of the _S. Carolina Gazette_ containing them was sent by Governor Wright, of Georgia, to Lord Dartmouth, and was found by Bancroft in the State Paper Office, while in the _Sparks MSS._ (no. lvi.) is the record of a copy sent to the home government by Governor Martin of North Carolina, with a letter dated June 30, 1775. Of these resolutions there is no doubt (Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, p. 422). In 1793, or earlier, some of the actors in the proceeding, apparently ignorant that the record of these resolutions had been preserved in the newspapers, endeavored to supply them from memory, unconsciously intermingling some of the phraseology of the Declaration of July 4th in Congress, which gave them the tone of a pronounced independency. Probably through another dimness of memory they affixed the date of May 20, 1775, to them. These were first printed in the _Raleigh Register_, April 30, 1819. They are found to resemble in some respects the now known resolves of May 31st, as well as the national Declaration in a few phrases. In 1829 Martin printed them, much altered, in his _North Carolina_ (ii. 272), but it is not known where this copy came from. In 1831 the State printed the text of the 1819 copy, and fortified it with recollections and certificates of persons affirming that they were present when the resolutions were passed on the 20th: _The Declaration of Independence by the Citizens of Mecklenburg County, N. C., on the twentieth day of May, 1775, with documents, and proceedings of the Cumberland Association_ (Raleigh, 1831). This report of the State Committee is printed also in 4 Force, ii. 855. The resolves are reprinted in _Niles's Reg._ (1876, p. 313); in Caldwell's _Greene_; in Lossing (ii. 622), and in other places. Frothingham says he has failed to find any contemporary reference in manuscript or print to these May 20th resolutions. Jefferson (_Memoir and Corresp._, iv. 322; Randall's _Jefferson_, 1858, vol. iii. App. 2) denied their authenticity, and J. S. Jones supported their genuineness in his _Defence of the Revolutionary History of North Carolina_ (Boston, 1834). In 1847 Rev. Thomas Smith, in his _True Origin and Source of the Mecklenburgh and National Declaration of Independence_, agreed to the priority of the May 20th resolutions, but thought that both those and the national Declaration were drawn in part from the ordinary covenants of the Scottish Presbyterians,—hence agreeing naturally in some of their phraseology.

The principal attempts to sustain the authenticity of the resolutions of May 20th are F. L. Hawks's lecture in W. D. Cooke's _Revolutionary Hist. of North Carolina_, and W. A. Grahame's _Hist. Address on the Mecklenburg Centennial at Charlotte, N. C._ (N. Y. 1875). The adverse view, held generally by students, is best expressed in J. C. Welling's paper in the _No. Amer. Rev._, April, 1874, and in H. B. Grigsby's _Discourse on the Virginia Convention of 1776_ (p. 21). John Adams was surprised on their production in 1819 (_Works_, x. 380-83). Cf. further in Moore's _North Carolina_, i. 187; _No. Carolina Univ. Mag._, May, 1853; Bancroft's _United States_, orig. ed., vii. 370, and final revision, iv. 196, and also in _Hist. Mag._, xii. 378; Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 474; Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 619; Johnson's _Traditions and Reminiscences of the Amer. Rev. in the South_ (Charleston, 1851, p. 76); _Amer. Hist. Rec._, iii. 200; _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, July, 1882, p. 507; _Southern Lit. Messenger_, v. 417, 748.

The antedating of the Congressional Declaration of July 4, 1776, by local bodies, stirred beyond a wise prudence, might well have happened in days when the air was full of such feelings; but they were of little effect, except the Suffolk Resolves of Sept. 6, 1774, which were adopted by the Congress of 1774. Perhaps the earliest of these ebullitions were some votes passed by the town of Mendon, in Massachusetts, in 1773 (_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1870). A fac-simile of the record is given in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 472.]

Early in 1776 the passion for independence gathered head. In March, Edmund Quincy thought the feeling was universal in the Northern colonies (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1859, p. 232). Francis Dana, just home from England, was saying that he was satisfied no reconciliation was possible (Sparks, _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 177). The probability of independence was recognized in the instructions which Congress gave to Silas Deane in March, on his sailing for Europe. In April came the violent measure in Congress of abolishing the British custom laws. The press was beginning to give the warning note,[697] but not without an occasional counter statement, as when the _N. Y. Gazette_ (April 8, 1776) asserted that Congress had never lisped a desire for republicanism or independence. Sam Adams was urgent (Wells, ii. 397). John Adams was writing to Winthrop, of Cambridge, to restrain him from urging Massachusetts to break precipitately the union of the colonies (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 298), and he was counselling Joseph Ward to be patient, for it "required time to bring the colonies all of one mind; but", he adds, "time will do it" (_Scribner's Mag._, xi. 572).

May was the decisive month, and events marched rapidly. On the 1st, Massachusetts set up a committee to conduct the government of the province in the name of the people.[698] On the 4th the last Colonial Assembly of Rhode Island renounced its allegiance (_Newport Hist. Mag._, Jan., 1884, p. 131). A letter of Gen. Lee to Patrick Henry, on May 7th, has raised a doubt of Henry's steadfastness (Force, 5th ser., i. 95), but Henry assisted in that vote of the Virginia Convention, on the 15th, which instructed its representatives in Congress to move a vote of independence.[699] R. H. Lee wrote to Charles Lee that "the proprietary colonies do certainly obstruct and perplex the American machine."[700] Dickinson, as representing these proprietary governments, saw something different from independency in John Adams's motion of May 15th, that "the several colonies do establish governments of their own;" but when that vote had passed, Adams and everybody else, as he says, considered it was a practical throwing off of allegiance, and rendered the formal declaration of July 4th simply necessary.[701] Hawley and Warren now wrote to Sam Adams, inquiring why this hesitancy in declaring what even now exists? (Wells, ii. 393); and Winthrop urges the same question upon John Adams (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xliv. 306).

After a painting in monochrome by Stuart, which was formerly at Monticello, and is now owned by Jefferson's great-grandson, T. Jefferson Coolidge, of Boston. It was painted during Jefferson's presidency. An engraving from a copy owned by Mrs. John W. Burke, of Alexandria, Va., is given in John C. Fremont's _Memoirs of my Life_, vol. i. p. 12 (N. Y., 1887). A portrait of Jefferson, three quarters length, sitting, with papers in his lap, was painted for John Adams by M. Brown, and is engraved in Bancroft's _United States_, orig. ed., vol. viii. A picture by Neagle is engraved in Delaplaine's _Repository_ (1835). The profile by Memin is in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 484. There are various likenesses by Stuart: a full-face and a profile, owned by T. Jefferson Coolidge, of Boston,—the profile is mentioned above, and the full-face is one of a series of the Five Presidents, and it has been engraved in Higginson's _Larger History_; a full-length, belonging to the heirs of Col. T. J. Randolph, of Edgehill, Va. (engraved in stipple by D. Edwin); and other pictures in the Capitol, in the White House, at Bowdoin College, and in the possession of Edw. Coles, of Philadelphia (engraved by J. B. Forrest). The picture engraved in Sanderson's _Signers_, vii., is a Stuart. A photogravure, made of the one at Bowdoin College, is given in an account of the art collections there, issued by the college.

Lossing, in a paper on "Monticello", Jefferson's home, in _Harper's Mag._, vol. vii., pictures some of the memorials of Jefferson (cf. also _Scribner's Monthly_, v. 148), and adds views of the houses of other signers of the Declaration. This is done also by Brotherhead in his _Book of the Signers_, together with rendering in fac-simile autograph papers of each of them. Cf. J. E. Cooke on Jefferson in _Harper's Mag._, liii. p. 211; and also "The Virginia Declaration of Independence, or a group of Virginia Statesmen", with various cuts, in the _Mag. of Amer. History_, May, 1884, p. 369, giving portraits of Archibald Cary, Edmund Pendleton, Patrick Henry, R. H. Lee, Geo. Mason, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Benj. Harrison, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, with views also of Gunston Hall (Mason's home), Henry's house, Harrison's mansion of Berkeley, and of the old Raleigh tavern, associated with the patriots' meetings.]

As the debates went on, reassuring notes came from New England in respect to the Virginia resolutions. Connecticut took action on June 14th (Hinman's _Connecticut during the Rev._, 94). Langdon wrote from New Hampshire, June 26th, that he knew of none who would oppose it (_Hist. Mag._, vi. 240). The vote of July 2d finished the issue. Honest belief, intimidation, a run for luck, and more or less of self-interest[702] had made the colonies free on paper, and compelled anew the conflict which was to make their pretensions good.

This view of the building in which Congress sat is from the _Columbian Magazine_, July, 1787. Cf. Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_, i. 322, and Egle's _Pennsylvania_, p. 186; _Harper's Mag._, iii. 151. An architect's drawing of the front is on a folding sheet in _A new and complete Hist. of the Brit. Empire in America_ (London, 1757?). Cf. other views in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 272, 288. A water-color view by R. Peale is now preserved in the building. Cf. Belisle's _Hist. of Independence Hall_; Col. F. M. Etting's _Memorials of 1776_, his _Hist. of the Old State House_ (1876), and his paper in the _Penn Monthly_, iii. 577; Lossing and others in _Potter's Amer. Monthly_, vi. 379, 455, vii. 1, 67, 477; John Savage's illustrated article in _Harper's Monthly_, xxxv. p. 217. Between 1873 and 1875 the hall was restored nearly to its ancient appearance, and now has some of the furniture in it used at the time of the Declaration. Cf. view in Gay, iii. 481, and Higginson's _Larger Hist._, 278. It has become a museum to commemorate the Revolutionary characters. The reports of the committee of restoration were printed. Cf. Scharf and Westcott, i. 318, and Col. Etting's _History;_ also B. P. Poore's _Descriptive Catal. of Government Publications_, p. 945.

For the conditions of living in Philadelphia, and the appearance of the town at this time and during the war, see _Watson's Annals_; Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_ (ch. xvi., 1765-1776, xvii., 1776-1778, xviii., 1778-1783); Henry C. Watson's _Old Bell of Independence_ (Philad., 1852,—later known as _Noble Deeds of our Forefathers_); R. H. Davis in _Lippincott's Mag._ (July, 1876), xviii. 27, and in _Harper's Monthly_, lii. pp. 705, 868; and F. D. Stone on "Philadelphia Society a hundred years ago, or the reign of Continental money." in _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, iii. 361. The diaries of Christopher Marshall (Albany, 1877) and of James Allen (_Penna. Mag. of Hist._, July, 1885, pp. 176, 278, 424) are of importance in this study.]

This reproduces only the sentences near the beginning in the handwriting of Thomas Jefferson, showing his corrections. Later in the manuscript there are corrections, of no great extent, in the handwriting of John Adams and Benj. Franklin. The original paper is in the Patent Office at Washington, and is printed in Jefferson's _Writings_, i. 26; in Randall's _Jefferson_; in the _Declaration of Independence_ (Boston, 1876, published by the city), where is also a reduced fac-simile of the engraved document as signed. Cf. Guizot's _Washington_, Atlas. Lossing (_Field-Book_, ii. 281) gives a fac-simile of a paragraph nearly all of which was omitted in the final draft, as was the paragraph respecting slavery (Jefferson's _Memoir and Corresp._, i. p. 16). A letter of Jefferson to R. H. Lee, July 8, 1776, accompanying the original draft, showing the changes made by Congress, is in Lee's _Life of R. H. Lee_, i. 275. For accounts of various early drafts, and for John Adams's instrumentality in correcting it, see C. F. Adams's _John Adams_, i. 233, ii. 515. Cf. also Parton's _Jefferson_, ch. 21; and his _Franklin_, ii. 126. John Adams contended that the essence of it was in earlier tracts of Otis and Sam. Adams (_Works_, ii. 514).

On the literary character of the document, see Greene's _Historical View_, p. 382; the lives of Jefferson by Tucker, Parton, Randall, John T. Morse, Jr. The similarity of the preamble of the Constitution of Virginia and certain parts of the Declaration have been taken to show that Jefferson plagiarized (_New York Review_, no. 1), but the testimony of a letter of George Wythe to Jefferson, July 27, 1776, seems to make it clear that Jefferson was the writer of that part of the Constitution, though Geo. Mason formed the body of it. Cf. also Wirt's _Patrick Henry_ and Tucker's _Jefferson_.

The text of the Declaration as Jefferson originally wrote it will be found in Randall's _Jefferson_, p. 172; Niles's _Weekly Register_, July 3, 1813; Timothy Pickering's _Review of the Cunningham Correspondence_ (1824), the _Madison Papers_. These copies do not always agree, since different drafts were followed. It is given, with changes indicated as made by Congress, in Jefferson's _Works_, i.; Russell's _Life and Times of Fox_; Lee's _R. H. Lee_. John Adams (_Works_, ii. 511) gives the reasons why Jefferson was put at the head of the committee for drafting the Declaration (_Potter's American Monthly_, vii. 191).

Trumbull's well-known picture of the committee presenting the Declaration in Congress was made known through A. B. Durand's engraving in 1820. The medals commemorating the event are described in Baker's _Medallic Portraits of Washington_, p. 32. The house in Philadelphia in which Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence is shown in Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_ (i. 320); Watson's _Annals of Philadelphia_ (iii.); Brotherhead's _Signers_ (1861, p. 110); _Potter's American Monthly_, vi. 341; Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 483; Higginson's _Larger Hist. U. S._, 274. The desk on which he wrote it was for a long time in the possession of Mr. Joseph Coolidge of Boston, and at his death passed by his will to the custody of Congress. Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 177; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iii. 151.]

The resolutions of independency of June 7th, introduced by R. H. Lee, in accordance with instructions from Virginia,[703] are not preserved either in the MS. or printed journals, and John Adams tells us (_Works_, iii. 45) much was purposely kept out of the records; but they have been found in the secretary's files, and are given in fac-simile in Force (4th ser., vi. p. 1700). Of the proceedings and debates which followed we have, beside the printed journals (i. 365, 392), three manuscript journals.[704] For details we must go to the memoranda made by Jefferson from notes taken near the time.[705] There seems no doubt that John Adams was the leading advocate of the Declaration[706] and such traces as are found of other speakers are noted in Bancroft, orig. ed., viii. 349; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 413, 433; Randall's _Jefferson_, i. 182. Bancroft draws John Adams's character with some vigor (viii. 309). Dickinson made the main speech against Adams. Bancroft abridges it from Dickinson's own report (viii. 452); Ramsay (i. 339) sketched it. (Cf. Niles's _Principles_, 1876, p. 400, and _John Adams's Works_, iii. 54.) Adams thought Dickinson's printed speech very different from the one delivered. Galloway, in his _Examination_ before Parliament, gave only the flying rumors of what passed. The later writers summarize the debates and proceedings.[707]

There is some confusion in later days in the memory of participants, by which the decision for independence on July 2d is not kept quite distinct from the formal expression of it on July 4th. (Cf. McKean in _John Adams_, x. 88.)

It was the New York, and not the New Jersey, delegates who were not instructed to vote for the Declaration (Wells, i. 226). The position of New York is explained by W. L. Stone in _Harper's Mag._, July, 1883. The instructions from Pennsylvania and Delaware came late.[708]

After a painting owned by a descendant in New Haven. Cf. portrait by Earle in Sanderson's _Signers_ in Brotherhead's _Book of Signers_ (1861), p. 75, will be found a view of his house. He was of the Committee to draft the Declaration of Independence.]

Notwithstanding that the statements of both Jefferson (_Writings_, Boston, 1830, vol. i. 20, etc.) and Adams, made at a later day (_Autobiography_), and the printed _Journals of Congress_, seem to the effect that the Declaration was signed by the members present on July 4, 1776, it is almost certain that such was not the case.

NOTE.—These four plates show the signatures of the signers (now very much faded in the original document), arranged not as they signed, but in the order of States, beginning with Massachusetts and ending with Georgia. The signatures were really attached in six columns, containing respectively 3, 7, 12 (John Hancock heading this one), 12, 9, 13,—as is shown in a reduced fac-simile of the entire document as signed, given in _The Declaration of Independence_ (Boston, 1876). The signatures are also given in Sanderson's _Signers_, vol. i.; in _Harper's Mag._, iii. 158, etc. The formation of a set of the autographs of the "Signers" is, or rather has been, called the test of successful collecting. The signatures of Thomas Lynch, Jr., Button Gwinnett, and Lyman Hall are said to be the rarest. The Rev. Dr. Wm. B. Sprague is said to have formed three sets; but these collections, as well as those of Raffles, of Liverpool, and Tefft, of Savannah, have changed hands.

The finest is thought to belong to Dr. Thomas Addis Emmet, of New York. The set of Col. T. B. Myers is described in the _Hist. Mag._, 1868. One was sold in the Lewis J. Cist collection in N. Y., Oct., 1886 (p. 47). It has been said that "of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence, nine were born in Massachusetts, eight in Virginia, five in Maryland, four in Connecticut, four in New Jersey, four in Pennsylvania, four in South Carolina, three in New York, three in Delaware, two in Rhode Island, one in Maine, three in Ireland, two in England, two in Scotland, and one in Wales. Twenty-one were attorneys, ten Merchants, four physicians, three farmers, one clergyman, one printer; sixteen were men of fortune. Eight were graduates of Harvard College, four of Yale, three of New Jersey, two of Philadelphia, two of William and Mary, three of Cambridge, England, two of Edinburgh, and one of St. Omers.

At the time of their deaths, five were over ninety years of age, seven between eighty and ninety, eleven between seventy and eighty, twelve between sixty and seventy, eleven between fifty and sixty, seven between forty and fifty; one died at the age of twenty-seven, and the age of two is uncertain. At the time of signing the Declaration, the average of the members was forty-four years. They lived to the average age of more than sixty-five years and ten months. The youngest member was Edward Rutledge, of South Carolina, who was in his twenty-seventh year. He lived to the age of fifty-one. The next youngest member was Thomas Lynch, of the same State, who was also in his twenty-seventh year. He was cast away at sea in the fall of 1776. Benjamin Franklin was the oldest member. He was in his seventy-first year when he signed the Declaration. He died in 1790, and survived sixteen of his younger brethren. Stephen Hopkins, of Rhode Island, the next oldest member, was born in 1707, and died in 1785. Charles Carroll attained the greatest age, dying in his ninety-sixth year. William Ellery, of Rhode Island, died in his ninety-first year." The standard collected edition of their lives is a work usually called Sanderson's _Biography of the signers of the declaration of independence_ (Philadelphia, 1820-27, in 9 vols.)

_Contents._—1. View of the British colonies from their origin to their independence; John Hancock, by John Adams. 2. Benjamin Franklin, by J. Sanderson; George Wythe, by Thomas Jefferson; Francis Hopkinson, by R. Penn Smith; Robert Treat Paine, by Alden Bradford. 3. Edward Rutledge, by Arthur Middleton; Lyman Hall, by Hugh McCall; Oliver Wolcott, by Oliver Wolcott, Jr.; Richard Stockton, by H. Stockton; Button Gwinnett, by Hugh McCall; Josiah Bartlett, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Philip Livingston, by De Witt Clinton; Roger Sherman, by Jeremiah Evarts. 4. Thomas Heyward, by James Hamilton; George Read, by —— Read; William Williams, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Samuel Huntington, by Robert Waln, Jr.; William Floyd, by Augustus Floyd; George Walton, by Hugh McCall; George Clymer, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Benjamin Rush, by John Sanderson. 5. Thomas Lynch, Jr., by James Hamilton; Matthew Thornton, by Robert Waln, Jr.; William Whipple, by Robert Waln, Jr.; John Witherspoon, by Ashbel Green; Robert Morris, by Robert Waln, Jr. 6. Arthur Middleton, by H. M. Rutledge; Abraham Clark, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Francis Lewis, by Morgan Lewis; John Penn, by John Taylor; James Wilson, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Carter Braxton, by Judge Brackenborough; John Morton, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Stephen Hopkins, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Thomas M'Kean, by Robert Waln, Jr. 7. Thomas Jefferson, by H. D. Gilpin; William Hooper, by J. C. Hooper; James Smith, by Edward Ingersoll; Charles Carroll, by H. B. Latrobe; Thomas Nelson, Jr., by H. D. Gilpin; Joseph Hewes, by Edward Ingersoll. 8. Elbridge Gerry, by H. D. Gilpin; Cæsar Rodney, by H. D. Gilpin; Benjamin Harrison, by H. D. Gilpin; William Paca, by Edward Ingersoll; George Ross, by H. D. Gilpin; John Adams, by E. Ingersoll. 9. Richard Henry Lee, by R. H. Lee; George Taylor, by H. D. Gilpin; John Hart, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Lewis Morris, by E. Ingersoll; Thomas Stone, by E. Ingersoll; Francis L. Lee, by Robert Waln, Jr.; Samuel Chase, by E. Ingersoll; William Ellery, by H. D. Gilpin; Samuel Adams, by H. D. Gilpin.

Vols. 1, 2 were edited by John Sanderson; the remainder by Robert Waln, Jr. A list of the authors of the different biographies is given in the _Massachusetts Historical Society's Proceedings_, xv. 393. There was a second edition, revised, improved, and enlarged (Philadelphia, 1828, in 5 vols.). An edition revised by Robert T. Conrad was published in Philadelphia in 1865.

An enumeration of books which grew out of Sanderson's _Signers_ is given in Foster's _Stephen Hopkins_, ii. 183. Much smaller books are Charles A. Goodrich's _Lives of the Signers_ (New York, 1829), and there are other collections of brief memoirs by L. C. Judson (1829) and Benson J. Lossing. Cf. also papers by Lossing in _Harper's Mag._, iii., vii., and xlviii., and his _Field-Book_, ii. 868.

A fac-simile of the engrossed document as signed is given in _The Declaration of Independence_ (Boston, 1876), and others are in Force's _Amer. Archives_, 5th ser., i. 1595; and one was published in N. Y. in 1865. The earliest fac-simile is one engraved on copper by Peter Maverick, of which there are copies on vellum, as well as on paper. It is called _Declaration of Independence, copied from the Original in the Department of State and published, by Benjamin Owen Tyler, Professor of Penmanship. The publisher designed and executed the ornamental writing and has been particular to copy the Facsimilies exact, and has also observed the same punctuation, and copied every Capital as in the original_ (Washington, 1818).

NOTE.—The cut on this page is a reduction of a broadside issued in Boston, of which there is a copy in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society, where there are copies of similar broadsides issued in Philadelphia and Salem. The fac-simile given in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._ (iii. 483) is of the Boston broadside without the imprint at the bottom of the sheet. The first impression made for Congress was printed at Philadelphia by John Dunlap, and the copy sent to Washington is in the library of the State Department. It was also later printed in broadside at "Baltimore in Maryland, by Mary Katharine Goddard", and those of the copies which I have seen, as attested by Hancock and Thomson in their own hands, in addition to the printed signatures, and sent to the several States by order of Congress, Jan. 18, 1777, are of this Baltimore imprint. Such a copy is in the _Mass. Archives_, cxlii. 23, together with the letter of Hancock transmitting it to that State. There is another copy, similarly attested, in the Boston Public Library; and a reduced fac-simile of such a copy, with its attestations, is given in the _Orderly-book of Sir John Johnson_ (p. 220). It was generally, I think, inscribed on the records of the several States, and I have seen it in the records of the towns in New England. (Cf. _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 200.) It is copied as it appeared in the _Penna. Journal_, July 10th, in Moore's _Diary of the Rev._, i. 262; and in England it was reprinted in _Almon's Remembrancer_, iii. 258; _Annual Register_, 1776, p. 261; and in the _Gentleman's Mag._, Aug., 1776.

The earliest authorized reprint in any collection appeared at Philadelphia in 1781, in _The Constitutions of the several States of America; The Declaration of Independence; The Articles of Confederation; The Treaties between his most Christian Majesty and the United States of America. Published by order of Congress_ (Sabin, iv. 16,086, who says 200 copies were printed, and who gives various other early editions). The Rev. William Jackson edited at London, in 1783, _The constitutions of the independent states of America; the declaration of independence; and the articles of confederation. Added, the declaration of rights, non-importation agreement, and petition of Congress to the King. With appendix, containing treaties._ It can be found in Bancroft, viii. 467; H. W. Preston's _Documents illustrating American History_; Sherman's _Governmental Hist. U. S._, p. 615; Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, p. 539; and in very many other collections and places.]

From Du Simitière's _Thirteen Portraits_ (London, 1783). Cf. _Heads of illustrious Americans_ (London, 1783). The usual portrait is given in Higginson's _Larger History_, p. 270.]

McKean, in 1814, said it was not so,[709] and the best investigators of our day are agreed that the president and secretary alone signed it on that day, though Lossing, following Jefferson, has held that, though signed on that day on paper by the members, it was in the nature of a temporary authentication, and it did not preclude the more formal act of signing it on parchment, which all are agreed was done on August 2d following. Thornton, of New Hampshire, signed as late as Nov. 4th; and McKean, who was absent with the army, seems to have temporarily returned so as to sign later in the year. Thornton's name appears in the printed _Journal_ as attached to the Declaration on July 4th, and McKean's is not, though McKean was present and Thornton was not. The fact is, the printed _Journal_ is not a copy of the record of that day, and was made up without due regard to the sequence of proceedings, when prepared by a committee for the press in the early part of 1777. There is in Force's _American Archives_ (4th ser., vol. vi. p. 1729) a journal constructed by combining the original record (of which we have no printed copy) and the minutes and documents of the official files. From a collation of all these early records it appears that the vote of January 18, 1777, ordering the Declaration to be printed with the names attached,—then for the first time done,—made it convenient to use this printed record in making the published _Journal_ entry under July 4th. In this way the name of Thornton, who signed it even subsequent to Aug. 2d, appears in that printed record as having been put to the Declaration on July 4th. That any paper copy was signed on July 4th is not believed, from the fact that no such copy exists; and if it be claimed that it has been lost, there is still ground for holding rather that it never existed, inasmuch as no vote is found for any authentication except in the usual way, by Hancock and Thomson, the president and secretary. McKean's criticism was the first to confront the usual public belief of its being signed July 4th, as many respectable writers have maintained since who preferred the authority of the printed _Journal_ and of Jefferson and Adams. Such was Mahon's preference, and Peter Force rather curtly criticised him for it, in the _National Intelligencer_.[710] Force did not explain at length the grounds of his assertions, and Mahon did not alter his statement in a later edition; but a full explanation has been made by Mellen Chamberlain in his _Authentication of the Declaration of Independence_ (Cambridge, 1885), which originally made part of the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Nov., 1884, p. 273. He gives full references.

The immediate effects of the Declaration in America are traced in Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, p. 548. "No one can read", says Wm. B. Reed in his _Life of Joseph Reed_ (i. p. 195), "the private correspondence of the times without being struck with the slight impression made on either the army or the mass of the people by the Declaration of Independence."

The Declaration was, of course, at once commented on in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, in Almon's _Remembrancer_, and in the other periodical publications. Hutchinson's _Strictures_ have been mentioned. The ministry seem to have been behind the _Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress_, referred to in a preceding page, which was ostensibly written by John Lind and privately printed in London in 1776, but was soon published without his name, appearing in five different editions during the year, and was the next year (1777) printed in French both in London and La Haye. In the earlier edition the outline of a counter declaration was included (Sabin, x. 41,281-82). Lord Geo. Germaine is also said to have had a hand in _The Rights of Great Britain asserted against the claims of America_, which passed through three editions at least, the last with additions, during 1776, beside being reprinted in Philadelphia (Hildeburn, no. 3,352). Sir John Dalrymple and James Macpherson are also thought to have some share in it.[711] Lord Camden's views are given in Campbell's _Lives of the Chancellors_ (v. 301). It soon became apparent that the liberal party in England felt that the Declaration showed the Americans determined to act without their continued assistance (Smyth's _Lectures_, ii. 439). Bancroft (ix. ch. 3) traces the general effects in Europe.[712]

The appearance, Jan. 8, 1776, of the _Common Sense_, written by Thomas Paine, a stay-maker and sailor whom Franklin had accredited when he came over in the summer of 1774, had produced a sudden effect throughout the continent.[713]

Perkins (_Life and Works of Copley_, p. 70) notes three different likenesses of Hancock, painted by that artist. The first represents him sitting at a table, which bears an open book, upon which his left hand lies, while the right holds a pen. This picture, formerly in Faneuil Hall, is now in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. The Copley head has been engraved by I. B. Forrest and J. B. Longacre (_Sanderson's Signers_), and there is a woodcut in the _Memorial Hist. of Boston_, iv. p. 5, and another engraving of it in W. H. Bartlett's _United States_, p. 343. Cf. Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 358. The German picture from the _Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa_ (Neunter Theil, Nürnberg, 1777), of which a fac-simile is given herewith, is evidently based on this picture, omitting the accessories. A similar picture, with supports of cannon at the lower angles, is in Hilliard d'Auberteuil's _Essais_, i. p. 152. It seems to have been the likeness known on the continent of Europe, and is perhaps the one referred to by John Adams, in writing to Spener, a Berlin bookseller, when he says, "The portrait of Mr. Hancock has some resemblance in the dress and figure, but none at all in the countenance" (_Works_, ix. 524). The immediate prototype of the German picture may have been a London engraving, described in Smith's _British Mezzotint Portraits_ as being in an oval, with a short wig and tie at back, and professing to be painted by Littleford, and published Oct. 25, 1775, by C. Shepherd, which was one of a series of American portraits published in London from 1775 to 1778, of which some, says that authority, were reëngraved in Germany. The two other Copley pictures are described by Perkins as being owned by Hancock's descendants: one an oval, showing him dressed in blue coat laced with gold; the other a miniature on copper. There is in the Bostonian Society a photograph of a picture owned by C. L. Hancock. It will be remembered that Hancock's widow married Capt. James Scott; and it is perhaps one of these Copley pictures that is reproduced from an English print in J. C. Smith's _British Mezzotint Portraits_, p. 1321, and shown in the present engraving (the Scott picture), of which the original, an oval, bears this inscription: "The Hon^{ble} John Hancock, Esq^r, late Governor of Boston in North America, done from an original picture in the possession of Capt. James Scott. Published by John Scott, No. 4, Middle Row, Holborn. Copley pinx^t. W. Smith, sculp." Smith also gives another print, which represents Hancock as standing, with the left hand in his pocket, the other holding a letter addressed to "Mons. Monsieur Israel Putnam, major general à Long Island." The face is much like the other.

The Copley head seems also to have been used in the sitting figure, which appeared in the _Impartial History of the War in America_ (London, 1780, p. 207), of which a fac-simile is elsewhere given. The same picture was reëngraved in even poorer manner in the Boston edition of the book with the same title (1781, p. 346). Other contemporary engravings are found in the _European Magazine_ (iv. p. 105); in the _Royal American Magazine_ (March, 1774, reproduced in fac-simile in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 46); and in Murray's _Impartial History of the present War_ (1778, vol. i. p. 144). Cf. Drake's _Tea Leaves_, p. 286.

The character of Hancock had pettinesses that have served to lower his popular reputation, and this last is well reflected in the drawing of his traits in Wells's _Sam. Adams_ (ii. 381). John Adams, whose robustness of character was quite at variance with that of his friend, was not blinded to sterling qualities in the rich man, who gave an adherence to a cause that few of his position in Massachusetts did (_John Adams's Works_, x. 259, 284). Adams's grandson speaks of the biography of Hancock in Sanderson's _Signers_ as a curious specimen of unfavorable judgment in the guise of eulogy, and a sketch by this same grandson, C. F. Adams, is in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, p. 73, and a memoir by G. Mountfort in Hunt's _American Merchants_, vol. ii. The accounts in Loring's _Hundred Boston Orators_, p. 72, and by Gen. W. H. Sumner in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1854 (viii. 187), are rambling antiquarian tales.]

John Adams (_Works_, ii. 507; ix. 617) said of _Common Sense_ that it embodied a "tolerable summary of the arguments for independence which he had been speaking in Congress for nine months", and which Mahon (vi. 96) has called "cogent arguments" "in clear, bold language;" but Adams deemed unwise some of its suggestions for the governments of the States, and to counteract their influence he published anonymously his _Thoughts on Government_ (Philadelphia, 1776; Boston, 1776; often since, and also in _Works_, iv. 193; ix. 387, 398), which he says met the approval of no one of any consideration except Benjamin Rush. He added his name to the second edition, and records that it soon had due influence upon the Assemblies of the several States, when about this time they adopted their constitutions. Adams's views were first embodied in a letter to R. H. Lee, Nov. 15, 1775 (_Works_, iv. 185; Sparks's _Washington_, ii., App.). What seems an anonymous reply from a native of Virginia—that colony being then engaged in framing a constitution—was _An address to the Convention of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia_, which was an attempt to counteract the tendency to popular features in government, which Adams had inculcated. It is in Force, 4th ser., vi. 748, and was written by Carter Braxton (Hildeburn's _Issues of the press in Pennsylvania_, Philad., 1886, no. 3,340).

From Du Simitière's _Thirteen Portraits_ (London, 1783). Cf. also _Heads of illustrious Americans_ (London, 1783). There is a portrait in the gallery of the Penna. Hist. Society. Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_ (i. 274, 275) gives his likeness and a view of his house, and another picture of the house is in Brotherhead's _Signers_ (1861, p. 113). Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 267, and Potter's _Amer. Monthly_, vi. 172, 264, vii. 161.]

Adams also wrote an amplified statement of some of his views to John Penn, of North Carolina, which is given in John Taylor's _Inquiry into the principles and policy of the Government of the United States_ (1814), and in Adams's _Works_, iv. 203.

The vote of Congress of May 15, 1776, had called upon the several colonies to provide for independent governments, and Jameson (_Constitutional Conventions_, N. Y., 1867, p. 112, etc.) summarizes the actions of the several States.[714] New Hampshire was the first to act, and Belknap in his _New Hampshire_, and the histories of the other States, tell the story of their procedures. South Carolina was the next, but Virginia was the earliest to form such a constitution that it could last for many years. On June 12, 1776, she adopted her famous Declaration of Rights, drawn by Geo. Mason,[715] and June 29th perfected her constitution.[716] For New Jersey, see L. Q. C. Elmer's _Hist. of the Constitution adopted in 1776 and of the government under it_ (Newark, 1870, and in _N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 2d ser., ii. 132), and the _Journal and votes and Proceedings of the Convention of New Jersey_ (Burlington, 1776). For the movements in Pennsylvania, see Reed's _Jos. Reed_, i. ch. 7; the _Proceedings relative to the calling of the Conventions of 1776 and 1790_ (Harrisburg, 1825); Anna H. Wharton's "Thomas Wharton, first governor of Pennsylvania", in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, v. 426, vi. 91; and the biographies of the members of the convention in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, iii. and iv. The statements of the loyalist Jones in his _New York during the Rev._ (p. 321) are controverted by Johnston in his _Observations_ (p. 41).

A page from Christopher Marshall's diary, preserved in the Penna. Hist. Soc., giving his description of the public reading of the Declaration of Independence, in Philadelphia, on July 8th. Cf. _Extracts from the diary of Christopher Marshall kept in Philadelphia and Lancaster during the American Revolution, 1774-1781, edited by Wm. Duane_ (Albany, 1877). On this reading, see _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, viii. 352, and W. Sargent's _Loyal Verses of Stansbury and Odell_, p. 116.

The English notion of the way in which the proclamation was made may be learned from Edward Bernard's contemporary folio _Hist. of England_ (p. 689), where a large print represents an uncovered man on horseback reading a scroll to a crowd in the street, called "The manner in which the American Colonies declared themselves independent of the King of England throughout the different provinces on July 4, 1776." The reading took place in New York July 9th (Bancroft, ix. 36), and in Boston July 18th (_Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 183). Moore's _Diary of the Rev._, i. (1776), records from contemporary journals the way in which it was received in various places. A letter of Major F. Barber in the _New Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, v., shows how the reception of the news was observed at Fort Stanwix.]