Milestones: 1776–1783 - Office of the Historian Milestones: 1776–1783 The Declaration of Independence, 1776 By issuing the Declaration of Independence, adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, the 13 American colonies severed their political connections to Great Britain. The Declaration summarized the colonists’ motivations for seeking independence. By declaring themselves an independent nation, the American colonists were able to confirm an official alliance with the Government of France and obtain French assistance in the war against Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence Throughout the 1760s and early 1770s, the North American colonists found themselves increasingly at odds with British imperial policies regarding taxation and frontier policy . When repeated protests failed to influence British policies, and instead resulted in the closing of the port of Boston and the declaration of martial law in Massachusetts, the colonial governments sent delegates to a Continental Congress to coordinate a colonial boycott of British goods. When fighting broke out between American colonists and British forces in Massachusetts, the Continental Congress worked with local groups, originally intended to enforce the boycott, to coordinate resistance against the British.

British officials throughout the colonies increasingly found their authority challenged by informal local governments, although loyalist sentiment remained strong in some areas. Despite these changes, colonial leaders hoped to reconcile with the British Government, and all but the most radical members of Congress were unwilling to declare independence. However, in late 1775, Benjamin Franklin, then a member of the Secret Committee of Correspondence, hinted to French agents and other European sympathizers that the colonies were increasingly leaning towards seeking independence. While perhaps true, Franklin also hoped to convince the French to supply the colonists with aid. Independence would be necessary, however, before French officials would consider the possibility of an alliance. Throughout the winter of 1775–1776, the members of the Continental Congress came to view reconciliation with Britain as unlikely, and independence the only course of action available to them. When on December 22, 1775, the British Parliament prohibited trade with the colonies, Congress responded in April of 1776 by opening colonial ports—this was a major step towards severing ties with Britain.

The colonists were aided by the January publication of Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense, which advocated the colonies’ independence and was widely distributed throughout the colonies. By February of 1776, colonial leaders were discussing the possibility of forming foreign alliances and began to draft the Model Treaty that would serve as a basis for the 1778 alliance with France. Leaders for the cause of independence wanted to make certain that they had sufficient congressional support before they would bring the issue to the vote. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion in Congress to declare independence. Other members of Congress were amenable but thought some colonies not quite ready. However, Congress did form a committee to draft a declaration of independence and assigned this duty to Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Paine Benjamin Franklin and John Adams reviewed Jefferson’s draft. They preserved its original form, but struck passages likely to meet with controversy or skepticism, most notably passages blaming King George III for the transatlantic slave trade and those blaming the British people rather than their government. The committee presented the final draft before Congress on June 28, 1776, and Congress adopted the final text of the Declaration of Independence on July 4.

The British Government did its best to dismiss the Declaration as a trivial document issued by disgruntled colonists. British officials commissioned propagandists to highlight the declaration’s flaws and to rebut the colonists’ complaints. The Declaration divided British domestic opposition, as some American sympathizers thought the Declaration had gone too far, but in British-ruled Ireland it had many supporters. The Declaration’s most important diplomatic effect was to allow for recognition of the United States by friendly foreign governments. The Sultan of Morocco mentioned American ships in a consular document in 1777, but Congress had to wait until the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France for a formal recognition of U.S. independence. The Netherlands acknowledged U.S. independence in 1782. Although Spain joined the war against Great Britain in 1779, it did not recognize U.S. independence until the 1783 Treaty of Paris . Under the terms of the treaty, which ended the War of the American Revolution, Great Britain officially acknowledged the United States as a sovereign and independent nation.

The Monarchy and the American Revolution Aimee Saunders The Monarchy and the American Revolution George III ruled Britain from 1760-1820 b. June 4, 1738 d. January 29, 1820 married Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (nicknamed Monkey Face) had 15 children lived a quiet life and were in bed by 10pm King George's life was marked by several periods of illness. The first major attack was in 1788. These instances of poor health were often accompanied by incessant talking, insomnia, depression and violent outbursts. When he recovered in early 1789 his success made him popular with the people. Towards the end of his life the disease came back and he was left with short-term memory loss and senile dementia. The satire of King George's reign shows that it was moving away from stinging criticism to more comic caricatures. Linda Colley says this helps to preserve the monarchy. He escaped criticism and the blame for the loss of the American colonies because of his position as a limited Monarch.

Thus he remained popular while the Prime Minister (Lord North) received the blame American Revolution (1775-1783) The Boston Tea party signaled great trouble to the British government. As a reaction to this event the Parliament devised a series of acts which were hoped to bring Massachusetts under control. (AKA the intolerable acts) 1. Boston Port Act --closed Boston harbor 2. Massachusetts Charter Act --rebalance the colony's constitution, strengthen the executive and judicial authority 3. Justice Act-- to protect the loyal supporters. 4. Quartering Act -- troops could stay in private homes in order to be close to suspected riot areas. George III and his ministers declared Massachusetts and surrounding colonies in a rebellious state that could only be fixed by force. They imposed further restrictions, the Non-Intercourse Act of March 1775. This excludes New England from the Newfoundland fisheries, trading with anyone except Great Britain and forbids access to supplies in Caribbean. Great Britain didn't expect the amount of resistance that the Americans gave. GB only had German allies and could not entice other European countries to ally with him. The Americans signed the Treaty of Commerce and Alliance with France.

In February of 1783 the House of Commons voted to stop offensive operations in America. In March of that year they threatened Prime Minister Lord North with a vote of no confidence. Lord North and his government resigned before it could happen. The American Revolution changed the attitudes of British Radicals because it was the first time that they had lost a war and the first time they had fought Protestants. During this same period Ireland received parliamentary independence (1782). The American Revolution is thought of as a Civil War of sorts. In America one third of the population supported the revolt, one third were loyal to GB, and one third had not made up its mind. Scholars say the same was true for British citizens. As a result of losing the American colonies GB increased control of other colonies. Parliament issued the India Act of 1784, the Canada Act of 1791 and the Act of Union with Ireland in 1800. The government also tried to strengthen itself at home. There were parliament reforms, imperial reforms and religious liberation.

American colonies declare independence - Jul 04, 1776 - HISTORY.com American colonies declare independence Publisher A+E Networks On this day in 1776, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Continental Congress adopts the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims the independence of a new United States of America from Great Britain and its king. The declaration came 442 days after the first shots of the American Revolution were fired at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts and marked an ideological expansion of the conflict that would eventually involve France’s intervention on behalf of the Americans. The first major American opposition to British policy came in 1765 after Parliament passed the Stamp Act, a taxation measure designed to raise revenues for a standing British army in America. Under the banner of “no taxation without representation,” colonists convened the Stamp Act Congress in October 1765 to vocalize their opposition to the tax. With its enactment in November, most colonists called for a boycott of British goods, and some organized attacks on customhouses and homes of tax collectors. After months of protest in the colonies, Parliament finally voted to repeal the Stamp Act in March 1766.

Most colonists continued to quietly accept British rule until Parliament’s enactment of the Tea Act in 1773, a bill designed to save the faltering British East India Company by greatly lowering its tea tax and granting it a monopoly on the American tea trade. The low tax allowed the company to undercut even tea smuggled into America by Dutch traders, and many colonists viewed the act as another example of taxation tyranny. In response, militant colonists in Massachusetts organized the “Boston Tea Party,” which saw British tea valued at some £18,000 dumped into Boston Harbor. Parliament, outraged by the Boston Tea Party and other blatant acts of destruction of British property, enacted the Coercive Acts, called the Intolerable Acts by the colonists, in 1774. The Coercive Acts closed Boston to merchant shipping, established formal British military rule in Massachusetts, made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America and required colonists to quarter British troops. In response, the colonists called the first Continental Congress to consider united American resistance to the British. With the other colonies watching intently, Massachusetts led the resistance to the British, forming a shadow revolutionary government and establishing militias to resist the increasing British military presence across the colony.

In April 1775, Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, ordered British troops to march to Concord, Massachusetts, where a Patriot arsenal was known to be located. On April 19, 1775, the British regulars encountered a group of American militiamen at Lexington, and the first shots of the American Revolution were fired. Initially, both the Americans and the British saw the conflict as a kind of civil war within the British empire. To King George III, it was a colonial rebellion, and to the Americans, it was a struggle for their rights as British citizens. However, Parliament remained unwilling to negotiate with the American rebels and instead hired Hessians, German mercenaries, to help the British army crush the rebellion. In response to Britain’s continued opposition to reform, the Continental Congress began to pass measures abolishing British authority in the colonies. In January 1776, Thomas Paine published Common Sense, an influential political pamphlet that convincingly argued for American independence and sold more than 500,000 copies in just a few months.

In the spring of 1776, support for independence swept the colonies, the Continental Congress called for states to form their own governments and a five-man committee was assigned to draft a declaration. The Declaration of Independence was largely the work of Virginian Thomas Jefferson. In justifying American independence, Jefferson drew generously from the political philosophy of John Locke, an advocate of natural rights, and from the work of other English theorists. The declaration features the immortal lines, “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.” It then goes on to present a long list of grievances that provided the rationale for rebellion. On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted to approve a Virginia motion calling for separation from Britain. The dramatic words of this resolution were added to the closing of the Declaration of Independence. Two days later, on July 4, the declaration was formally adopted by 12 colonies after minor revision. New York, the 13th colony, approved it on July 19. On August 2, the declaration was signed.

The American War for Independence would last for five years. Yet to come were the Patriot triumphs at Saratoga, the bitter winter at Valley Forge, the intervention of the French and the final victory at Yorktown in 1781. In 1783, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris with Britain, the United States formally became a free and independent nation. Related Videos George III - British History - HISTORY.com Google George III: Birth and Education The Georgian era (1714-1830) spanned the combined reigns of the five British monarchs from the Electorate of Hanover, a member state of the Holy Roman Empire. George III was the first Hanoverian king born in England rather than Germany. His parents were Frederick, prince of Wales, and Augusta of Saxe-Gotha. Did You Know? The planet Uranus was originally named "Georgium sidus," the Georgian Star, after King George III of England, who had funded the 40-foot telescope William Herschel used in its discovery. On his father’s death in 1751, the 12-year-old George became prince of Wales.

He was cared for in relative isolation by his mother and tutored by the Scottish nobleman Lord Bute. George III: Early Reign George III became king of Great Britain and Ireland in 1760 following his grandfather George II’s death. In his accession speech to Parliament, the 22-year-old monarch played down his Hanoverian connections. “Born and educated in this country,” he said, “I glory in the name of Britain.” A year after his coronation, George was married to Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, the daughter of a German duke. It was a political union—the two met for the first time on their wedding day—but a fruitful one, producing 15 children. George III worked for an expedited end to the Seven Years’ War (1756-63), taking a position that forced his influential war minister William Pitt the Elder (who wanted to broaden the conflict) to resign in 1761. The next year George appointed Lord Bute as his prime minister, the first in a quick succession of five ineffective ministers. In 1764 Prime Minister George Grenville introduced the Stamp Act as a way of raising revenue in British America.

The act was fervently opposed in America, especially by the pamphleteers whose paper would be taxed. Parliament would repeal the act two years later, but mistrust persisted in the colonies. George III: The American Revolution In 1770 Lord North became prime minister, beginning a 12-year period of parliamentary stability. In 1773 he passed an act taxing tea in the colonies. The Americans complained of taxation without representation (and staged the Boston Tea Party ), but North held firm with George’s backing. The American Revolution began on April 19, 1775, with the Battles of Lexington and Concord . The next year, the Declaration of Independence laid out the Americans’ case for freedom, portraying George III as an inflexible tyrant who had squandered his right to govern the colonies. In reality the situation was more complex: Parliamentary ministers, not the crown, were responsible for colonial policies, though George still had means of direct and indirect influence. The king was reluctant to come to terms with his army’s defeat at Yorktown in 1781. He drafted an abdication speech but in the end decided to defer to Parliament’s peace negotiations.

The 1783 Treaty of Paris recognized the United States and ceded Florida to Spain. George III: Later Rule and Mental Illness At the end of 1783, Lord North’s coalition was forced out by William Pitt the Younger, who would be prime minister for more than 17 years. In 1778 George lapsed into a months-long period of violent insanity. He was restrained with a straitjacket and suffered various treatments as crisis of rule unfolded around him. He recovered the next year and reigned for the next 12 as a newly beloved monarch and symbol of stability in the era of France’s revolutionary chaos. George’s support of England’s role in the French Revolutionary Wars of the late 1790s offered early resistance against the Napoleonic juggernaut. George suffered a second major bout of insanity in 1804 and recovered, but in 1810 he slipped into his final illness. A year later his son, the future George IV, became prince regent, giving him effective rule for the War of 1812 and Napoleon’s final defeat at Waterloo in 1815.

George III died blind, deaf and mad on January 29, 1820. His illnesses may have been caused by porphyria, an inherited metabolic disorder, though a 2005 analysis of hair samples suggested arsenic poisoning (from medicines and cosmetics) as a possible cause. Tags US Constitution Gave Legal Ownership and Control of the United States to London US Constitution Gave Legal Ownership and Control of the United States to London They who Own The Law Own the Banks. They Who Own The Law and Banks Own the Corporations. They Who Own The Law and Banks and Corporations Own the Media. They Who Own The Law and Banks and Corporations and Media Own the Governments. They Who Own The Law and Banks and Corporations and Media and Governments Own the World. House Rothschild Owns Common Law Crown Temple In The Center Of London. Who really owns the United States, Canada, Britain, Ireland and much more besides? What Legal Guild setup the Common Law system in the World, and the obedience to it by all nations?

The government and 'legal' system of the United States is controlled by the 'Crown.' The Crown is not only the British monarch as widely believed, but is the 'City,' an independent legal-guild state in London. In turn, the 'City' or the 'Crown' is really the Knights Templar Church, also known as the Crown Temple or Crown Templar, and this is located between Fleet Street and Victoria Embankment. The Temple grounds are also home to the Crown Offices at Crown Office Row. The Crown Temple controls the global 'legal' system, including those in the United States and Canada, because all Bar Associations are franchises of the International Bar Association at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple based at Chancery Lane in London. All Bar Associations' are franchises of the Crown and all Bar Attorneys throughout the world pledge a solemn oath to the Temple, even though they are not told that this is what they are doing. Bar Association 'licensed' Attorneys must keep to their oath, pledge and terms of allegiance to the Crown Temple if they are to be "called to Bar" and work in the 'legal' profession anywhere in the world.

The 'ruling' monarch is also subordinate to the Crown Temple and has been so since the reign of King John in the 13th century when royal sovereignty was transferred to the Crown Temple and, through that, to the Roman Church. King John (1167-1216) is a key to this story. It was at the Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court in January 1215 that King John was faced with the demands of the English barons to confirm the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta. When he signed the Magna Carta in 1215 historical propaganda promoted, and still does promote, this as an event that extended human freedom, but the reality, obedience to the Crown's writing of Common Law, was very different. The 'governments' of the United States and Canada, and Australia and New Zealand, and all of the UK are subsidiaries of the Crown Temple and so is the US 'central bank,' the Federal Reserve. Indeed the global banking system is controlled by the Crown Temple as well as the worldwide 'legal' system. Bar Associations are awarded their franchises by the four Inns of Court at Temple Bar.

These are the Inner Temple, Middle Temple, Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn -- and they are nothing less than exclusive secret societies without charters or statutes. The secret government. They are a law unto themselves. The Inner Temple controls the legal system franchise for Canada and Britain while the Middle Temple does the same for the United States. Queen Elizabeth II is a member of both temples. These so-called 'Illuminati' always seek to control both 'sides' in any situation. Thus at least five signatories to the American Declaration of Independence were Temple Bar Attorneys who had pledged allegiance to the Crown. And their Constitution gives first authority and control of the US Government to the Crown and Banks of England. [Viz. also in Australia where the Crown can remove the Prime Minister at any time for any reason, and in New Zealand where the Crown is the ultimate legal appellate for all.] Another Middle Temple agent during the formation of the United States was Alexander Hamilton who structured the American banking system in line with the Crown Temple agenda for control of the new United States (a 'State' is actually a legal entity of the Crown - a Crown Colony!).

As Michael Edward points out in an excellent Internet study: "Americans were fooled into believing that the legal Crown Colonies comprising New England were independent nation states, but they never were nor are they today. They were and still are Colonies of the Crown Temple, through letters patent and charters, who have no legal authority to be independent from the Rule and Order of the Crown Temple. A legal State is a Crown Temple Colony. "Neither the American people nor the Queen of Britain own America. The Crown Temple owns America through the deception of those who have worn their allegiance by oath to the Middle Templar Bar. The Crown Bankers and their Middle Templar Attorneys rule America through unlawful contracts, unlawful taxes, and, contract documents of false equity through debt deceit, all strictly enforced by their completely unlawful, but 'legal,' Orders, Rules and Codes of the Crown Temple Courts Our so-called 'judiciary' in America. This is because the Crown Temple holds the land titles and estate deeds to all of North America." Seven Middle Inn Templars who had pledged an oath of allegiance to the Crown Temple (including Alexander Hamilton) were among the members of the Constitutional Convention who signed the completed 'American Constitution' giving secret control over to London.

How symbolic it is that copies of the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence hang on the wall of the library of the Middle Temple in London. After all, they were the force behind both of them. While Middle Bar Templars were orchestrating the illusion of freedom from the perceived rule by King George III, the king, too, was a sworn member of the same Middle Temple. Michael Edward continues: "1776 is the year that will truly live in infamy for all Americans. It is the year that the Crown Colonies became legally subservient Crown States. The Declaration of Independence was a legal, not lawful, document. It was signed on both sides by representatives of the Crown Temple. Legally, it announced the status quo of the Crown Colonies to that of the new legal name called 'States' as direct possessive estates of the Crown. "The American people were hoodwinked into thinking they were declaring lawful independence from the Crown. Proof that the Colonies are still in Crown possession is the use of the word 'State' to signify a 'legal estate of possession.' Had this been a document of and by the people, both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S.

Constitution would have been written using the word 'states.' By the use of 'State' the significance of a government of estate possession was legally established. All of the North American States are Crown Templar possessions through their legal document, signed by their representation of both parties to the contract, known as the Constitution of the United States of America." Britain, Ireland, the US, and the UK are owned by the Roman Church So the United States, together with Canada, the United Kingdom and Ireland, are controlled by the Knights Templar 'Crown,' but who owns the Knights Templar 'Crown'? Well, er..., the Pope, or rather the Crown Templar Illuminati that control him. On May 15th 1213, our own friend King John, who was a puppet of the Templars, effectively signed away the Kingdom of England and Ireland to Pope Innocent III and the Roman Church, witnessed by the Crown Templars. As King John said at the time: "I myself bearing witness in the house of the Knights Templars." The King John charter stated: "We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal ...

not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman Church, and to our-lord Pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances .. : we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord Pope Innocent, and his Catholic successors and the Roman church ... binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign ... we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession ... from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms ... the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling ... saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them.

And if we or anyone of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and his senses, he shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation-and concession shall always remain firm." Historical accounts concentrate on the fact that this charter obligated the Crown to pay money to the Roman Church, but it also states that if the terms of this charter are broken, the 'right to the Kingdom' shall be lost, returned to the Crown Templars. When King John signed the Magna Carta on June 15th 1215 he broke the terms of the charter with the Pope and therefore lost the right to his kingdom. Pope Innocent III then declared the Magna Carta null and void. From this time the 'Crown' passed from the monarch to the Knights Templar who, to this day, govern Britain on behalf of the Roman (Illuminati) Church. This means, if we take it a stage further, that ultimately, through the Crown Temple, the Roman Church also owns the United States, Canada and all countries and Bar Associations controlled (overtly or covertly) by the Crown!

This is why the Peace Treaty between the American Colonies and the British Crown in 1783, stated: "It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America ... " How ironic that a Roman Catholic is barred from being the British monarch while all along the monarch and the 'kingdom' have been owned by the Roman Catholic Church. Declaration Of Independence - constitution | Laws.com Share Share 0 Tweet 0 +1 134 Share 0 Background The Declaration of Independence was authored in 1776 by Thomas Jefferson, with the help of fellow political leaders, such as John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. Ratified on July 4th, 1776, the Declaration of Independence became the first political doctrine of its kind, advocating for a governing body whose purpose was to serve the citizens that it represented – a contrast of the British monarchy under which the citizens of the United States had been subject prior to the Revolutionary War.

Furthermore, the doctrine diagrammed a central government whose power resulted from the consent of its citizens to be governed. The Declaration of Independence established the newly-formed United States of America as a sovereign nation, cutting all ties – both political and gubernatorial – with the British monarchy. The text of the Declaration of Independence not only confirmed the autonomy of the United States of America, but also outlined the various transgressions committed by the British monarchy under King George III. Lack of Governmental Power Thomas Jefferson credited political philosopher John Locke with much of the inspiration for democratic ideology that he had implemented in his authorship of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson had been particularly moved by Locke’s notion of a just governing body. Locke stated that every citizen would be entitled to inherent rights and liberties that could not be removed by any governmental body. In addition, Locke stated that the citizens grant their respective government permission to govern them, and as a result, the true power is in the possession of those citizens, rather than any governing body. Thomas Jefferson took Locke’s notion a step further by laying the groundwork for a system of checks and balances, in which a central government is split into separate factions, thus preventing totalitarian rule.

The separate branches of government would be required to work in tandem in order to act. Implications and Image for The Constitution In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was approved by all of the 13 states of the newly-formed United States of America, and the implications of the doctrine were apparent. Not only was the United States establishing its sovereignty as an autonomous nation, but the authors of the Declaration of Independence cited what they believed to be fundamental flaws and inefficiencies of the British monarchy under King George III. By doing so, they allowed for a contrast between a totalitarian ruling body operating with absolute power and an elected central government; a government that would be required to act as a public servant, protecting the interests and rights of its citizens. In addition, as a sign of diplomatic faith, the Declaration of Independence not only demanded the release of all British prisoners being held captive in the United States, but a return of all British loyalist property unjustly seized subsequent to the end of the Revolutionary War.

General Message and Authorship The Declaration of Independence not only illustrated the contempt for totalitarian, monarchical rule on the part of political figureheads such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, but also elucidated what they considered to be the fundamental flaws of a tyrannical infrastructure that utilized absolute power in order to maintain dominance over its subjects. The Declaration of Independence expresses a clear philosophical message that highlights the incorporation of humanism in the development of the ideal creed to which a democratic central government would adhere. The authors of the Declaration of Independence placed their respective faith and trust in both the ability as well as the judgment of the citizens of the United States, both present and future. By allowing the citizens of the United States the opportunity to not only elect their governing body, but also the opportunity to choose to be governed by that elected body, some political philosophers consider the Declaration of Independence to be the a prototype for humanistic political theory. Declaration of Independence | Teachinghistory.org Declaration of Independence About the Author Rosemarie Zagarri received her PhD from Yale University in 1984. Her most recent book is Women and Politics in the Early American Republic (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007). Dr.

Zagarri's work focuses on gender and politics during the American Revolution and the early years of the country. Download Primary Source Leading up to the Declaration 7:51 Who issued it? The Congress that was gathered in Philadelphia in July of 1776, the so-called Continental Congress. Who were they? They were a bunch of men who had been elected or appointed by individuals within the 13 colonies to meet together to discuss their opposition to the existing legitimate government of the colonies, the British government. This carried the weight of an official proclamation from this new government of the United States, so it was written in a formal language and an illiterate farmer or a sailor or a farm woman would not necessarily understand the meaning of all the terms or charges. However, the fact that a lot of them would have it read to them meant that the reading of the Declaration was just the point of departure. It was the first point of a larger public debate and discussion about what was going on. There's this very powerful language that would have an impact, an emotional impact, on an audience.

And then the people would be standing around and say, "Well, what does that mean—life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Or "What does it mean, he's forbidden his Governor to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance." This was a bold experiment and a lot of people could get very excited by that. It was an important device to mobilize the people and to get them excited. The Continental Army had a hard time getting people. The Continental Congress was always short of money. The states were always very slow to pass taxes and to send the money to the Continental Congress. So the reality fell short of the grand ideals that were expressed in the Declaration. Events had been building up to the Declaration for over a decade. At the end of the French and Indian War in 1763, most people assumed that the North American British Colonies were happy to be part of the British Empire. They were prospering under British rule. The people of the Colonies considered themselves the loyal subjects of the Crown. But after the French and Indian War, Britain initiated a whole series of policies and laws that from the colonists' perspective, changed the relationship that had existed between Britain and the Colonies.

Prior to the Stamp Act crisis of 1765, when Britain wanted money from the colonists, they would go to the colonies individually. In each of the 13 colonies, there was a legislature that was elected by the people and Britain would ask those legislators to pass taxes on the people of that particular colony that would then be submitted to England. After the French and Indian War, there was a change in British policy. The leaders in Britain, because they had gone into so much debt fighting the French and Indian War and the people in Britain itself were already heavily taxed, were looking for new sources of revenue. So they started making policies which involved Parliament passing taxes that were imposed on the colonists. And from the colonists' point of view, this was changing the rules of the game. Parliament was taxing them and they elected no members to Parliament. So from their point of view, they were being taxed without their consent. From the point of view of Britain, Parliament legislated and passed taxes for the Empire as a whole. The colonists were represented virtually in Parliament even though they elected no particular representatives. The colonists feared that if they allowed any of these taxes passed by Parliament, then there would be one tax after another.

They would be deprived of their property completely. There was a substantial minority by 1774 or 1775 who already believed that it was impossible to remain in the British Empire and remain a free people. But the process of convincing larger numbers of people took more time. A key moment there was the publication in January of 1776 of Thomas Paine's Common Sense. That pamphlet really reached out to large numbers of people and explained it in terms that they could understand why independence was necessary. I think it needs to be understood in terms of the Order of July 1775. It's a document called a Declaration of the Causes and Necessities for Taking Up Arms. That was passed by the Continental Congress and that set up the Continental Army. That explains why the colonists are upset and I think it's very interesting to see what changed in their language. Jefferson wrote that as well, so I think it's really interesting to see why in 1775 they were willing to take up arms, but not declare independence and they were willing to do that a year later. In the 1775 document, they don't blame the King. They only blame Parliament and his ministers for these problems.

And that's the big difference between 1775 and 1776. And there's another document written by Jefferson in 1774 called a Summary View of the Rights of British America. That was not an official document of the Continental Congress, but it was issued as a pamphlet. That represents the thinking of the most radical of the delegates in 1774 who are already anticipating independence and seeing why it was becoming increasingly untenable for the colonies to remain in the British Empire. The Continental Congress first met in 1774. Then disassembled, then reassembled in the spring of 1775. But did not declare independence until July of 1776. In an era before public opinion polls, these delegates had to go by their personal sense of the people via letters, via newspapers, via word of mouth. And only then, by the summer of 1776, did they feel that the people were going to back up their Declaration of Independence with the taking up of arms and with support of this cause. What was the official status of the Continental Congress? They had none. The Continental Congress was an extra-legal or illegal assembly.

The only authority they had was the authority that the people in the colonies gave them. They were not operating within the existing boundaries of the colonial charters or of any rule of law that the British government recognized. They knew that if they declared independence without having a substantial proportion of the population supportive of them, they would hang. They were committing treason. They were not interested in leading a revolution that no one wanted to follow. It was really important that they waited as long as they did. The stakes were very high. What people don't like to think about is that these delegates were becoming outlaws. They were operating outside the official rules that governed the legal system of Britain. They were establishing a separate nation. Looking back, we can put this patriotic halo around it. But from Britain's point of view, what the colonists were doing was disloyal, seditious, wrong, treasonable. I think because we won, Americans think it was right from the start, but it depends on your perspective. From the British point of view, it wasn't. Beginning to Read the Declaration 7:58 Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed the resolutions to Congress in June of 1776 that said these colonies should be free and independent.

So the Continental Congress then appointed a committee of five to draft the Articles of Independence. The committee of five consisted of Robert Livingston, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was a very young member of the delegation. He had drafted a number of previous documents related to the Continental Congress. He was known to be a very good writer. So that's why the committee of five decided to delegate the task of writing the draft to Jefferson. He wrote the draft which was then submitted to the committee of five for editing; which was then vetted by the entire Continental Congress. A lot of the changes that were made were basically editorial, but some of the changes were more substantial. They took out some of the exaggerated language that Jefferson was prone to use that was trying to stir up people against Great Britain. But they also took out a key paragraph where it accused the King of waging cruel war against human nature itself by enslaving people, by carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere. This whole paragraph was excised from the final Declaration because it was understood that the southern states would never support the Declaration if there was this diatribe against slavery in it.

I think that's the most important editorial change that was made by the Congress in the draft that Jefferson wrote. It's a document that has several audiences. One audience is the people of Great Britain. Telling the people of Great Britain and the government of Great Britain that the people of the United States are a separate nation and should be treated as a separate nation henceforth. Another audience is the foreign nations of Europe. The Americans needed to let these foreign nations know that they were an independent nation to get loans and military assistance, especially from France, so that they could wage this war against Britain. Finally, the last audience was the people of the United States themselves. It was an official statement to the people of the United States that we're no longer resisting the policies of Britain by staying within the boundaries of this nation, but we are now a whole separate country and we're a separate people. It's a hard document to come to without background. I think reading aloud is a good tool and starting with the responses of the students. How does this make you feel? What does it inspire in you? Do any phrases stand out? Then talking about the curiosities—why they're blaming the King.

"He," "he," "he," "he," "he." And then talking about the phrases that seem curious or obvious to us today. The document has to be understood both as a rhetorical tool and official statement. That it's creating a new government. And that over time its meaning has changed a lot. I think taking it phrase by phrase. Certain things become apparent, like why do they keep phrasing it in terms of "necessity compels us?" That's something you can get by just reading it. Looking at the fact that they blame so much on the King. Looking at the rhetorical tricks that are used. We're submitting these facts to the "candid world." Looking at what different parts of the Declaration are doing. The one part, appealing to the people of Britain. Another part, talking about the functions of government. The beginning part making these broad general sweeping statements that pertain across time and place. What are the laws of nature? How do we know what nature's laws are? What are inalienable rights? Why is it important that government insures these inalienable rights? What if people held revolutions every time they got dissatisfied with government? When is a government just and when is it unjust?

How do we decide? Can you rebel against a government which is based on the people, that is a constitutional form of government rather than a government in which there's a king? What kinds of protests should they engage in before they take up arms and try to overthrow a government? What makes a government legitimate? Why do we consider our government legitimate? What if you don't? What's the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution? "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another and to assume among the powers of the nation the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them." First of all, there's an invocation here of the laws of nature and of nature's God. That's a reference to laws that are higher than the laws of Great Britain, that are higher than the British Parliament, that are higher than the British King. You're appealing to a higher authority and I think that's really necessary to justify and legitimate what they're about to say and do.

And then they say, "A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation," so they're going to explain to the world why they are separating. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." This is a very typical enlightenment concept. "Self- evident" truths are truths of nature and by studying nature, a reasonable person can discover what is true. And one of these truths is that "all men are created equal." This is the phrase that provokes incredible discussion. What do they mean by "all men are created equal?" In America, you don't have inherited ranks and privileges. You don't have a hereditary monarch. All people in America are equal before the law and I think that's the most fundamental meaning of equal that they're talking about here. They're "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." So there are these God-given rights that reasonable people can find in nature. It was a very common political construct derived from John Locke's second treatise on government—all men are born free and equal. But you have to understand what equal meant in those terms. In a state of nature, men are equal.

They have the equal right to give their consent to be governed. What's powerful about this statement is that it is so unqualified and so open to interpretations. John Locke talked about life, liberty, and property. There's a lot of discussion about why it was changed in the Declaration from "property" to "pursuit of happiness." Property is obviously a much more restrictive term. It's confined to those, usually white males, who could own property. Pursuit of happiness is a much broader term that opens up this possibility to men, women, children, even black people, theoretically. By choosing the phrase "pursuit of happiness" rather than "property," there's an immediate implication that this government isn't just for men of property. It's for all people who have rights. Then the question becomes, well, who has rights. So the document itself is written in a way that opens it up to multiple interpretations. It worked as a rhetorical strategy in fighting British tyranny, as an appeal to a large number of people in the United States and abroad. That's why they used those terms.

Whether they anticipated extending all of the privileges of citizenship to women and black people at the time is definitely not the case, but they definitely wanted the benefits of government to extend beyond those who owned property. The Grievances 7:58 "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they're accustomed." What they're saying here is that people shouldn't and don't start revolutions whenever they're unhappy. They only do it when the problems are very serious, when they have tried by every possible means to resolve their grievances peacefully. When there are these serious causes, it's "their right" and "their duty" to throw off such a government. I think it's important that they say "right." It is their right. It is their duty. They're not just doing this because they want to. They're doing it because the laws of nature compel them. And that's a persistent theme in the Declaration of Independence. Necessity compels us to do this. We don't want to do this.

We're not choosing to do it because we're rabble-rousers. We're doing it because the laws of nature tell us that we must do this. Otherwise, we will be the equivalent of slaves. Our liberty will be taken away from us. "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having a direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." When the King becomes a tyrant, revolution is necessary to preserve the liberties of the people. "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to the candid world." That's a very good rhetorical device. Let's the facts be submitted so any objective observer given this list will understand why the Colonies are starting this revolution, why they're declaring their independence. And they will side with us. It's interesting to look at the list in the Declaration, that each sentence begins: "He has," "He has," "He has." And who is the "he"? Well, the "he" is the King of England, King George III. What seems inexplicable at first is why the colonists blame all these on George III.

It wasn't George III, at least initially, who singlehandedly imposed taxes or deprived the colonists of trial by jury or quartered troops among the colonists. It was Parliament. But it was understood that the King gave his assent to laws of Parliament and that the King theoretically had the ultimate say in approving laws of Parliament. So if George III had wanted to veto any of these laws, at least theoretically, he could have. No British monarch since the early 18th century had actually vetoed a law of Parliament, but the colonists believed that the King was their ultimate guardian and protector in Britain and that's who they appealed to ultimately for help. And that's who they felt ultimately let them down. Also, you don't rebel against Parliament. You can only rebel when the King becomes a tyrant and when the King is no longer the protector or guardian of your liberties. They have to lay these issues at his feet in order for rebellion to be justified. So I think this list of grievances is interesting in its particulars and more generally, because they blame all this stuff that previously might have been blamed on Parliament on the King.

"He has refused his Assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." That is a reference to the fact that after the colonial legislatures approved a law, then it would go to the governor in that colony for approval. Then it would be sent to England for approval. And there are cases in which the Crown refused to pass certain laws that the colonists thought would be good for them. The colonists feel like Britain is coming between them and their just right to representative government in their own colonies. "He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people." I think one of the things that really started to get to the colonists was the fact that the Royal Governors, whenever they were threatened because the assemblies were passing resolutions opposing British laws, would then send the representatives home. They would dissolve the legislatures and the legislatures could not reconvene on their own merits. They would go down to a local tavern and reconvene in the name of the people, but they didn't have the legal authority of the legitimate government, the royal government. And so the colonists increasingly felt that Britain was violating their right to representation in their own colonial legislatures.

"Suspending our legislatures"—that refers to the fact that in certain colonies, the Parliament prohibited the legislature from meeting. That violated the people's basic right to elect representatives who would govern them. And then the Declaratory Act of 1766, which was passed in the wake of the repeal of the Stamp Act, said that Parliament had the right to pass laws governing the colonies in any case whatsoever and Parliament intended that to apply to taxes. And the colonists said that no, they would agree to laws that Parliament passed that were for the governance of the Empire, but they would not agree to pay any taxes that were not passed by their own representatives. Those in particular refer to this issue of no taxation without representation. The Anglo-American idea of taxes was that taxes are a gift of the people to the government and the government uses those taxes to preserve life, liberty, and property for the security of the state, for the security of the people. The people can't be forced to give these taxes without their consent. That doesn't mean that the people meet personally to vote on taxes, but through their representatives.

So as long as they are electing representatives to an assembly, then that assembly has the right to vote taxes and they are bound to pay those taxes even if they don't agree with the particular policies. They can change the person who they elect. "In every stage of these Oppressions, We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humblest terms." And from the colonists' point of view, at every point since 1765 when they first became aware of what they perceived as change in British policy, they took steps to let Britain know that they were upset. They did this by sending petitions to the King, to the House of Lords, to the House of Commons. They did this by passing resolutions in their colonial legislatures. They did this by boycotting British goods. They did this by gathering together in a Continental Congress and by passing resolutions as a united group. The government didn't listen. The people of Britain didn't listen. "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." Effects of the Declaration 7:51 One of my favorite paragraphs is this next one.

"Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren." This is a reference to the British people. "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 ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence." They're referring to the fact that the people of the Colonies felt that the people of Britain were also suffering under the King and Parliament. They pointed to a number of laws that had caused riots or protests in Great Britain. John Wilkes was a dissenter who'd been elected as a member of Parliament and who was denied his seat by Parliament. There was a great outcry in Britain and so the people of the colonies felt that the King and Parliament were becoming oppressive, not just to the colonists in North America but to the people of Britain themselves. And if they made common cause, then Parliament and the King would stop it. But the people of Britain didn't rise up the way the colonists expected and make common cause with them.

They didn't see themselves as allied. What this paragraph is doing is saying: we've appealed to you to join in our fight against tyranny but you've ignored us. "We must therefore acquiesce in the necessity." Again, this phrase "acquiesce in the necessity." We don't want to do this. We are being forced; Britain's tyranny is making us do this. "We acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends." It's like a divorce. It's like the breaking of family ties. You are a foreign nation to us now, just like France. When we're at war, you're our enemies. When we're at peace, you'll be our friends. But you are no longer kin to us. This is probably the most heart-wrenching paragraph in the Declaration because it is where one people becomes two peoples. The next paragraph says all these things that Congress is going to do.

We're the representatives and we declare that the "United Colonies are Free and Independent States," "Absolved from Allegiance to the Crown." This allegiance is "dissolved." They have the "full power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce." But why are they doing this? They're saying, 'We are the people's representatives, so we are now the legitimate governing body of this new entity, the United States of America. We have the people's confidence and we can do all the things that other nation states can do.' We can make treaties to levy war. We can have peace negotiations. If Britain wants to deal with us, if France wants to deal with us, you should send your emissaries to us, the Continental Congress. Not to the different colonies. Not to any splinter groups. We are the legitimate representatives of the colonies. We have the authority of the good people of these colonies and that's in whose name we are declaring independence. And we "pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Honor." There were always significant numbers of people in the colonies/United States, who were either neutral about the cause of independence or who supported Britain.

But what you have to understand is that the war was long, the process of attaining independence took many years. People changed their positions over time. So when the British army was in your locality, a lot of people turned out to be neutral or loyalist. When the Continental Army was in your vicinity, you tended to support the Continentals. The British army made a lot of people who were initially supportive of the Crown come over to the American cause. The British government continued to be so intractable, the war dragged on for such a long time. A lot of men were called up to their local militias and were shot at by British. Once independence was declared, the outcome was by no means assured. They could very well have lost the war. The Continental Army could have been destroyed. In fact, it was almost destroyed the very summer that the Declaration of Independence was being issued because Washington was fighting in New York and he almost lost his entire army. They create it. They sign it. They send it out. It's read. Bells are rung. Bonfires are lit across the colonies. There are celebrations. But the war was already going on in July of 1776.

The Continental Army had been created July of 1775, so this really formalized what was already going on. George Washington had been appointed head of the Continental Army a year before. He was fighting a very important battle in New York as the Declaration was being passed. On the ground level, it didn't make that much difference. One of the most significant consequences was that it allowed France to start aiding the colonies. Sending money and then eventually entering into a formal treaty that was signed in 1778 that promised money and men and supplies to the United States. And, without France's support, the United States would never have been able to win the war, especially the support of their navy. I also think for the people of the United States the fact that they knew what they were fighting for in very concrete terms was very important. It's important not to overstate the importance of the Declaration of Independence per se at the time. The document was important because it did formally declare the United States a separate nation, a new nation, and because it made other countries who might want to aid the United States know with whom to talk, that is the Continental Congress.

And it was sort of a rallying point for the American people to understand that now they were fighting for a separate nation, not just to convince Britain to treat them better. But the Declaration of Independence actually faded from prominence during the American Revolution and in the years immediately after. And for a long time, Thomas Jefferson was not identified as the sole or even most important author of the document. It was thought to be the creation of the Continental Congress and it symbolized the collective sentiments of the people of the United States. It was only in the 1790s when Thomas Jefferson became the leader of a new political party, the Democratic Republicans, that the Declaration of Independence was revived. His political opponents, the Federalists, deliberately refused to read the Declaration of Independence at Fourth of July celebrations because they didn't like the radical implications of it—the idea that all men are created equal, the idea that we should all pursue happiness. The Declaration of Independence is a fantastic way to understand American history because many protest groups throughout American history model their own protests on the Declaration. Frederick Douglass talks about: Why do black slaves celebrate the Fourth of July? Why do black slaves not want to celebrate it? Why are they left out of the Declaration?

Women write the Seneca Falls Declaration. They rewrite the Declaration in terms of men and women. Various labor groups throughout American history write their own declarations of independence, saying why they feel oppressed or excluded or marginalized or not equal. I think it's the power of the ideals that have persisted throughout history. But the specific provisions are very much rooted in the historical events that lead up to 1776. Depending on your audience, you could either understand it primarily as a basis for change, radical change, in various times and places. Or you could understand it as a specific historical document that was written in response to specific historical problems. SparkNotes: The Declaration of Independence (1776): List of Abuses and Usurpations List of Abuses and Usurpations The Declaration of Independence (1776) Thomas Jefferson List of Abuses and Usurpations → List of Abuses and Usurpations, page 2 page 1 of 2 Summary The colonies have suffered 27 at the hands of the King George III. Each of these abuses has been directed at the colonies for the purpose of establishing a tyrannical government in North America.

Jefferson claims that the colonists have patiently suffered these abuses and that it is now time to expose these abuses to the nations of the world. The first 12 abuses involve King George III's establishment of a tyrannical authority in place of representative government. The foundation of representative government is the power of the people to make laws for the public good. King George III interfered with that process by rejecting legislation proposed by the colonies, dissolving colonial bodies of representation, replacing colonial governments with his appointed ministers, and interfering with the naturalization of citizens in new regions. King George III extended his tyrannical control by interfering with the objective judicial processes and the civil rights of the colonists. King George III prevented the establishment of judicial powers in the colonies and made judges dependent on him for their jobs and salaries. King George III further established tyrannical control by maintaining a strong military presence under his direct command. The King is a tyrant, because he keeps standing armies in the colonies during a time of peace, makes the military power superior to the civil government, and forces the colonists to support the military presence through increased taxes. Abuses 13 through 22 describe the involvement of parliament in destroying the colonists' right to self-rule.

The king has "combined with others" to subject the colonists to legislation passed without colonial input or consent. Legislation has been passed to quarter troops in the colonies, to shut off trade with other parts of the world, to levy taxes without the consent of colonial legislatures, to take away the right to trial by jury, and to force colonists to be tried in England. Additionally, legislation has established absolute rule in a nearby area, taken away the authority of colonial governments, and forbidden further legislation by colonial governments. The last 5 abuses, 23 through 27, refer to specific actions that the King of Great Britain took to abandon the colonies and to wage war against them. The King has attempted to suppress the colonial rebellion through violence and military means. He sent the British military to attack colonists, burn their towns, attack their ships at sea, and destroy the lives of the people. He hired foreign mercenaries to fight against the colonies. He kidnapped American sailors to force them into British military service, refused to protect the colonies from Native American attack, and has caused colonists to fight against each other.

Commentary The list of abuses reflects the colonists' belief that their rights as British Citizens had been slowly eroded ever since the French and Indian War ended in 1763. Although the Declaration does not name the specific legislation passed by Parliament, its listing of the abuses and usurpation effectively covers the history of the King and Parliament's attempts to gain more power and control over the colonies. The list crescendos with the most offensive actions, aimed at total suppression of the colonies, that were put into effect just prior to the signing of the Declaration. Many of the acts that the Declaration criticizes were intended to tighten royal control over the colonies. The history of Parliament's acts unfolded over a period of 13 years during which royal attempts to squash the civil liberties of colonists met with heightened colonial resistance. Beginning with The Proclamation of 1763, Parliament stripped colonists of the right to settle in the land between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River. This meant that although many colonists had given their lives to defend that land from the French, they would not be permitted to reap the benefits.

Shortly after the proclamation, Parliament decided that the colonies would help repay the war debts, and enacted laws such as the Sugar Act (1764), the Stamp Tax (1765), the Townshend Acts (1767) and the Tea Act (1773). When the colonists protested against these acts, the King and Parliament responded by further suppressing the rights of colonists. Legislation in 1774 referred to by colonists as the "Intolerable Acts" struck especially hard at the civil rights of the colony of Massachusetts. 1

Question: During the reign of which British monarch was the American Declaration of Independence signed?
Answer: GEORGE III