Edward Dumbauld, The Declaration of Independence (1950)

Edward Dumbauld (1905–1997) was a Princeton graduate, a Harvard graduate, an author, and a legal scholar of the highest calibre (Wikipedia here). He had also studied at Leiden University in the Netherlands, and became a special assistant to the Attorney General of the United States. President John F Kennedy appointed Dumbauld as a Senior Judge in 1961.

Dumbauld's 1950 book, The Declaration of Independence and What It Means Today, has many superb references to the 1688 Glorious Revolution:

"...Jefferson's own first version of the Declaration was not the fruit of mere ratiocination, although he asserts that he "turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it. " It followed familiar precedents.

It invoked the hallowed heritage of English constitutional history. It voiced the doctrines of accepted political philosophers, particularly John Locke, whose writings were esteemed as authoritative expressions of established principles. It recapitulated the substance of previous state papers, some of them drafted by Jefferson himself, in which the American contentions had been formulated during the course of the prolonged dispute with England.

Jefferson was unquestionably familiar with the Stamp Act resolutions, the Massachusetts circular letter of February II, 1768, to the assemblies of the other colonies, the resolutions, petitions, and addresses of the Continental Congress, the declaration on taking up arms, the replies to Lord North's conciliatory motion, and similar utterances which would inevitably leave their trace upon a document intended to be an authentic "expression of the American mind."

Particularly significant, it seems to me, are two sources upon which Jefferson manifestly drew when drafting the Declaration: his Summary View of the Rights of British America, published in I774, and his preamble to the Virginia Constitution of 1776. In each of these is contained a recital of grievances which closely parallels the Declaration of Independence.

The catalogue of charges against George III in Jefferson's preamble to the Virginia constitution strongly indicates, by its rhythm and phrasing, that it was patterned upon passages in the English Bill of Rights where the people of England were enumerating the reasons which justified their choice of new rulers in place of James II. The misdeeds of that monarch were there itemized in a fashion strikingly similar to Jefferson's impressive indictment of George III.

To the men of 1776 the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 in England was a vivid and thrilling reality. It had occurred less than a century before; it was a living and vital force in their daily conduct and thinking; for them it had not become what it is to us today, a dimly remembered story of ancient events in the history of a foreign nation, buried in obscure chronicles of the past, and familiar only to historians. Americans resisting what they regarded as infringements of their constitutional rights conscientiously studied the precedents and principles enshrined in English history. They felt themselves to be following in the path of Coke, Pym, Hampden, Eliot, Milton, Algernon Sidney, and the patriots who decapitated Charles I in 1649 and deposed James II in 1689 for violations of the compact between king and people…

Jefferson's use of the Bill of Rights as pattern for his preamble makes it evident that in his judgment George III could rightfully be "deposed from the kingly office" by Americans because the situation was identical, constitutionally, with that which had existed when James II was lawfully ousted by English patriots. The same inference may be drawn from those passages in the Declaration of Independence which show the influence of Locke, for that philosopher's political treatises were written as a defense of the revolutionists who placed William and Mary on the throne "abandoned" by James II.

Besides inspiring the American votaries of liberty in 1776, the English Bill of Rights proclaimed in 1689 was the pattern and prototype for the constitutional safeguards added a century later to the Constitution of the United States at the insistence of Jefferson and other friends of democratic government.”

Thomas Jefferson and King James II

The more you read the more you find. Here is Thomas Jefferson in later life, writing his autobiography, and comparing the context of 1776 with that of 1688, and of King George III's actions with King James II –

"...the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:

That as to the people or parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, & not from any rights they possessed of imposing them, & that so far our connection had been federal only & was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:

That as to the King, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us, a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection; it being a certain position in law that allegiance & protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:

That James the IId. never declared the people of England out of his protection yet his actions proved it & the parliament declared it:

No delegates then can be denied, or ever want, a power of declaring an existing truth..."

• From Thomas Jefferson's autobiography, 1821 (online here)

The 1689 Glorious Revolution in New England – account by Daniel Neal (1720)

 

Published in 1720, this is a superb source for early New England history. Daniel Neal's (Wikipedia here) summary of the 1689 Boston Revolt and Glorious Revolution is concise and punchy – it's in Chapter 10, starting with the second paragraph on page 429 (online here).

In Volume I, Neal dedicated both volumes (online here) to Governor Samuel Shute, who had of course famously been written to by Ulster Presbyterians in 1718 in their "Shute Petition".

Neal appealed to Governor Shute that:

"it will be a noble design, and worthy of men in your station, to preserve New England a pleasant habitation to its present possessors, and a blessed retreat for oppressed Protestants in all parts of the world."

Here's the text, from page 429 onwards –

p. 429

Things went on after this manner till the news of the Prince of Orange's expedition into England reached Boston, which spread an universal joy throughout the whole country. The Governor took all imaginable care to conceal the success of it from the people; he imprisoned the man that brought over a copy of the Prince's Declaration, and published a Proclamation, requiring all persons to use their best endeavours to hinder the landing of any whom the Prince might send thither; but the hearts of the people were turned against him, his army deserted him, and his counsellors began to think of shifting for themselves, rumours were spread about the town of unintended massacre, and several murthering engines were said to be in the Rose frigate, one of the King's ships then in the harbour. The people hereupon both in

p. 430

town and country gathered together in clubs, and resolved to stand by one another with their lives and fortunes; the wiser and more considerate gentlemen were for letting things go on in the present course, till they should receive orders from England how to behave themselves, but the common people and several gentlemen who were animated with a zeal for the recovery of their ancient liberties, resolved to follow the example of England, and put an end to the arbitrary Government they had so long groaned under. Accordingly, on the 18th of April, 1689, about 8 o'clock in the morning a report was raised at the South End of the town of Boston, that at the North End, the people were all in arms, and the like report was at the North End with respect to the South, whereupon Captain George was immediately seized, and about 9 o'clock the drums beat through the town, and an ensign was set up upon the Beacon; then Mr. Bradstreet, Mr. Dantfort, Major Richards, Dr. Cook, and Mr Addington, were conducted to the Council-House by a company of soldiers under the command of Captain Hill; In the meanwhile, the people seized upon Justice Bullivant, Justice Foxcroft, Mr. Randolph, Sheriff Sherlock, Captain Ravenscroft, Captain White, Farewell, Broadvent, Crafford, Larkin, Smith, and several others, and put them into gaol. They likewise turned out Mercy, the gaol-keeper, and put Skates, the bricklayer, into his place.

 

About noon, the following message was sent by Mr. Oliver and Mr. Eyres to Sir Edmund Andros, who kept himself shut up in the Fort.

 

Inserted here is the text of the broadside 'At The Town-House, Boston, April 18, 1689'

 

p. 432

Sir Edmund did not think fit to obey the gentlemens summons at first, but sent to the frigate for fire-arms, hand-grenadoes, and match, but the boat that was bringing them was seized by the soldiers in the town. After which Mr. John Nelson at the head of the soldiers, demanding the Fort a second time, the Governor came down and surrendered himself and the Fort into their hands, He was first conducted to the Council-House, and afterwards confined with Lieutenant-Colonel Ledgett in the Fort till he was sent home to England, where instead of suffering for the many irregularities of his government, he made a shift to justify his conduct to the mild and gentle administration of King William and Queen Mary, so far as to be intrusted with the government of Virginia in the year 1692, where after some years he died. Mr. Fairweather, Mr. West, Mr. Graham, Mr. Palmer and Captain Tryfoye were imprisoned in the Castle; Mr. Dudley was then out upon the Circuit, but was seized at Major Smith's at Narrhaganset and brought a prisoner to Boston.

 

The whole town of Boston was now in arms, and the country came in so fast that there were 20 companies of soldiers in the town, besides above a thousand at Charles-town, that could not get over the ferry. To this vast concourse of people the gentlemen in the Council-Chamber, who were at the Head of the Revolution, ordered the following Declaration to be read out of the Gallery.

 

Inserted here is the text of the broadside 'The Declaration of the Gentlemen, Merchants, and Inhabitants of Boston, and the Country adjacent, April 18, 1689'

 

p. 442

The Government being thus dissolved, the Gentlemen in the Council-Chamber agreed to call a General Assembly to meet as soon as possible, and in the meantime took the Government into their own hands, under the character of A Committee of Safety. The Assembly met towards the latter end of May, and after many debates what form of Government to set up, they resolved at length to resume their Charter, as appears by the following Declaration, published at Boston, May 24, 1689.

 

Inserted here is the text of the broadside 'At A Convention of the Representatives of the several Towns and Villages of the Massachusetts Colony in New England, May 24, 1689'

 

p. 447

‘Tis hard to determine whether the Assembly was right in this vote; if indeed their Charter had been taken from them without Form of Law they might have resumed it, as the colonies of Connecticut and Rhode Island did, but when after a legal Tryal Judgement had been given against them in the Court of Chancery, none but the highest powers in the nation could reverse it, which certainly were not the assembly at Boston, but the parliament of England. 

 

‘Tis certain the Massachusetts Province had hard measure in the loss of their Charter and harder yet in not having it restored at the Revolution but whether they were in the right in attempting to do themselves justice before they had tried all methods for a legal recovery of their Charter, is what I will not venture to affirm; nor was the Assembly itself fully satisfied with their own vote, for when the anniversary election of magistrates for the following year came about, they had not the courage to proceed to a choice, but agreed to let things continue as they were ‘till they should receive directions from the King and Queen of England.

 

In this uncertain state of things, people imagined the Government to be dissolved, and that there was no legal authority to punish them for their crimes, which gave occasion to innumerable disorders, the mob met together in a riotous and tumultuous manner, plundering the favourers of the late Government, and committing robberies in divers places; the poor Indian converts could hardly escape their insults for a party of English attempting to carry off some sheep from a little island near Martha's Vineyard, in the possession of the Indian converts, under pretence of their being stole from them; the inhabitants drove them off the island and to prevent any false impressions that the Governour might receive from the report of this scuffle. The Sachem sent him the following handsome manifesto.

 

Inserted here is the text of the Manifesto

p. 449

But at length a Letter arrived from the King and Queen of England, bearing Date August the 12th, 1689; wherein their Majesties were pleased to testify their Allowance and Approbation of their late Proceedings, and to authorize the present Magistrates to continue the Administration of the publick Affairs... 

 

 

The first printers' proof of the Declaration of Independence – with Thomas Jefferson's inverted commas!

Great story here of how, on the evening of 4 July 1776, John Dunlap's type compositors were hyper-accurate in recreating the handwritten manuscript by Thomas Jefferson, which Charles Thomson had brought to the print shop, reproduced his "double diacriticals" as inverted commas.

Click here for the Library of Congress webinar by Patrick Hastings, Curator, Rare Book and Special Collections Division - jump to 10 minutes in to see the inverted commas.

"The United States of all British America" – 1774

Happy 250th birthday to my friends and readers in the United States of America. It was spring 1775 when the 13 British colonies, meeting together as the Second Continental Congress, first decided to to describe themselves as "United Colonies". That term did the job for almost a year.

Of course, on our side of the Atlantic there was the United Kingdom, the United Provinces of Holland, and the United States of Sweden.

On 2 January 1776,  Stephen Moylan from Cork was George Washington's secretary and is said to have been first to write the term "United States of America" in a letter to Joseph Reed (article about the letter is online here).

However, digitised newspapers make it easy to text-search and to find sources from long ago.

Rev. Edmund Marshall (1730-1797) was the Church of England clergyman of St Peter and St Paul Parish Church in Charing in Kent. He wrote articles about history and current affairs commentary in the Kentish Gazette newspaper, under the name 'Candidus on American Affairs'. Here's an extract from one of his articles which was published on 16 November 1774:

"On the other hand, you have the United States of all British America, a people numerous, warlike, virtuous, firm, sagacious, and, what is more, our own Christian Protestant brethren, descended from the same common stock, and leagued together in the sacred cause of what they esteem their common inheritance, the right of taxing themselves - the basis of liberty."