By Lindsay M. Chervinsky Executive Director, George Washington Presidential Library
Lindsay M. Chervinsky shows how the conclusion at the end of the Declaration dissolved political connections to the Crown and established a new government for a sovereign nation.
The final two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence consider the damaged relations between Americans and Britons, explore the implications of independence and sovereignty, and declare a new chapter in the history books.
The penultimate paragraph justifies the breaking of bonds between British citizens. The colonists had been most diligent in their “attentions to our Brittish brethren.” Prior to the Revolution, many North American colonists considered themselves to be the most patriotic of British subjects. They fought in wars on behalf of the British empire, cherished the British government as the most just and free in the world, and demonstrated an insatiable desire for material goods depicting the British monarchy. By 1740, colonists participated in at least six public spectacles per year celebrating the monarch and the empire, including the king’s birthday, coronation day, and Guy Fawkes Day. At least twenty other more modest celebrations marked the calendar across the colonies. Elite families sent their children to school in Great Britain, they mimicked the highest fashions from London, and they eagerly followed the news produced across the Atlantic.
They did not consider themselves second-class citizens, but rather productive and crucial members of the same imperial family. In 1774, delegates gathered in Philadelphia for the First Continental Congress, many for the first time. More delegates had visited London than visited Philadelphia. They had prioritized their relationship with the mother country above their relationship with their fellow colonies. The Declaration speaks to these bonds, referencing “the ties of our common kindred” and warns of the interruptions to “our connections and correspondence.”
As a result, the Declaration is a document depicting surprise among the colonists. The grievances listed earlier in the document focus largely on their shock at the treatment of colonists by the government. The hated tax and governance policies, which provoked colonial resistance, exposed the looming chasm between the colonists’ self-conception and how officials in London viewed the colonies. The harsh crackdown on colonial resistance further confirmed the diverging perspectives on either side of the Atlantic.
The second-to-last paragraph details the colonists’ hurt at how their fellow citizens view them. The colonists had attempted to reach their fellow Britons and explain the nature of their complaints. Britons were deeply proud of their constitutional system and the colonists’ played on that pride. They appealed to their understanding over political rights, their shared history and roots in England, and their shared economic and cultural ties. They warned their fellow citizens “of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.” And yet, their British brethren had ignored “the voice of justice and of consanguinity.” This line reflects a deep sadness. By this point, many colonists had come to terms with the government’s rejection of their pleas. Here, the language reflects a realization that the British people would not come to their aid either.
The last sentence asserts the consequence of this rejection. No longer were Americans and Britons siblings. They were enemies at war. Perhaps one day, they could be friends at peace.
With the final sinews of imperial binds snapped, the final paragraph turns toward the realities of independence, both internationally and domestically. The paragraph begins by grounding the authoring body’s assembly in the human and spiritual world. The Declaration reminds readers that Congress is empowered to take this step by the people, who have authorized their representatives to act on their behalf. This simple statement clearly separates the United States from other nations with governments forged through military conquest like dictators or inherited through divine right like monarchies.
As a result, all political connection to the British Crown was dissolved and the new government assumed the rights held by sovereign nations. But what are those rights? The Declaration suggests a short list, including “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce.” That list was never intended to be an exhaustive one, however, because the Declaration also mentions that the new government retained the power “to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” By crafting the sentence in this way, the colonists acknowledged the ongoing evolution in their ideas about governance and institutions.
The first four powers reserved to the new government were responsibilities previously held by the British imperial system. The king and parliament declared war and signed treaties on behalf of British subjects across the globe, often without consulting the subjects most affected by battles and the terms of peace.
During the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763), much of the fighting took place in North America, far from the safety of London. While the European theater of war was much closer to home for British officials, Britain was never invaded. The thirteen colonies contributed funds and supplies, organized troops, and fought and died alongside British regulars. And yet, when the representatives from warring empires negotiated the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1763, they quickly dismissed colonial interests, as well as those of their Native allies.
As part of the post-war settlement, King George III issued a proclamation, prohibiting white settlement beyond the ridge of the Appalachian mountains, infuriating white colonists who demanded access to cheap land in the west. Additionally, the British government stationed new regiments of regulars in North America to protect their recent acquisitions. Colonists resented the presence of a standing army and the economic measures imposed to pay for the army.
The colonies had learned the value of establishing their own economic policy and trade relationships. In the aftermath of the Seven Years’ War, the British government had passed a series of bills to raise money to pay down war debts. Some were taxes, like the tax on stamps and paper goods. Others sought to boost British companies and undercut foreign competitors. For example, the Sugar Act of 1764 increased taxes on French and Dutch sugar and molasses to force colonists to buy sugar from the British Caribbean islands and keep American money within the British empire. Seven years later, the Tea Act lowered prices on tea imported from the East India Company, a British company, to undercut smuggling. Many American merchants enjoyed a tidy profit from these smuggling activities and objected to the favoritism shown to a British company over their American counterparts.
The new Congress would be free to negotiate trade agreements in the best interests of American merchants, and it was quick to do so. Americans understood that they could not fight or win a war against Britain without allies and their armies and navies. In the weeks after the signing of the Declaration, Congress approved a “model treaty” drafted by John Adams, to guide negotiations over trade agreements and dispatched Benjamin Franklin to Paris to seek French aid.
Notably, this list does not include many of the responsibilities managed by the twenty-first century American government. It does not list education, infrastructure management (like highways, air traffic control, or power), disease management, natural disaster response, or social safety nets. Nor does it include other international responsibilities like foreign aid or military bases around the world.
The list also leaves many questions unanswered. The list of powers is largely externally focused and preoccupied with how the new United States would interact with other nations. The list is much fuzzier when it comes to domestic matters. International commerce was clearly one of the powers reserved to Congress, but what about commerce between the states? What if the states disagreed with each other over policy, or worse, disagreed with the federal government? Did the states have the right to reject federal laws? What exactly was the balance between state and national power in a federal system? These questions largely remained at bay during the next eight years as Congress and the states focused on defeating a shared enemy. They roared to the center of political debate as soon as the fighting ceased, however.
Neither Congress, nor the Declaration, could answer those questions until they resolved a fundamental question: what was this new nation? Was it a confederation loosely held together or one new union? In 1776, Congress used the language “United Colonies are,” not “United States is.” They “mutually pledged” their “Lives,” their “Fortunes,” and their “sacred Honor” to each other, which was a powerful emotional bond, but not necessarily legally binding or permanent. This rhetoric suggests that most delegates saw the nation as an alliance of states, rather than the creation of one new nation.
In 1787, the Constitution began to shift that thinking. The Articles of Confederation, the nation’s first constitution, had failed in the years immediately following the end of the Revolutionary War. When delegates gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to create a new system, they were determined to increase and centralize the powers of the federal government. In other words, they moved toward one union and away from a gathering of states.
The preamble of the Constitution reflects this goal. Rather than listing the states, the Constitution begins, “We the People.” This choice was intentional. An earlier draft listed each state and Gouverneur Morris penned the critical change. Not until after the Civil War, however, did people regularly begin using “is” instead of “are” to describe the United States. Questions about the nature of our union and our national identity would emerge again and again over the next 250 years as Americans grapple with the role of the federal and state governments. They played a fundamental role in the Civil War, the Progressive Era, the Civil Rights Movement, and the debate over abortion since the 1980s.
Finally, the Declaration recognizes the people as the ultimate arbiters of power on Earth. It acknowledges that humans are fallible even when acting with the best of intentions. Accordingly, the Declaration appeals to a higher power to confirm that Congress was acting with the best principles as their guiding light and for its protection in the storms to come. Since 1776, moments of American progress—the Reconstruction Amendments, women’s suffrage, and the expansion of civil rights—were inspired by the promise contained in the Declaration. Around the globe, millions of people have quoted the Declaration in their own fights for freer and more equitable lives. While the United States has yet to fully live up to the principles proclaimed in the Declaration, the principles have stood the test of time.
Lindsay M. Chervinsky is Executive Director, George Washington Presidential Library.
[1] Brendan McConville, The King’s Three Faces: The Rise and Fall of Royal America, 1688-1776 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 50-138.
