This panel was convened by the National Archives to explore the original intent of the declaration of independence, including the popular interpretation by 19thcentury abolitionists to focus on the phrase life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is about an hour. This is someone different than what was on your program. Let me tell you the order we will introduce these speakers. First, we will have hotly. She is at the tail end of a guggenheim fellowship. Then she will be followed by the professor from the university of South Carolina. Abigail adams. Third, we will hear from professor eric slaughter, the university of chicago. He is the author of the state as a work of arts the cultural underpinnings of the constitution. And finally you will hear from professor David Armitage from Harvard University who is very well known for his book, the declaration of independence a global history. Everyone will speak for about 10 minutes and we will have questions from the audience. I think we are all set. Thank you. So, thank you to the organizers of the conference, which is terrific. When the delegates of the continental conference assembled, they faced a deepening dilemma. Fighting had been going on for more than a year. Dispute whether the colonists would consent to their own government and taxes that gave it power remained at a standoff. From the first poll of delegates from the 13 holidays only seven supported independence. Others were not yet matured. Congress chose a committee of five men to sway the recalcitrant. Adams, franklin, madison, and jefferson. He knew that this state was dangerous. It was committing treason against the king. It laid out the principles of government opposed to the monarchy. All men were created equal endowed with certain rights this is the original draft, by the way government by the consent of the governed. These meant the government should not be based on heredity and godgiven rights of kings as it had in some measure then. They illustrated why king george iii had become a tyrant. More than two centuries later they still have something to reveal, although the emphasis and placement reveals much about the history we have forgotten. The committee accused the king of 18 acts of terror name. The first seven offenses were related to the form of government. The committee accused the king of 18 acts of tyranny. Repeatedly dismissing elected legislators, the the doing vetoing laws those legislators had passed. Congress deleted this. It read oh, sorry. Here is them delivering it and here is the section. It read he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred right of life, liberty in the persons of a distant people are never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death and their transportation thither. This tactical piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers is the warfare of the Christian King this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished i, he is now inciting those very people to rise in arms amongst us and to purchase at liberty that liberty of which he has deprived them, thus paying off the crimes against the liberty of one people with the crimes he urges them to commit against the lives of another. We therefore charge the king with making unjust into radical wars, making people into slaves. The king supported a market of extra bowl commerce that made people into extra bowl exc reable commerce that made people into things to be bought and sold. He has encouraged those enslaved to kill the new masters. The draft of the original version we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are equal and independent, and from which they draw a rights that are inherent and inalienable, among which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the deleted clause, that was extended to africans. Placing these passages at the very end of the list of the kings crime privileges them, emphasizing the connection between tyranny and real slavery. The support for slavery was the ultimate evidence of his black of respect for the rights of anyone and his lack of respect for the rights of anyone and his belief in his absolute power. Jefferson emphasized men, and i think i can make it work here right here jefferson emphasized men in this passage when he referred to those unjustly enslaved, echoing the resounding words at the beginning of the declaration. He deliberately used men when he referred to african people. These are corrections he made in his own hand to send two colleagues. Here is a close up of the word men in that particular passage in the original. Here are the only other words l is capitalized like that in the whole declaration, the United States of america. Here are two copies, both of which have the same emphasis on men when he refers to africans and slaves. You see that when there. He would speak to his emotion. Indicating tracing the word, indicating the emphasis of his thoughts, creating poetry more powerful then anywhere else. His words speak to his emotion. Cruel, violating prostituted in assemblage of horror. He insisted on not only including the excised text in every version he made, but underlining it in black ink as you see here in the letter to madison. On july 1, the day the declaration was first discussed only nine colonies voted to support it. Crucial among those who urged against signing were South Carolinas delegate who wrote to new york on june 29 opposing the declarations principles. Jefferson wrote in anger the clause reprobate in the enslavement of those denizens from africa has been done for the occupants of South Carolina and georgia who wish to continue it. He said though they had few slaves themselves, they have been considerable carrier of them to others. But he knew the states were already firmly in favor of independence. In order to recruit more colonies unanimous consent, not majority rule, carried the day. The principle that promoting slavery was the best evidence of cheering me of england of tyranny was to leave it. It has been seen as evidence of the revolutionaries hypocrisy, not least of which , jefferson himself who owned 176 slaves. Jefferson, it is understood, never meant to challenge slavery and it was ridiculous of him to blame the king for anything that was a holy colonial institution. The king was not responsible for slavery, it was claimed. It was colonists like jefferson who wanted slaves and bought them. Most did not consider that trade as excreble. Of course, if congress moved it, it did not belong there. But it did belong there. We have dismissed that passage from the declaration with too much ease, and for the wrong reasons. Condemning the king of england for supporting slavery was the logical combination of all of the claims that came earlier in the declaration. The Committee Approved it. The final condemnation of george iii was not just a set of principles or future policy. It was also a claim of history. Virginia placed heavy duties on the importation of slaves, all of which were vetoed by the king. As did other colonies. Indeed given the royal instructions to governors, he ordered them to veto any such duties. We cannot see any such effort. Thus, the royal governor of North Carolina in 18 said it is the kings approval that you do not pass any laws or duties involving negroes. The Continental Congress tried to override the kings protection by punishing fellow colonists. Saying, you will neither import nor purchase any slave, after which, we will discontinue the slave trade and we will neither be concerned with it ourselves nor will we sell our vessels or manufactured to those involved in it. Slavery was born either from a free market nor a government. Imperial and monarchical policies created incentive for colonists to promote slavery for more than a century. These included royal proclamations the cable way land rights to colonists to purchase every slave. 60 acres of land for every slave you bought in virginia. Supporting the slave trade was britain from navy and particular. The deleted clause points to more than a century of monarchical promotion of slavery. Of course, colonial assemblies also helps to promote slavery within the wider empire. Choices emerged in the imperial context of that limited and defined and constrained. Jeffersons hypocrisy was not simply a matter of choice. It was born in the legal system of the empire. Jefferson inherited all of his slaves from his father and fatherinlaw. All of the slaves were also mortgaged, and it was illegal under virginia law to free slaves. If you had to free a slave, you are to be free of debt. According to a law passed that year just as in todays world i can neither sell nor lean a car if there is a lien against it which is to say, if i still oh carpeting this, it really belongs to the bank. This was given more force in virginia by a Chancery Court decision that tells any creditor could seize a person, sell them and keep the money. Even that virginia Court Decision was reinforced by the treaty of paris that ended the American Revolution in 1783. Thereby, they insured this aspect of the revolution was incomplete. Despite the somerset decision of 1772 that challenge the ownership of people, british common law allowed the owning of people and mortgaging those people across the empire. The thing that made the status hereditary was protected by parliament and was ingrained in englands former colonies. Slavery was injured by the same status as the monarchy. Kings were born princes with the right to rule. The child of a subject is born a subject in the child of a slave is born a slave. And they are born with the obligation to obey. This was the logic of hereditary status that had a legal basis in colonial and imperial law that the declaration challenged. America got rid of its king with that declaration, one part of the tyranny, but not slavery, which was its fruit. Even with the overarching system of slavery, jefferson add choices. Of course, he was a hypocrite for not simply overthrowing the principles that people could be proper he and born and born in slaves. I, too am a hypocrite when i say and american policies encourage an overreliance on fossil fuels and that we have a moral responsibility to change our energy usage, and yet i turn on electric lights. My hypocrisy neither invalidates my moral judgment, moore makes them less true. Just as jeffersons observations a moral claims were deeply rooted in the legal and social and Economic System he had inherited and that many others, including those who were in slaves were more problematic and horrified. Slavery remained in some parts of the new nation and even later expanded. Why . I did not write this paper to absolve jefferson from blame. I could not. But to urge us how the policies he and others made, too urges how and why these policies developed and to consider how laws and policies shape our choices today. Most of all, i want to focus attention on those who disagreed with jefferson like rutledge from South Carolina who was terrified by universal liberties. How did they influence policy . The ultimate irony for jefferson and for so many others was that the proclamation of 1775 to which jefferson referred at the end of the deleted clause encouraged many slaves to fight for the british. Subsequently england freed many of them. But jefferson still owed mortgages against those runaways, mortgages that made it more difficult for him to free others. The American Revolution looks different. It but becomes more radical in his principles and potential and yes complete and yet less complete. It was incomplete. It also shows how the compromises set the stage for later conflict. The statement of principles clarified at the beginning of the document became open to misinterpretation without the deleted passage. During the constitutional convention, again, South Carolina and georgia intervened to protect slavery. South carolinas objection is woven into their protection of slavery. On some fundamental level, conceding on slavery again built a contradiction into americas political foundation. Thank you. [applause] [indiscernible] in going to go ahead and start while you are fooling with that. I appreciate the invitation, and especially to read the article of daniel allen called punctuating happiness, which is the basis of the talk. I can tell you it is the biggest compliment of anything i have read, which is it has made me even more ambivalent than i ever was about this declaration of independence. Professor alan establishes that all of the before congress versions of the declaration of independence only have a; semicolon after that happiness. Her explanation for that is, has had to do with diacritical marks. That are today and accent would be a direct diacritical mark. It just means it distinguishes but he had these marks that were probably meant to have pauses and it is certainly true there are diacritical marks throughout the declaration. I do not buy that the diacritical marks explanation for why they are there in the dunlap engrossed copy, also called the parchment version. Here is why. There are other places there are other places this is dunlaps broadside in brief copy. You can see he thought that there should be quotation marks the first time. He got rid of them. And all the others were replaced with this space. This one was replaced with some horizontal line. There are a couple of puzzles to that. One, why would they be horizontal rather than vertical . Professor alan says, well, maybe this 1 i think i am understanding you this would is different from the others is being a three stroke diacritical mark, and that might explain why it represented differently from the other day critical marks that got taken out. But i have looked through a small portion of jeffersons rough draft, and there they are. All of them are either one or two. I cant find any three stroke diacritical marks. In professor alans draft of her paper, she gives us another example of three stroke day critical marks. That is the inaugural address. You see at the top, the abbreviation for government. That looks like a three stroke diacritical, but i do not think it is that. I think that third stroke apart from the others is from the previous and of government. I still do not see any examples and jefferson yet of three stroke diacritical marks, so i do not think that is the explanation for why we have a there in both of the matlab version and the dunlap version. I think congress put them there, put that dash there for other reasons, which i will return to at the end. For me, the rate significance of the article is it reminds us what really matters about the second sentence of the declaration of independence, and i do consider it one sentence, even though i think that period may not be there by mistake. It reminds us when we pull phrases like all men are created equal or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we are kind of putting it out of context. As she pointed out, they are part of the bigger hole. A syllogism and the bottomline of that syllogism is the right to secede. One society in a confederation with another the right to secede. The things that are most famous and popular life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, those are kind of the yada, yada a, yada sections. The bottom line is life secession. That is really what jefferson and the rest of congress were focusing on. They were looking at the changes all on the issue of sovereignty. At what point is it the right of reservation . Danielle put up this slide already. The final version probably this first one was done by jefferson himself. He wrote citizens, eventually, but through hyperspectral imaging, the folks of the library of congress with backwards and found what hear originally wrote was subjects. So, one change jefferson himself made was turning subjects into citizens. He was not the only one. The committee edited this phrase to advance from that subordination, which remained to dissolve the political bands. You see the difference between what i put an orange and what is in red. Our edge, we are admitting we were previously inferior and we are going to declare independence. The red version is saying we have been allies of Great Britain, in the same way the United States is in our of Great Britain today. We are breaking an alliance, not a subordinate relationship. Likewise jefferson had written he had referred to george iii as his present majesty. The same way we might refer to president obama as the president said. If i was referring to the need of to be leader of another state i would say the present Prime Minister of Great Britain. Do you see how the committee changed jeffersons line which admitted that george iii was jeffersons king, to this new version that says george is the king of britain, this other place that has been our ally but never are superior . There are other changes as well as a jefferson had a great idea in writing the acclamation of not mentioning parliament when he is listing all of the bad laws that parliament adopted the taxes and so forth. Does not even mention them. That wonderful line that jefferson has is george iii has combined with others, passing their acts of pretended legislation. I am not a princess, but i pretend to be one with my daughter sometimes. These are pretend laws, not real laws. It is these others, by not naming parliament, by not recognizing them on a piece of paper, youre not recognizing them in International Law either. That was a great idea. Congress got rid of both of those. If you read the declaration of independence the word parliament, even though it is really about parliament, because george iii is almost as much of a figurehead well, he is closer to elizabeth ii then elizabeth the first. Their focus was on sovereignty. They wanted to make it clear theyre only connection to britain has been through the king and now he is the king of Great Britain and no longer the king of america, the focus of sovereignty. With all of that in mind, knowing that second sentence of the declaration of independence is really about the right to secede, i want to propose that we should really refer to the declaration of independence as originally written and was adopted by congress as inordinate of secession. A loaded term, but when we get back to talking about the Confederate Flag i think they will get