DOCSLIB.ORG

Punctuating Happiness1 Danielle Allen UPS Foundation Professor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Punctuating Happiness1 Danielle Allen UPS Foundation Professor Punctuating Happiness1 Danielle Allen UPS Foundation Professor School of Social Science Institute for Advanced Study Revised as of Feb. 2, 2015 Introduction: The second sentence of the Declaration of Independence is arguably its most important; it has at least, in comparison to the other sentences, received inordinate attention. Here it is in full: 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; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. The sentence forms a syllogism. The first three “that” clauses constitute the first premise; the fourth “that” clause is the second premise; and the fifth “that” clause is the conclusion p. 1 following from the premises.2 Thus, the sentence moves from premises about individual rights and the role of consent-based government in securing them to a conclusion about the right to revolution. The sentence is a good example of the convergence of eighteenth century standards of logic and rhetoric. Yet in 1823 when William Stone produced an engraving from the signed parchment, an engraving that would eventually become the most commonly reproduced text of the Declaration, he bisected the sentence after “pursuit of happiness,” punctuating it thus and adding a period: 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. -- That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. In its complete form, this sentence explains the relationship between individual rights and the value of government as a tool by which we, the people, collectively secure safety and happiness; moreover, it identifies this relationship as a matter of self-evident truth. When interrupted with a period, however, the sentence designates as a matter of self-evident truth only the existence of human equality, as derived from our individual rights to life, liberty, and the p. 2 pursuit of happiness. The question of how this sentence is punctuated, in other words, dramatically affects how we interpret the most important expression of American ideals written to date. The official U.S. National Archives’ transcription of the parchment, posted on their website, follows the Stone engraving and prints a period after “pursuit of happiness.” In the epilogue of my book, Our Declaration, I drew attention to this critical error, as I see it, in the transcription of the parchment. I was not able in those pages to review the entirety of the early textual tradition of the Declaration (1776-1800). The purpose of this article is to complete that work. A comprehensive review of the early textual tradition of the Declaration supports the view that the Stone engraving and the National Archives’ transcription err in placing a period after “pursuit of happiness.” On the basis of the textual tradition of the Declaration from 1776-1800 and of the three efforts to produce an accurate engraving of the parchment in the decade following the War of 1812, I argue that the National Archives transcription ought to be corrected; that scholars ought to advocate for the use of hyper-spectral imaging to re-visit the question of what is on the parchment; that reliance on the Stone engraving or National Archives transcription as the single “authoritative” text of the Declaration problematically obscures a diverse textual tradition; and that educators ought to present the diversity of traditions for rendering the text of the Declaration to students.3 The Paper Manuscripts We have eight manuscript versions of the Declaration written out on paper by individuals who participated in its production and adoption: seven by members of the drafting committee, either Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, and one by Charles Thomson, the secretary to the Continental Congress. p. 3 The single Adams manuscript is of a version of the Declaration that pre-dates Continental Congress’ editing session on July 2-4, 1776. The six Jefferson manuscripts include one that pre- dates that editing session and has the edits marked on it. This is conventionally known as the “Original Rough Draft.” Then we have two of the copies that Jefferson wrote out and circulated to friends in the immediate wake of the adoption of the Declaration; the copies we have had been sent to George Wythe and Richard Henry Lee.4 Finally, we have three later copies. Jefferson wrote out a version in his Notes of Proceedings in Congress, 7 June to 1 Aug. 1776; this was the basis for a version he sent Madison in 1783 in the lead-up to the drafting of the Constitution. And then there is what is known as the Washburn text. Its dating and provenance have been something of a mystery. In this article I will suggest a date between 1783 and 1791 and probably closer to the later end of that range. The eighth paper manuscript was written out by Charles Thomson in Continental Congress’ Corrected Journal, or authoritative minute book. Thomson generally produced these corrected records contemporaneously to the production of the rough record book, which he produced day to day as the meetings unfolded.5 On July 4-6, Thomson generated the rough record copy, pasting Dunlap’s broadside in to the book as a placeholder for the text of the Declaration. It is likely that he then proceeded to produce the corrected version in the Corrected Journal. We can date that version to after July 5 and before July 19, the day Congress decided to retitle its declaration as “Unanimous,” in response to news, which reached Philadelphia on the 15th, that New York had voted in favor of independence.6 The Corrected Journal version does not include this information and so must have been completed before Congress made this decision. Importantly, on July 17 Jefferson was assigned to the committee to review and correct Congress’s record for that summer and to decide what should be published. And on July 19 Congress commissioned the engrossment p. 4 of the formal parchment, with the work to be done by Timothy Matlack. Thus, when Timothy Matlack undertook to engross the Declaration on parchment, he would have two official copies from which to work: John Dunlap’s broadside of July 4-5 and Charles Thomson’s copy in Congress’s Corrected Record book, reviewed and approved by Thomas Jefferson. Like the Corrected Record, the parchment uses the revised titling for the Declaration (“in Congress assembled” instead of “in general Congress assembled”). The parchment also, for the first time, adds the detail that the declaration was unanimous. Not one of these paper manuscripts by Adams, Jefferson, or Thomson employs a period after “pursuit of happiness.” All of them render the second sentence of the Declaration as a single sentence.7 The most important difference in the manuscripts concerns capitalization, a matter of style to which Adams and Jefferson had two different approaches. Adams used capitalization liberally, doing so, it would appear, as a guide to spoken emphasis, including presumably for his own public reading of texts. Jefferson scarcely used capitalization at all, frequently not even capitalizing at the start of sentences.8 His own approach to indicating emphases for the sake of public readings was to insert a pattern of diacritical marks to indicate either an emphasis or a pause: he used single, double, triple and quadruple strikes following a word. Thoseꞌ marksꞌꞌ lookedꞌꞌꞌ something like thisꞌꞌꞌꞌ.9 p. 5 Here is how Adams, Jefferson, and Thomson rendered the opening of the Declaration through the end of the second sentence. First, here is Adams: Insert Figure 1 I (Mass Hist Society) p. 6 Here is Jefferson: Insert Figure 2 (NYPL, Lee copy) p. 7 Here is Charles Thomson: Insert Figure 3 Courtesy Library of Congress, Reproduced in Edward Dumbauld, The Declaration of Independence: and What It Means Today (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950, p. 131). Finally, here is an example of how Jefferson marked up one section of the Original Rough Draft with his emphasis and breathing marks:10 Insert Figure 4 p. 8 Those differences in the approach to capitalization constitute something like a genetic fingerprint, indicating which manuscript (Adams’s or Jefferson’s) was the basis for any given printer’s later rendering of the text.11 Importantly, in the one case in which we have concrete evidence that Jefferson reviewed the text, the version in Congress’ Corrected Journal, the text follows Jefferson’s pattern of capitalization.12 As we will see, the two different strategies for conveying emphasis—capitalization vs. diacritical marks—were not relevant only to the manuscript tradition; they left their mark on the print versions of the Declaration too. I will suggest that Jefferson’s diacritical marks are the source of the errant period after “pursuit of happiness.” p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • X001132127.Pdf
    ' ' ., ,�- NONIMPORTATION AND THE SEARCH FOR ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE IN VIRGINIA, 1765-1775 BRUCE ALLAN RAGSDALE Charlottesville, Virginia B.A., University of Virginia, 1974 M.A., University of Virginia, 1980 A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Corcoran Department of History University of Virginia May 1985 © Copyright by Bruce Allan Ragsdale All Rights Reserved May 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction: 1 Chapter 1: Trade and Economic Development in Virginia, 1730-1775 13 Chapter 2: The Dilemma of the Great Planters 55 Chapter 3: An Imperial Crisis and the Origins of Commercial Resistance in Virginia 84 Chapter 4: The Nonimportation Association of 1769 and 1770 117 Chapter 5: The Slave Trade and Economic Reform 180 Chapter 6: Commercial Development and the Credit Crisis of 1772 218 Chapter 7: The Revival Of Commercial Resistance 275 Chapter 8: The Continental Association in Virginia 340 Bibliography: 397 Key to Abbreviations used in Endnotes WMQ William and Mary Quarterly VMHB Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Hening William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large; Being� Collection of all the Laws Qf Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature in the year 1619, 13 vols. Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia Rev. Va. Revolutionary Virginia: The Road to Independence, 7 vols. LC Library of Congress PRO Public Record Office, London co Colonial Office UVA Manuscripts Department, Alderman Library, University of Virginia VHS Virginia Historical Society VSL Virginia State Library Introduction Three times in the decade before the Revolution. Vir­ ginians organized nonimportation associations as a protest against specific legislation from the British Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • First Founding Father: Richard Henry Lee and the Call for Independence'
    H-Nationalism Miller on Unger, 'First Founding Father: Richard Henry Lee and the Call for Independence' Review published on Monday, January 4, 2021 Harlow Giles Unger. First Founding Father: Richard Henry Lee and the Call for Independence. New York: Da Capo Press, 2017. 336 pp. $28.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-306-82561-3. Reviewed by Grace Miller (Independent Scholar) Published on H-Nationalism (January, 2021) Commissioned by Evan C. Rothera (University of Arkansas - Fort Smith) Printable Version: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=54369 In First Founding Father, Harlow Giles Unger credits another historical figure with the founding of American democracy—Richard Henry Lee. Unger, a prolific scholar of US history, has published twenty-seven books, ten of which are biographies of the Founding Fathers. Through correspondence, autobiographies, memoirs, and relevant artwork, Unger brings Lee’s role and his experience during the American Revolution to life. Unger traces Lee’s life alongside the story of US independence and argues for the critical, yet unacknowledged, role that Lee played in uniting the thirteen colonies and shaping the first democratic government. Incorporating Lee into the pantheon of the Founding Fathers challenges a popular historical record, but also adds nuance and complexity to the story of US independence. First Founding Father contains a beginning, middle, and end of sorts: before the war, during the war, and after the war. During these critical phases, Unger makes clear that Richard Henry Lee was among the first to call for three important ideas—independence before the war, a union during the war, and a bill of rights after the war.
    [Show full text]
  • CONFEDERATION CONGRESS CALLS the CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 21 February 17871
    C. CONFEDERATION CONGRESS CALLS THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 21 February 17871 Congress assembled as before. The report of a grand committee2 consisting of Mr. [Nathan] Dane, Mr. [James M.] Varnum, Mr. S[tephen] M[ix] Mitchell, Mr. [Melancton] Smith, Mr. [Lambert] Cadwallader, Mr. [William] Irwine, Mr. N[athaniel] Mitchell, Mr. [Uriah] Forrest, Mr. [William] Grayson, Mr. [William] Blount, Mr. [John] Bull, and Mr. [William] Few to whom was referred a letter of 14 September 1786 from J[ohn] Dickinson written at the request of commissioners from the states of Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York assembled at the city of Annapolis together with a copy of the report of the said commissioners to the legislatures of the states by whom they were appointed, being an order of the day was called up and which is contained in the following resolution, viz: “Congress having had under consideration the letter of John Dickinson, Esquire, chairman of the commissioners who assembled at Annapolis during the last year, also the proceedings of the said commissioners and entirely coinciding with them as to the inefficiency of the federal government and the necessity of devising such farther provisions as shall render the same adequate to the exigencies of the Union do strongly recommend to the different legislatures to send forward delegates to meet the proposed convention on the second Monday in May next at the city of Philadelphia.” The delegates for the state of New York thereupon laid before Congress instructions3 which they had
    [Show full text]
  • The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy Or Inching Toward Commonwealth?*
    The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy or Inching Toward Commonwealth?* On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee proposed to the Second Con- tinental Congress "[t]hat these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States," and "[t]hat a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their con- sideration and approbation."' Lee's resolution reflected the linkage between independence and confederation in the public mind.2 The result was the Articles of Confederation, drafted in 1776-1777 and fi- nally ratified on March 1, 1781, which remained in effect until 1789 and represented the first American experiment with a written na- tional charter.3 The conventional view of this period is that it was dominated by deep factional conflict concerning the amount of power that should be vested in the national government. 4 The text of the Articles, ac- cording to this view, represented a victory for the group favoring minimal national authority, 5 and as a result the Articles government * The author acknowledges with gratitude the assistancc of Professor William E. Nelson of the Yale Law School in providing critical guidance and granting permission to make use of unpublished research materials. 1. 5 JOURNALS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 425 (W. Ford ed. 1906) [hereinafter cited without cross-reference as JOURNALS]. 2. See NEw JERSEY IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 1763-1783: A DOCUMENT.ARY HISTORY 402 (L. Gerlach ed. 1975) (issues of independence and confederation were inseparable) [hereinafter cited as DOCUIENTARY HISTORY]; cf. Jensen, The Articles of Confederation, in FUNDAMENTAL TESTAMENTS OF TilE AMERICAN RLvoI.UTIoN 62 (Library of Congress Sym- posium on the American Revolution 1973) (politicians who opposed confederation did so because they saw it as step toward independence) [hereinafter cited as Jensen, TESTA ENTS].
    [Show full text]
  • Attendees at George Washington's Resignation of His Commission Old Senate Chamber, Maryland State House, December 23
    Attendees at George Washington’s Resignation of his Commission Old Senate Chamber, Maryland State House, December 23, 1783 Compiled by the Maryland State Archives, February 2009 Known attendees: George Washington Thomas Mifflin, President of the Congress Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Congress Other known attendees: Members of the Governor and Council of Maryland. Specific members are not identified; full membership listed below Members of the government of the City of Annapolis. Specific members are not identified; full membership listed below Henry Harford, former Proprietor of Maryland Sir Robert Eden, former governor Those who attended who wrote about the ceremony in some detail: Dr. James McHenry, Congressman and former aide to Washington Mollie Ridout Dr. James Tilton, Congressman There was a “gallery full of ladies” (per Mollie Ridout), most of whom are unknown Members of the Maryland General Assembly The General Assembly was in Session on December 23, and both houses convened in the State House on December 22 and on December 23. It is difficult to identify specific individuals who were in the Senate Chamber GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1783 William Paca, governor November 3-December 26, 1783 SENATE WESTERN James McHenry EASTERN Edward Lloyd SHORE SHORE George Plater Daniel Carroll, Matthew John Cadwalader (E, president ' Tilghman Dcl) Thomas Stone Richard Barnes ' (DNS, R) Robert Goldsborough (DNS) (E, Charles Carroll of Benedict Edward Hall John Henry DNS) Carrollton, Samuel Hughes William Hindman William Perry (E) president ' John Smith Josiah Polk (DNS) HOUSE OF DELEGATES ST MARY'S John Dent, of John CECIL Nathan Hammond William Somerville BALTIMORE Archibald Job Thomas Ogle John DeButts Thomas Cockey Deye, Samuel Miller HARFORD Edmund Plowden speaker William Rowland Benjamin Bradford Norris Philip Key Charles Ridgely, of Benjamin Brevard John Love William KENT John Stevenson ANNAPOLIS John Taylor (DNS) Peregrine Lethrbury Charles Ridgely Allen Quynn Ignatius Wheeler, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Seek Better Health Through Nutrition, and You Appreciate Cutting-Edge Have to Wait for Weeks to Was a Body Known As Congress
    The sole governing authority presiding over the tumultuous John Locke and the events of the American Revolution between 1774 and 1789 Continental If you seek better health through nutrition, and you appreciate cutting-edge have to wait for weeks to was a body known as Congress. With no power to regulate philosophers. What culinary artistry, microgreens are the perfect addition to your kitchen. get an edible result. commerce or lay taxes, and with little ability to enforce any Jefferson did was to Microgreens are tiny, young leafy vegetables grown from seeds and harvested Because they are small and of its decisions, this group, representing the thirteen summarize this when they are only one to two inches tall. They’re not just cute and delicious; harvested in an immature colonies, declared independence, conducted a war that philosophy in “self- they also contain higher levels of essential nutrients than their full-grown state, you can easily grow them indoors. defeated one of the greatest military powers of its day, and evident truths” and set counterparts. Popular microgreen varieties include lettuce, radish, Chinese No Space? No Problem! invented a new political entity that became a sovereign forth a list of cabbage, spinach, mustard, kohlrabi, kale, beet, chard and various herbs. If you live in an apartment home with little or no outdoor space, growing independent nation. Its members pondered everything from grievances against the How to Use Your Microgreens microgreens indoors could become a fun, healthy and cost-effective hobby. All the rightness of independence to the number of flints King of Great Britain in Microgreens are perfect additions to healthy gourmet salads, but there are you need to get started are a few shallow containers, a sunny window or a needed by the armies–sometimes with the enemy not far order to justify before many other ways to use them.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Henry Lee on the Constitution
    11 080-089 Founders Lee 7/17/04 10:34 AM Page 88 Handout C IN HIS OWN WORDS: RICHARD HENRY LEE ON THE CONSTITUTION Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican Note: The Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican was a series of newspaper essays published anonymously in Virginia in 1787–1788 by an opponent of the Constitution. Some historians have claimed that Richard Henry Lee was the author of these letters, though this is still a matter of much debate. Nevertheless, the views of the Federal Farmer mirror Lee’s own quite closely. Directions: Consider whether each excerpt is (1) a statement of Lee’s principles, or (2) a criticism of the proposed Constitution. Mark each excerpt with “principle” or “criticism” accordingly. A The plan of government now proposed is evidently calculated totally to change, in time, our condition as a people. Instead of being thirteen republics, under a federal head, it is clearly designed to make us one consolidated government. B The essential parts of a free and good government are a full and equal representation of the people in the legislature, and the jury trial of the vicinage in the administration of justice. C There are certain inalienable and fundamental rights, which in forming the social compact, ought to be explicitly ascertained and fixed....These rights should be made the basis of every constitution. D A wise and honest administration can make the people happy under any government; but necessity only can justify even our leaving open avenues to the abuse of power, by wicked, unthinking, or ambitious men.
    [Show full text]
  • Teacher Sourcebook, Volume III
    Our Documents Teacher Sourcebook, Volume III Our Documents is a program of: The Sourcebook is sponsored by: The National Archives and Records Administration, National History Day, and The History Channel are proud to continue their partnership in the Our Documents initiative and this third volume of the Our Documents Teacher Sourcebook. This program is not just about looking at old documents. The documents serve as a catalyst to help teachers, students, parents, and all Americans to strengthen their understanding and appreciation of the records and values that undergird our democracy. Exploring the historical milestones they represent teaches us about our continual quest to “form a more perfect union.” This year we are again making available more supporting material for the 100 documents, sharing additional ideas about how teachers can use these documents in their classes, and illustrating how they might help their students connect these pivotal documents to major themes in American history and to events and issues they face in their own lives. When President Bush launched the Our Documents initiative in September 2002 he noted, “Our history is not a story of perfection. It is a story of imperfect people working toward great ideas.” We hope you find this sourcebook helpful as your classes explore the great ideas at the heart of our union that continue to shape the nation’s future. John W. Carlin Cathy Gorn, Ph.D. Libby O’Connell, Ph.D. Archivist of the Executive Director Historian in Residence United States National History Day The History
    [Show full text]
  • Ulster-Scots and the Declaration of Independence
    Ulster-Scots and the Declaration of Independence US and Dec of Ind BK4 AW.indd 1 17/12/09 12:16:20 Ulster-Scots and the Declaration of Independence Ulster-Scots and the Declaration of Independence The influence of Ulster-Scots Presbyterians was heavily stamped on the American Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 and in the unfolding events which led to the establishment of the United States as a nation. The historic Declaration contained sentiments closely identified with the aspirations of the Presbyterian immigrant stock from the north of Ireland who settled in the American colonies during the 18th century. A significant assertion was: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. The 56 men from the 13 colonies who signed the Declaration were almost entirely of British family origin. Thirty eight were firmly established as being of English extraction, eight Irish (at least five of whom had direct Ulster family connections), five Welsh, four pure Scottish and one Swedish. One account from Ulster writer the Rev W. F. Marshall records the far-seeing contribution of the Scots- Irish (Ulster-Scots) in the struggle for American independence, with General George Washington reportedly stating: “If defeated everywhere else I will make my last stand for liberty among the Scotch-Irish of my native Virginia”. British Prime Minister at the time Horace Walpole was less flattering, with a jibe to King George 111 and the British Cabinet: “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson .
    [Show full text]
  • Charters of Freedom - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights
    Charters of Freedom - The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights Making of the Charters The Declaration The Constitution The Bill of Rights Impact of the Charters http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/[3/13/2011 11:59:20 AM] Charters of Freedom - The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights Making of the Charters The Declaration The Constitution The Bill of Rights Impact of the Charters When the last dutiful & humble petition from Congress received no other Answer than declaring us Rebels, and out of the King’s protection, I from that Moment look’d forward to a Revolution & Independence, as the only means of Salvation; and will risque the last Penny of my Fortune, & the last Drop of my Blood upon the Issue. In 1761, fifteen years before the United States of America burst onto the world stage with the Declaration of Independence, the American colonists were loyal British subjects who celebrated the coronation of their new King, George III. The colonies that stretched from present- day Maine to Georgia were distinctly English in character although they had been settled by Scots, Welsh, Irish, Dutch, Swedes, Finns, Africans, French, Germans, and Swiss, as well as English. As English men and women, the American colonists were heirs to the A Proclamation by the King for thirteenth-century English document, the Magna Carta, which Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition, established the principles that no one is above the law (not even the August 23, 1775 learn more... King), and that no one can take away certain rights. So in 1763, when the King began to assert his authority over the colonies to make them share the cost of the Seven Years' War England had just fought and won, the English colonists protested by invoking their rights as free men and loyal subjects.
    [Show full text]
  • Golden Letters: James Wilson, the Declaration of Independence, and the Sussex Declaration
    Golden Letters: James Wilson, the Declaration of Independence, and the Sussex Declaration Danielle Allen and Emily Sneff Final Draft (June 29, 2018) Forthcoming, Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, January 2019 1 Golden Letters: James Wilson, the Declaration of Independence, and the Sussex Declaration Danielle Allen and Emily Sneff1 I. Introduction In Allen and Sneff (“The Sussex Declaration,” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, fall 2018), we describe, analyze and date to the 1780s a previously unknown parchment manuscript of the Declaration of Independence, housed at the West Sussex Record Office in the United Kingdom and now known as the Sussex Declaration (figure 1). At 24” x 30.5” this parchment is on the same ornamental scale as the only other known contemporary manuscript of the Declaration of Independence on parchment, the engrossed parchment at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. (the “Matlack Declaration”), which was signed by the delegates to Continental Congress. In contrast, the Sussex Declaration lists the signatories, but with all the names written in the hand of a single clerk. Most importantly, the Sussex Declaration departs from all other 18th century preparations of the Declaration in dispensing with state-by-state groupings for the list of signatories; indeed, the only 19th century text that also dispenses with state-by-state groupings derives from the Sussex Declaration. This detail is the single-most anomalous feature of the Sussex Declaration. [Figure 1: Sussex Declaration] 1 We thank the West Sussex Record Office in Chichester, including Wendy Walker, Jenny Mason, Simon Hopkins and Frances Lansley (who passed away in 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • June 20 Newsletter
    ProjectProject LifesaverLifesaver NewsletterNewsletter || JuneJune 20202020 Project Lifesaver 2020 Conference Project Lifesaver is offering both remote and limited on-site attendance for this year's conference! In compliance with CDC and State of Florida COVID-19 guidelines, there is limited space available for on-site attendance. All attendees (both remote and on-site) must register in order to participate, so that we may accommodate accordingly. Check out the conference website for more details at the link below. We hope to see you there! https://projectlifesaver.org/conference/ Monday, August 31, 2020 10:00am – 10:30am Opening Ceremonies 10:30am – 10:50am U.S. Army Telemedicine Technology Research 10:50am - 10:55am Meet Our Ambassadors: Candi Spritz 10:55am – 11:40am Gary Barg, Fearless Caregivers & Caregiver Panel Discussion 11:40am – 11:55am "A Sports Legend's View" with Dale Neuburger 11:55am - 12:00pm Meet Our Ambassadors: Max Gail 12:00pm – 12:40pm Fireside Chat on "Sensory Inclusive Training for First Responders" with Dr. Julian Maha M.D, CO-Founder of KultureCity; & Noah Wyle, film, television, & theater actor 12:40pm - 12:45pm Meet Our Ambassadors: Haley Moss 12:45pm – 1:00pm Closing Comments & Review Tuesday, September 1, 2020 10:00am – 10:15am Opening Comments & Announcements 10:15am – 11:00am Panel Discussion on "The High Incidence of Dementia Among Native Americans" 11:00am – 11:15am North Dakota State Patrol Statewide Program 11:15am – 11:45am Technology Updates 11:45am – 12:45pm Keynote: Kim Campbell, Alzheimer's Advocate, Best-Selling Author, and widow of Grammy Hall of Fame Musician Glen Campbell 12:45pm – 1:00pm Closing Comments The Declaration of Independence The Ambassador's Column Ron Yeaw I.
    [Show full text]