Charles Thomson, the secretary for the Second Continental Congress, might be described as a minimalist with the journals – as John Adams later complained. (But to be fair, Adams’s complaint came a quarter-century later, and in large part because he expected the journals to make up for the deficiencies of his own memories and record-keeping.) Thomson succinctly noted only the official, conclusive, public business, and even that in often attenuated form.

Note, for instance, that for June 7 his entry is only this:

Certain resolutions respecting Independency being moved and seconded, / Resolved, That the consideration of them be referred till to-morrow morning …

No mention of who proposed or seconded it, not even any indication of the wording – or the response. Did some delegates cheer, did others boo, was there just complete silence?

To complicate matters slightly, Thomson kept two sets of journals, one now called the “rough” journals probably made “live” in the room, and from those the “transcript” or “corrected” journals that were regarded as official and used for printing. In the “rough” journals – which survive and can be found digitized on the National Archives if you’re diligent enough – Thomson didn’t even use the word “Independency” on June 7 or 8 – and only kind of, sort of on June 10. I think there may have been hesitancy on Thomson’s part to identify the bold measure more openly at first.

Likewise, Thomson didn’t even record the wording until June 10.

For another complication, Richard Henry Lee’s proposal actually had three prongs to it. In addition to independence (the first), the proposal also moved “to take the most affect forming foreign alliances” (without which the Revolution would have struggled even more than it did) and to prepare and transmit “a plan of confederation” to the colonies for approval (this became the Articles of Confederation).

But it was the first prong that naturally got attention – clogged matters up. Congress met on Saturday, June 8, and began by going into a committee of the whole, with Harrison presiding – and all we can tell from the journals is that it ended inconclusively with “resolution” that Congress would resume as a committee of the whole on the following Monday (it didn’t meet on Sundays) to undertake against the matter.

And so, frustratingly, we don’t know from the journals precisely what happened that Saturday in the committee of the whole. Was there bickering and threatening? Was there hooting and backslapping? Were they all cool, calm, and collected?

But then we can turn to Jefferson’s own account, noting three things.

1. First, we don’t really know with certainty exactly when or how Jefferson produced these notes, except that the earliest trace of them dates to 1783, seven years later.
2. Second, Congressional delegates were, theoretically, under a strict vow of secrecy (which helps to explain why the available record can seem so thin).
3. Third, while Jefferson’s account names names and gives a more fulsome account, it also has some issues for us to sort through. For instance, this account does provide the actual wording (and some paraphrasing) of the resolution – but then notes only that “the Delegates from Virginia moved in obedience instructions from their constituents” – no Lee, no Adams. It begins abruptly with Friday, June 7, as though nothing significant preceded this one moment – and doesn’t even explain more exactly how the Virginia constituents had so instructed their delegates. It lays out positions taken, but not the give-and-take of argument and debate.

From Jefferson, then – too briefly:

As for contrary position, he identified James Wilson (PA), Robert R. Livingston (NY), the two Rutledges, John and Edward (SC), John Dickinson (PA), “and others,” and then enumerated 19 articulated objections. The first objection indicated they were generally on board with independence but were concerned about support and timing. Were “the people” at large supportive? Certainly, the middle colonies – Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York – were not yet ready (but soon would be).

In fact, some of the delegations had express instructions against independence (or had no instructions at all) that would have to be changed – and assemblies were in the process of doing so. Another fear had to do with unanimity, that if even one colony withdrew support it could endanger the whole enterprise. And there was considerable concern for foreign alliances. To a large degree, the opposition we might say was temporizing until there was more certainty.

The pro position included John Adams (MA), Richard Henry Lee and George Wythe (VA), “and others.” One of the most salient points was that a declaration of independence now “should declare a fact which already exists” – a fact which existed in various ways, including existing relationships and actions taken by the English. And besides, this group argued, “the people wait for us to lead the way” and “are in favour of the measure.” Temporizing any further “would be in vain.”

Most importantly, independence was necessary for foreign alliance: “a declaration of Independance alone could render it consistent with European delicacy for European powers to treat with us, or even to receive an Ambassador from us.”

Perhaps not all of these positions were so neatly laid out that Saturday, since they ended with a resolution to resume discussion after the weekend. But Jefferson’s general account affords us a neatly arranged glimpse into what was surely a sometimes messy and tense back-and-forth – especially since delegates had in one way or another been considering and discussing these matters for months.

Moreover, the arguments were not at all about principles and rights. They were about timing and practicalities. But above all, on June 7 when independence was first formally proposed, and on June 8 when it was first extensively discussed – the colonies/states were not unanimous in their commitment to a collective independence with each other.

It is important to bear in mind that as yet there was no “declaration of independence” proper with which to argue. There was only one briefly worded proposal (in Lee’s own handwriting): “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and out to be, totally dissolved.”

THAT is the kernel of American independence, and it will be important to keep that before us as we approach the Semiquincentennial – and to trace its wording in the Declaration itself.

Countdown to Semiquincentennial: Number 2, June 8, 1776
By Michael G. Ditmore