1776. Just so you know, todays the last day weve extended our museum hours to 7 00 p. M. The parchment sheet on display upstairs, though now much faded, is the original official version of the declaration of independence. Many versions have since have been made since Congress Approved it. Most notably the dunlap broadside printed on paper on the night of july 4th, 1776 and several facsimile reproductions made in the early 1800s. Today, with the copy of the declaration of independence, recently uncovered bu our two guests, Danielle Allen and emily sneff. This parchment document, the sussex declaration, is the same size as the original declaration on display in the ro dotunda an dates from 1780s. A notable feature of the sussex declaration is the arrangement of the signatures. Theyre not arranged by state delegation as they are on our declaration, and other early versions and danielle and emily will give us their theories on what this new arrangement thmay mean. Before we turn the stage over to them, id like to acknowledge two people in the audience who have, perhaps, the closest connection to the declaration of independence of anyone living. Back in 2001, mary lynn, and kitty nicholson, who are sitting right here in the front, wave your hands, removed the declaration from its case and gave the beloved document its first conservation treatment in 50 years. Mary lynn was chief of conservation at the National Archives and kitty was deputy chief of conservation. Their hands are the last to have touched the historic document. Its now my pleasure to introduce our two guest speakers this afternoon, Danielle Allen, university professor, and director of the edmund j. Saffer center for ethics at harvard university. A political theorist who published broadly in democratic theo theory, political ceasociology history of political thought. Known for her work on justice and citizenship, allen is the author of several books inclu including our declaration. 2001 macarthur. And the society of american historians. Shes also a contributing columnist for the washington post. Emily sneff, resource manager of the declaration resources project in the center for american studies at harvard university, responsible for administration, research and web content in pursuit of the projects mission to create innovative and informative resources about the declaration of independence. Background in content development and curatincuration. She was a member of the curatorial. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Danielle Allen and emily sneff. [ applause ] thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you to David Ferriero and the National Archives for having us. Thanks for joining us turg thdu this week of july 4th celebrations. At the declaration resources project, create innovative and informative resources about the deck la roigs ratist ratio rat n declaration of independence. To writing blog posts about the historical accuracy of movies that include the declaration, to developing a video game that encourages Civic Engagement among middle and high school students. But our core scholarly project is the creation of a database of every known edition of the declaration of independence, print and manuscript, perused between 1776. Including 156 copies produced in the United States, alone. It was in the course of this work that we uncovered the document well be discussing today. The sussex declaration. This will be a brief overview. Id encourage anyone whos interested in learning more about the sussex declaration to visit our website, declaration. Fas. Harvard. Edu. Follow us on twitter tt declaration declarationres. August 2015, we came across this document from the online catalog entry which read, quote, manuscript copy on parchment, the declaration in congress of the 13 United States. After requesting an image, danielle and i were able to take our first look at what we now call the sussex declaration named for west sussex, england, you can see in context on the map in the south of england. Its worth noting this type of discovery is really only possible through the digitization of catalog records. Holdings at the west Sussex Record Office are searchable through the uk National Archives online catalog. The document was deposited at the west Sussex Record Office in 19 56 by mr. Leslie holden who wrked for the local Solicitors Office and was dedicated to learning about and preserving local history. Holdens daughter generously gave us access to her fathers journals and they confirmed the following story that was originally relayed to us by a longtime archivist at the record office. In 1942, the Solicitors Firm for which holden worked decided to give a number of papers to the paper Salvage Program in support or the war effort. Holden took a look at the papers to be disposed of and was, as he wrote, quote, completely astounded by what he discovered. A number of these papers and parchments were historically significant and in his view, worth saving. So with the permission of his superiors, he and two other local experts sifted through the papers, setting aside anything potentially important. The sussex declaration was most hikely among these papers. Saved by holden and 14 years later deposited at the west Sussex Record Office. Its worth noting the Solicitors Firm dates back to the 18th century. Today they exist as smr. And they counted the dukes of richmond among their clients. A number of papers deposited at the same time as the sussex declaration also relate to the dukes. The seat of the dukes of richmond is located just a few miles away from the west Sussex Record Office. And as well revisit later, charles lennox, the third duke of richmond, earned the nickname, the radical duke, for his support in particle chliamee american colonies. Ill briefly review the physical characteristics of this document and Danielle Allen will discuss the probable circumstances of its production and a plausible answer to the question of how it got to the uk. The sussex declaration is a parchment manuscript copy of the declaration of independence and both of those terms are important. There are other printed copies on parchment, and there are other manuscript copies, typically on lettersized paper. The only other known parchment manuscript copy of the declaration of independence is in this building. What we wi inscribed by timothy matlak and signed by 56 delegates. At 24 x 30 inches the sussex declaration is the same size, but as you san can see, its oriented. The full text of the declaration of independence and the same title of the matlak declaration in congress, july 4th, 1776, the unanimous declaration of the 13 United States of america. The title is ornate, but the rest of the document is in a very legible round hand. This is distinct from the italic hand that matlak used. The right margin of the text is rightly justified and careful planning must have gone into the pru production of this document to ensure the text would fit neatly and proportionate hi ly on the parchment sheet. The names of the 56 signers are listed at the bottom. Its important to note that not everyone signed the matlak declaration on august 2nd, 1776 and one signer, thomas mckean, may have signed up to a few years later. So the fact that all 56 signers are listed on the sussex declaration is significant. Lets take a closer look. Within the body of the text, certain words are emphasized. Cruelty and perfaty in this example. See the back of the parchment from which you can tell it was folded for a time before its current octobo fold. Since this is a copy of the declaration of independence and were in the National Archives, its important to say that there is nothing on the back. A portion of the parchment has been scraped away to the right of the title. You might be able to make that out. And a few other areas within the text have also been scraped away and rewritten. The parchment is in very Good Condition apart from some rodent damage along the edges which you can see. There are preindustrial nail holes in the corners, indicating that it was hung up at some point. Based on the horizontal ore yen tar orientation, parallel lines around the edges and a few other features, we believe this drumt w dru document was made in the credentials delegates would present upon their arrival in congress. The sussex declarations size, legibility and nail holes are evidence this was prepared for a publ public, not private, purpose. For display. Using material evidence, we dated the sussex declaration to the 1780s and believe it was produced by a clerk working in either new york or philadelphia. Now lets take a closer look at the list of names which has prove b to be the most remarkable characteristic of this document. As you can see, several names are misspelled. In this sample, john pin, pen. Richard storkton. Stockton. And john witherspore. Witherspoon. These misspellings could only really be achieved in the names were copied from signatures. Additionally the names are abbreviated as they appear in signatures. Benja franklin, for example. This means the source text for the sussex declaration has to be the matlak declaration or another copy that replicates the signatures and such copies didnt exist until the 19th century. However, as you can see, the names are not in the same order as the matlak declaration. John hancock almost always listed first in this role of president of the Continental Congress is listed fourth. On the matlak declaration, after hancock, the names proceed from right to left in state order from north to south. So that Josiah Bartlett of New Hampshire is at the top of the column furthest to the right and George Walton of georgia is at the bottom of the column furthest to the left. The exception is matthew thornton, as there was no room left for him to sign with his colleagues from New Hampshire. Its unusual for us to read from right to left, and it was unusual for the congress to sign a document in this way. Previous documents including the olive branch petition, which ive included here, had been signed in north to south order, but from left to right. When Mary Catherine goddard printed the first broadside to include all the names of the signers except mckean in january of 1777, she maintained the state groupings, but misinterpreted the north to south order. So, these state groupings are visually identifiable on the matlak declaration and typically labeled in printings of the declaration of independence including goddards broadside and the journals of the Continental Congress. But on the sussex declaration, the state groupings have been completely done away with. And after trying to find some sort of pattern or reason for the reordering of the names we reached the conclusion that the names were intentionally intermingled. Using the column order of mathlak declaration, names were picked from each column and a method that ensured that the state groupings would be obscured. This type of scrambling makes sense in an area where ciphers and codes were popular tools. The clerk who inscribed the sussex declaration used a combination of alternating columns and transposition to produce this new list. As you can see, small clusters of names from the furthest column to the right are intermingled with individual names from the other columns. This clever method allowed for the intermingling of names, while transcribing from a list that use state groupings, all the while white house losing track of any individual name. So once we realized the names on the sussex declaration were intermingled, we had to ask the question, why . The answer lies with whoever commissioned the parchment, and danielle will explore this topic in a moment, but first we want to mention a are related document. Only one other known edition of the declaration of independence lists the names in the same order as the sussex declaration. This miniature engraving produced by l. H. Bridgeham in boston in 1836. It is truly a miniature. As you can see, the text of the declaration fits within a threeinch square. In addition, the placement of some of the names on the engraving above and below the writing line provide evidence that it was copied from the sussex declaration or a copy of it, not the other way around. I will now hand things over to Danielle Allen. Who commissioned the sussex declaration and how it might have gotten to the uk. Thanks, emily. Thank you, emily. Thank you, all, for joining us today. When emily first identified the document in the archive in west sussex, secured an image of it, she emailed me the image and my response to her was holy history, batman. So we had an obvious mystery on our hands that we had to solve. Emily just walked you through the first mystery, which is the stating of the dumts, daocument to the 17 l 80s. Names intermingling and eradication of the conventional order by state groupings. So lets move on to the question of who commissioned the sussex declaration and why. We have to remember, as emily just pointed out, that in the 1780s, the period this parchment dates to, these would have been the available texts, if you wanted to see the declaration. They had been printed in newspapers in 1776 but those were ephemera. They belonged to the day. They were not preserved commonly. You wouldnt have had access to them if you wanted to see the text. You would have had access to a broadside like Mary Catherine goddards broadside. You would have had access to the records of Continental Congress, printed by robert adkin and john dunlap. The two texts had the state order groupings with the state labels on them. Now, imagine if youd been a signer of the declaration and this is what you signed. All right . How would you think of the relationship between these printed texts and what you signed . A document in which, in fact, the state order had already been somewhat obscured with the right to left ordering and without the use of state labels. James wilson was one sign r of the declaration who seems to have a definite view on what it meant. He was born in scotland, moved to north america in 177 56. Moved mostly in philadelphia. A property speculator among other things but also a lawyer. Has a politician, he was instrumental, founding the bank of pennsylvania and the bank of north america. He signed both the declaration and the constitution and was one of the first justices of the supreme court. The Constitutional Convention, he was recognized as being alongside madison, the most learned member of the Constitutional Convention. He was one of the most influential in terms of the structure or the arguments in philadelphia in that summer of 1787. Wilson had a view about what that founding moment had been. When he was working on the question of how the new country should pay for its war debts, he expressed this view as early as 1783. In congress, he was reported to have said that he always considered this country with respect to the war as forming one community. And the states which by their remoteness from congress had been obliged to incur expenses for their defense without previous sanction, ought to be placed on the same footing with those which obtained the security. Hes entering into an argument about how the war debts would be divvied up among states and hes arguing that they were one country, they declared independence, they formed one nation and ought to treat each other in that way equally across all states. This was an important part of this argument not only in thinking about war debt, but in terms of thinking about the need for a national bank. And as a part of his efforts to build first the bank of pennsylvania and the bank of north america, he asked congress, which moved to new york city in 1785, for access to the records, the archives. So he spent the summer of 1785 reviewing materials. So, for example, we know that he requested a set of journals from congress from the year 1774 to 1785. That he requested the records of the war years. Now, those records are important because they are the ones that included the printed version of the declaration and the fact that james wilson, signer of the declaration, a member of quo congress, had to request a set of journals is a good indication of how hard it was to come back the text of the original documents. He requested other original documents in the summer as a part of his research. One of the most striking things about his research that he came out of it with a new and stronger argument about what the founding had amounted to. So, that fall in a pamphlet defending the bank of north america, he wrote, the act of independence was made before the articles of confederation. This act declare s that these United Colonies not enumerating them separately, are free and independent states and as free and independent states they have full power to do all acts and things that independent states they have a right to do. In other words, hes injoking t invoking the declaration of independence, the United Colonies unitedly being free and independent and puts in parentheses in this original aktsd, t act, the colonies were not enumerated separately. This is the beginning of an argument he makes consistently throughout the decade that the new country had been founded on the basis of a single people, one community, not on the basis of separate states. He also, as a part of his arguments on behalf of the bank, connects the need for the bank to the declaration of independence with the point of view of ceremonial display of the declaration. In december of 1786, he imagines entering into the bank hall and he wants to see, he dreams of seeing at the upper end of the hall the bill of rights, the frame of government, thats the articles, and the declaration of independence. He says, and in his dream, what he wishes to see there i could not but observe that part of the declaration, signed the abolition of our charters as a reason for dissolving our connection with great britain, was written in golden letters. This dream that wilson has of seeing the declaration in golden letters hung in the bank of north america is the only text from the 1780s where a politician desires to see the declaration treated ceremonially in this way. It was still a legal text in this period, and wilson was one of the first people to start indicating that it should be celebrated ceremonially as a charter of freedom. He introduces his arguments about the declaration, about that founding moment in the Constitutional Convention. So, for example, in june, if we mean to establish a national government, the states must submit themselves as individuals. The lawful government must be supreme. Either the general or the State Government must be supreme. We must remember the language with which we began the revolution. It is this. Virginia is no more, massachusetts is no more. We are one in name, let us be one in truth and fact. And then a few weeks later, june 1 19th, he reads the declaration in the convention to make exactly the same argument. That the country had been founded as a single nation. He continues to make this argument in the following weeks. He put in his most pithy form on june 30th, can we forget for whom were forming a government, for man or the imagination beings called states . So wilson, all the way through this period, there are more quotations where he invokes the declaration, im giving you a smatering of them, only founder to be routinely invoking the declaration as domestic policy arguments. Literally the only one. Remember, the text had been buried, hard to get your hands on. Dunlap reprinted it in 17866. That was the first time it was reprinted in newspapers. Wilson is interpreting the declaration, what the new constitution should pursue. Wilson is the person, in other words, making a political argument that connects to this mode of presenting the declaration without statebystate groupings of t. Hes pick eed up by south carola politicians who make a similar argument. Wilson, himself, competes this argument in the pennsylvania ratification proceedings. Again, hes the only person from 1783 all the way through the convention is making this argument about the founding having been based on a single united people, not on states. So, when we were scouring the record of the 1780s, all the newspaper records of the period, all the letters and so forth, this was the one context that emerged where a politician expressed a purpose and intentionality that aligns with the details that we see on this parchment. So for this reason, we proposed james wilson as the commissioner of this parchment, as a part of this efforts to prepare materials for the Constitutional Convention. He like madison was there early. He lived in philadelphia. And before the convention convened, they worked together to figure out how to lay the foundation for the convention and one of the principles that they agreed on as madison wrote to jefferson later, reporting on events, was that the country had been founded on the basis of a single people and that that was one of the principles they needed to ensure worked its way through the convention. So, wilson is the most plausible candidate for the commissioner of the parchment but that takes us to the next mystery, how on earth does the parchment of this kind get from philadelphia to where it ended up in southern engla england . Theres a complexity here. And the complexity relates to the bridge of miniature which emily showed you, produced in 1836, so that means either the sussex declaration didnt move from the u. S. To the uk until after 1836, or there were multiple copies. Okay . So if youre a detective, and i see some possible young detectives in the audience here, all right, this presents you with a significant problem because you have to explore two different pathways. You have to look for possible transmission after 1836, and you have to explore transmission before 1836. And as you begin to develop plausible hypotheses, you have to figure out which ones can be disproven. So this is a massive amount of research which were still working on. What were going to do today is present to you some evidence why we think it did move earlier, 1780s or 1790s, which would mean we think there are multiple copies of this text. All right . Going to provide some evidence of that and evidence for a plausible pathway for how it moved. What were doing is presenting a hi hypothesis. Not presenting a definitive account or smoking gun account. All right . Everybody clear on that part . Okay. So, as emily mentioned, it was deposited at the west Sussex Record Office. The deposit in which we found it has 78 items in it, items date between 1621 and 1910. So for young detectives, thats good, you have an absolute end point, 1910, couldnt have gotten there later than then. All right . So that helps a lot. You also look at the other documents in the deposit, what else is there . And, indeed, as emily indicated, the documents come from clients of the Solicitors Firm, the most commonly, or the client thats represented the most strongly in the archive are the dukes of richmond. 23 items belong to them. But theres also material from the bishops of chichester and a couple of other families. So, nonetheless, based on the presence of the material there, and the lack of connections between the other clients and the americans, we have focused our research on the dukes of richmond. Now, as for the dukes, here they are. Third through tenth. The third who would have been duke 1750 to 1806 and currently the tenth duke began his dukedom in 1989. If you want to look then at whether the text moved after 1836 or before it, focus on the fifth duke and the sixth duke. The good news is the family has kept good records of their possessions since 1822. And theres no record any document of this kind having entered into their possession. Evidence of it having entered the firm after 1836. The slit tolicitors firm. Thats not to say it could turn up. We havent found evidenvidence e document moving into their possession. Theyve kept good records in written form and oral since 1 2 1822. That pushes us back to the earlier period and the duke on the left. What might possibly be the link between the third duke and james wilson . The answer is thomas payne. All right . Now what we want to do is share the story of the connection between wilson, payne, and the duke of richmond. This is a set of links that havent been documented previously and it gives us a window into how ideas about politics and the American Revolution may have migrated across the ocean. And among the u. S. , britain, and france. So, thomas payne, people dont often remember that he began his professional life as a tax collector. Okay . An excise officer in louis in southern england, to 1774. Its from there that he came to the u. S. He came to the u. S. On the strength of a recommendation from Benjamin Franklin. He was connected in london to Benjamin Franklin by somebody who worked in the british treasury, a man named george scott. But he also, in working in louis, worked under the administration of the duke of richmond. The duke of richmond was responsible for judicial activity in the county. Payne was an assiduous juryman while he was there. Duke of richmond was also a patron in the late 1760s and 1770s of politics in louis. This included being a pat ron of the races, sponsored horse racing sponsored in louis and people most interested in supporting the races were the owners of the whiteheart tavern, now hotel, you can still go visit it, and the neighboring coffee shop. Both the owner of the whiteheart and the coffee shop were among paynes closest associates. One sevened as the best man at his wedding and participated in republican politics in the city of louis. A Newspaper Publishing republican writings. The duke in this period was beginning to develop inside about constitutional reform in england. He was participating in these political conversations in louis. Our suggestion is richmond may have been the patron who connected thomas payne to george scott and Benjamin Franklin. The question of how payne got connected to those prominent g figures has been obscure. Nobody has seen the role of richmond in louis previously. Our suggestion was richmond was the patron who connected payne in that way. So, just to give you more of a sense of location, what you got here on the map is in southern england, the relationship between where the parchment ended up, in west sussex and the whiteheart hotel in louis, which, again, wases a hotbed of political activity. They have a plaque up there that still describes themselves that way. And as a part of that political activity that emerged from sussex, southern england, the duke in 1780 wrote a pamphlet called a letter to Lieutenant Colonel sharman. Sharman was in ireland, irish working on revolutionary activity trying to throw off British Authority and wrote to prominent reformers in england asking for their advice. In this letter, the diuke laid out his view there should be universal male suffrage, and achieve an egalitarian representation throughout the country. These were political views that were very antithetical to what king george iii wanted for his country so richmond was very much in opposition. In this period as he was developing these views, he was also the peer in the house of lords who would be the first to stand up and defend the americans. To argue that the british would sue for peace, to argue that they should accept american independence and acknowledge the new nation. As emily said, for that reason, he earned the nickname of the radical duke because he was a supporter of the americans. The americans recognized this. They would celebrate his name as being one of the leading british statesmen to defend the american cause. In addition to writing this pamphlet, he also supported other dissenters and reformers and radicals and we know this from examples like this letter from thomas northcoate who wrote a letter in 1781 where he both describes earlier support from richmond and also complains about it having been cut off. He writes to john adams, honorable sir, i have supported the cause of america from the first. I have devoted my protperty, my time and strength to the former colonies. At the time theyre most in danger. I stand forth to this hour almost alone to defend my own principles with their conduct. Many great affirmties, now reduced to half my pay. Since the loss of my excellent friend dr. Jeb. For some years gave me a small assistance. Im worthy of his great dignity and fortune and written acknowledgements of my talents and services to the cause of freedom. What is this cruel desertion hes talking about . Richmond had been involved in radical politics and in 1783, he had the chance to enter the government. To join the parliament, pitts parliament, work with and behalf of the king. He took that opportunity and he repudiated his former politics and his former political acquaintances. As part of taking this opportunity, he had to write an abject letter of apology to the king for not having been present in court for the previous decade. An extraordinary moment where he reoriented his politics. And the result is that radicals who depended on him felt as northcote put it, cruelly deserted. So, the point of this story about richmond is to indicate both that he was moving in similar political circles to payne, and he supported radicals, but he moved away from that. All right . This brings us to 1783, 1786. Just before the Constitutional Convention. Payne is in philadelphia with wilson in 1787, february and april, theyre both working on behalf of the bank of north america. They succeed in getting its charter reinstated. With franklin, they found a society, society for political inquiries, to prepare for the convention. In april, payne sails back to the United Kingdom. Hes in europe, subsequently, through the french revolution, until moving to paris in 1792. So, in 1789, so 2 years after payne has gotten back to england, there are two significant political events. Whats called a regency crisis in england, so this is a moment when king george iii has another bout of madness, right . And this provokes british politicians to begin exploring the possibility of transitioning the government to the prince of wales. And some of them while they are exploring this also begin to consider the reform of the Political Institutions again. And just as this is happening, things are moving in france toward revolution. So the regency crisis is in january of 1789. By the summer, we have the fall of bastille and revolution in france. In that context of revolution in france, the regency crisis, reformers from the early 178 os in england begin to become very active again, they think this is their moment to drive change in english politics. One of the foremost advocates for changes in politics a politician named charles fox who was the nephew of the king of richmo richmond. They were part of the same family. New engla some of reformers who worked with richmond a decade earlier tried to recruit him back into their project, back into their work. There was something called the society for constitutional information and in 1792, they reprint his earlier reform pamphlet. Also in 1792, thomas payne publishes one of his most radical books. This is a book in which he defends the french revolutions. Hes defending the french revolution against edmond burke. As part of his defense of the french revolution, he blasts the duke of richmond in footnotes. So the duke of richmond, he says, takes away as much for himself, maintain 2,000 poor and aged persons. Hes referring to the duties the duke gets by virtue of being an aristocrat, just the rights he has based on his land and possessions. He calls him a member of a band of parasites living in luxurious indolance. Theres a clear personal animus that resinates from the words so much so he has to step back and say, finally, in stating this case, i am led by no personal dislike. I think it mean of any man to live upon the public, the vice orange nate originates in the government. Whether the parties are in the ministry or the opposition, it makes no difference. Theyre a sure guarantee of each other. So hes making the case that hes ready to condemn the aristocracy generally and the ways in which they take advantage of ordinary people in england. Yet, he has had the chance to make these kinds of condemnations of richmond for two decades and hes never done it. Why does he do it now . Our suggestion is, again, wish we could give you everything, but were trying to give you a brief picture here, our suggestion is payne who was collaborating with reformers in the early 1790s had been working with them to try to recruit richmond back into the project of reform. And that this might have been a moment when he would have shared Something Like the declaration of independence, this parchment document, with the duke of richmond. The controversy between the two of them reached its highest pitch on july 4th, as it happens, 1792, when payne has now repudiated richmond the pages of his book that came out that spring, and all throughout the land, people are starting to condemn payne. The king has passed a proclamation against sedition. Payne is the target of this proclamation. People are burning him in effigy all over the country. And all over the country, townsmen are gathering to deliberate and decide whether to sport the king and his proclamation against sedition or to support payne and the townsmen of louis gather and the duke of richmond is chairing the meeting and in advance of the meeting, payne writes to the councilman of louis asking for their support. He writes, it is now upwards of 18 years since i was a resident and habitant of the town of louis. My situation among you as officer of the are rrevenue for than six years enabled me to see into the numerous, time of day occasioned. Feeling as i then did, naturcur for me to do, for the hard conditions of others is it with pleasure i can declare every person then under my survey, now living can win this exceeding candor and tenderness, that part of the duty that fell to my share, was executed. Reminds the townsmen of lewes what a good job hes done as a tax collector. Defend himself in the moment where the townspeople of lewes might repudiate him under the chairmanship of the duke of richmond. What happens . There are some newspaper reports about that meeting and all we know from pretthe little fragme is the letter provoked reactions of disgust such that the very idea of the letter, that it was torn up and thrown unread on the table at the meeting. And the townspeople under a richmonds chairmanship voted against payne in support of the kings proclamation. So richmond repudiated payne repudiated richmond on the pages of his book. Richmond and the townsmen of lewes repudiated meeting. Nonetheless, despits this explosion in the relationship between the two of them, they were still associated in the public mind so, for example, theres an abolitionist named william fox, in 1794 had this to say about them, the progress of jackobimism, is amply secure without the aid of the duke of richmond or thomas payne inciting the body of people to assume government. During the regency crisis, pain argued england should have a Constitutional Convention like the american ones and so fox says, citizens richmond and payne ransacking all the gin shops to form a National Convention isnt even a necessary thing. Okay . So the point is simply that theres some connection between richmond and payne, they were perceived as being political allies by some yet they also went out of their way in 1792 to repudiate one another and its in that relationship we think there may have been a movement of this parchment from wilson in philadelphia, through payne, to richmond. I want to provide a few other Little Details to flesh out this picture. So, payne was very much in the business of circulating letters and objects among revolutionaries. So, for example, lafayette wanted to give the key to the bastille to george washington. He used thomas payne as his courier to get the key to washington. We have lots of other examples of letters that payne handed over from americans, letters passed through london and he got them to the relevant people in paris. He was in the middle of a network connecting things across these three locations where politics were active and complicated. And as i said, theres a connection between richmond and payne, to the politics of lewes which hasnt been spotted previously. We havent been able to find an equivalently dense connection of richmond to any other one of the american political figures who was also working with wilson. Weve tested this hypothesis with scholars and scholars concur that its plausible. As i said to start, there are other also plausible pathways, so, for example, payne lived for a time in 1792 in paris with richmonds nephew, edward fitzgerald, an irish revoluti revolutiona revolutionary. Also possible payne could have given the document to him and might have ended up in the richmond papers through that nephew. There are other radicals who went back and forth between philadelphia and the United Kingdom who we might think of as possible people to have transferred this document. So theres a lot more research to do, but this story between payne and richmond is one that has come to light because we found this parchment declaration and have been trying to figure out how on earth it could have gotten from philadelphia to the United Kingdom. So, in closing, i want to just say thank you, again, to David Ferriero, archivist, were so grateful to the invitatioinvitay lynn and kitty, for all the work youve done with the parchment in residence at the National Archives and help youve given us on this project. Its a pleasure to share this work with all of you and we look forward to answering your questions about it. Thank you. If you have questions, please go to the microphones in the aisles so we can get it all recorded. Thank you for a fascinating presentation. What impact do you think this declaration had . Thank you. So i think its very straightforward in the sense of the role it played in the Constitutional Convention and in the ratification. So, in some sense you can reverse engineer the answer to that question. You look at the architecture of our institutions and the senate reflects the view that this country was founded on the basis of a single people, and the house reflects the view that it was founded on the basis in effect of a federation or treaty among different states. Where you have sort of proportion sorry, reverse that. The senate reflects the view that it was founded on the basis of treaties among equal states and the house repts represents t was based on a single people that needed to be proportiona proportionately represented. Tha that, of course, is the fundamental debate in the convention. The fact the proportion representation view got as far as it did and gained as much traction as it did is because of the arguments wilsz s wilson wa. See him at critical points, being endorsed by hamilton. Hamilton some extent, madison for the most part, hamilton coming in and backing up wilson. This document supported i think that view and hence, its significance. Hone th hope that answered your question. Thank you, danielle, emily. Do you know if the tenth duke of richmond is lord omarch . Lord o jnl marmarch is the the tenth duke of richmond. The earl of march, the heir, takes over the Family Business at a certain point. As you can see, his father is at this point quite elderly. Thats an old photo. The earl of march runs the Family Business at this point. I was in chichester last september at the speed revival. As you know, its big horse racing. Yep. Must have traced back to what you said. Yep, no, it is. The family founded cricket in the uk. Which is another extraordinary thing. And they built up a huge sort of Horse Racing Network in southern engla england. This is the third duke, raced stalls in 1792 in lewes then they built racetracks at goodwood in the early 19th century that were some of the biggest and best and moved on from that to car racing. Thank you. Yes, it goes all the way back to the American Revolution. Thank you. In todays equivalent of a text, a tweet, an email, a wire, what is the document that got to europe after the declaration of independence materialized in north america . Is it in the newspaper or was it something that theres a record of something somebody picked up in king george iii and somebody else screamed, somebody was upset about . Is there any record about that . Theres lots to say. Do you want to take the first . Thats still a question to be definitively answered and to be honest, thats what i was looking for when we found this. I was looking ining for that d. The uk National Archives has several dunlap broadsides that traveled across on ships pretty immediately. Basically the sdunlap broadside sent to new york got on a ship, got over to england by the second week of august. So its my belief that its still to be proven that a dunlap broadside would have, the first document to reach england. The idea of the signed parchment, signing his name big enough for king george to read it, that makes no sense because king george would have never seen it unless things went really poorly. Its nr likely it was a broadside and it was picked up in the english newspapers so the engli english people would see it. Yes, we believe the broadside and this document is from a decade later. Theres a funny feature of the english reception, which is that theres one change in the text in the english text, which im not going to remember now exactly. Its in, i think, the fourth clause of the second sentence which in the american version reads, that whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends and the british version has changed the start of that clause, and we cannot find the source text that generated that change in the text. But most of the british newspaper versions have that alternative there. So theres another text out there somewhere of some kind if we havent found it yet. There are a few anomalies that pop up in the british only in the british editions and some are censored, of course. Thats a whole other piece to it, but the document that created all of those differences is still out there. I want to just follow up on your comment about either broadsides or the newspapers, is there records of commentary or was it just recorded in the newspaper as a fact when those newspapers were printed . No, i mean, theres definitely so the king had a lawyer who did various kinds of work for him named john lind who wrote sort of 110page, approximately, repudiation of the declaration. Pointbypoint refutation of all the grievances, for instance. And theres one very funny farcical rendering from that period shortly after it arrived which is more or less a kind of litany of complaints about the americans. Sort of turns everything insideout. So it got a lot of traffic, got a lot of attention. In state papers, there are handwritten copies, so, for example, the equivalent to the foreign secretary, there are some handwritten copies of it in his paper. He clearly, somebody had to copy from something in order for him to get the text on a very early point. So, there are multiple points of reception. We mentioned there are other m manuscript copies on letter size pieces of paper, two of those are in the uk secretary of state. Another one in theme parliamenty archives from 1778, probably copied from a dunlap broadside or another printed document. Its worth saying, they were distributing this to all the major european governments and so my hunch is that if you visited sort of austrian archives and russian archives and things like that, there are probably more early copies to be found that we dont know about because nobodys had the chance to look for them in those places, but basically, every European Capital should have had a significant early copy. Looks like we should go back and forth between both sides. Sorry. Perhaps this is a juvenile question, is there any relationship between the family and richmond in the United States in virginia . Thats a good question. Havent actually checked that. I have not. Thank you for the idea. Thinking ofcolonialism, the time, a huge presence of the family, that could exacerbate the payne connection. I cant explain the richmond name. There were other things named richmond. British battleships named rich mond, parts of england called richmond that were not related to the family. We should check about richmond, virginia. The richmond family had a strong interest in america. They planted thousands of american plants on their estate, for example. And the second duke also shared that interest. But neither of them ever travelled to america. The fourth duke did have an appointment, british appointment, as, in canada, as governor or i cant remember what his role was. May have been a military appo t appointme appointment. He died in canada having been bitten by a rabid animal. He, you know, you might think maybe he collected this and he was there between sometime between 1806 and 1819. Theres a good record of what became of his papers and so forth and his possessions and theres no indication of a document of this kind. Was there any horticultural overlap with jefferson given his interest . Horticultural overlap . Yeah, because he was fascinating with cultivating old strains. There were the horticultural connection actually connected him to richmond, to franklin, in the first instance so theres less et evidence of Jefferson Richmond connection. Theres a lot of franklin richmond. Peter collingson, horticulturist, a lot of connection there as well. Thanks. Very interesting presentat n presentation. You bring up so many other questionses in the presentation that youve done. One question is, were there any other documents to show that the wilson document was actually a misrepresentation of the original declaration of independence by changing the order of the signatures . And then ill ask my second question, which is, very simplistic, but its been a nagging question that ive had. And that is, we signed the declaration of independence, i think it was signed various times, but the official date was july 4th, 1776. Was it important, how did we communicate this to england that we were declaring independence . And when was that officially done and when did england acknowledge that we were free . And the followup to that is, would it have been possible to have signed a declaration of independence without having a war . Is there any language in the declaration that would have found the possibility of us being independent without having to fight a war . So, im going to start with the second question first. So, britain did not acknowledge the independence of the u. S. Until 1783 in the treaty of paris. To put it in the most blunt terms. Though, beginning in the late 1770s, the duke of richmond, then others, began arguing that they britain should acknowledge the independence of the colonies. So there was no route that would have avoided war. King george and his Prime Minister were committed to holding onto their colonies. And despite dissent internally, they had very strong view on that point. So i think there was really no alternative. With regard to the issue of the documents being misrepresentations come back to this. I think the hard thing about that is these texts were misrepresentations. Thats the problem. So these texts were misrepresentations because they reapply the state labels. And reinforce the notion of those groupings which had been obscured on the matlac. So if thats the matlac. Between those two things, theres a slippage there. So when we get to this version whered it go . Thats not very big, sorry. Have to go back the other way. Yes, its true that it is also moving away from the original. But, you know, to the same degree as those printed versions. Theyre all misrepresentations in some sense of the original. And i think the important point for me is wilson was as i see it, if our hypothesis about him is correct was trying to convey about what hed done as a signer. In other words, he was representing what his experience of signing the document had been. And hence the language of virginia is no more. Massachusetts is no more. And so forth. So its a misrepresentation if you think of it as a copy of the matlac. But not if you think of it as wilson conveying his understanding of what he had done. Yes . Dr. Allen, youre the daughter of the most brilliant man i know. So im glad to be able to be in the room here today. Youre very seat. But i wanted to ask a little bit about you. So youre a political theorist, but this seems and feels like a history project. So can you talk about how you ended up being involved in this project in the first place and what it means in terms of your in the context of your broader work . Thank you for your question. So with regard to the technical matter of my academic training, im both a historian and a political philosopher. I have a ph. D. In classics, in history, and Political Science and political philosophy. So half of my academic training is nittygritty archival historical research. Its true that my training applied to antiquity, ancient greece and ancient rome, opposed to the early american republic. But its the same set of skills specifically. So how did i get into this project and bring emily into it with her remarkable skills . Basically i taught the declaration of independence as a course in American History for some night students. And i became increasingly committed to its value, its philosophic value. And began writing a book about it. In the process of writing that book, i discovered my favorite National Archives theme that the transcription of the declaration of independence on the National Archives website had an error in it. The second sentence of the declaration as written by jefferson, as copied out by adams is as follows. We hold these truths to be selfevident 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. Instituted among money dearriving from the consent of the governed when any form form of government is destructive of these ends, it is the rights of the people to abolish it and Institute New government, laying information on such principle and organizing in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Thats the whole second sentence of the declaration of the independence. Five clauses following the selfevident truths. Five clauses. Now, most people thinks the sentence stops after the pursuit of happiness. The reason people think that is because in that moment, july 2nd, july 4th when the declaration was being voted on and endorsed, congress had dunlap print it in a broadside form to go to the troops and foreign governments. And dunlap was going to put it in his newspaper. But his newspaper wasnt coming out for a few days and there was another guy named Benjamin Towne who was making his business by scooping from everybody else. He got the information from that in his paper. That second sentence is long and so he put a period there. So two were circulating. I began to realize this is the reason the National Archives one had gotten a period in it. That towne period was the original source of that period on the website. Why did this all matter . It mattered because that second sentence about the selfevident truths is this incredible statement about a theory of revolution. Part of the history of political thought. But also the basis of consent to the government, securing rights, and the right of the people to make judgments of the government and adopt it and adapt it if necessary. And the whole sentence goes from that statement, that claim about our individual rights to a statement about our collectively working through the tool of government to secure our safety and happiness together. That is a hugely important of political thought and philosophy. And i wanted to understand the ideas in that sentence and i wanted to understand why it was that some americans dont see the whole sentence, only see half of it. Just a part of the individual rights. They lose the part thats about our working together through the tool of government to secure our rights. And because i wanted to understand where that had come from, that led me into this archival rabbit hole. I wanted to see the diversity of the declaration. So i had the idea of trying to develop a data base project to collect every version of the declaration of independence that was produced between 1776 and 1830 and i managed to talk emily in joining me in that project. And emily has remarkable skills meticulous with regard to detail and so forth. And so between the two of us, we had the historical tools, knowledge, et cetera to pursue this archival project. And the truth of the matter is if you love a good mystery, its pretty hard to walk away from exciting archival projects. So even if you also have political philosophy, you know, its hard for me to walk away from a good mystery. So that was a long winded answer to your question. But thank you for it. Thank you. I really appreciate your time. Interested in American History tv . Visit our website cspan. Org history. Preview upcoming programs and watch college lectures, museum tours, archival films, and more. American history tv at cspan. Org history. American history tv is on cspan3 every weekend featuring museum tours, archival films, and programs on the presidency, the civil war, and more. Heres a clip from a recent program. When his father dies in 1857, willie takes over supporting the family. He doesnt, apparently, ride for the pony express, but he is working as a lad to keep his mother and sisters alive. When the National Civil war comes, willie joins the first he joins an Informal Group of what were known as red legs. Jayhawkers. These are kansasians as he admits in his autobiography who feels the kansasans picked on them. To cross into missouri and get their revenge. So hes in an informal j jayhawking kansas regiment fighting in missouri. Then in 1864 he joins the kansas seventh which is the notorious jayhawking regimen. If you were a missourian and i said kansas seventh, you would know what that meant even probably today. And they had such a Bad Reputation for what they were carrying out in missouri that they got sent away from the kansas missouri border. He did see some service in the south and by the end of the war, hes back in st. Louis. Well, what did Buffalo Bills childhood in bleeding kansas and in his youth as a jayhawker in the civil war mean to him . You can watch this and other American History programs on our website where all our video is archived. Thats cspan. Org history. In 1911, the triangle shirtways factory in new york caught fire and 146 workers died 37 mostly women and immigrants. This was one of the deadliest industrial disasters in the United States. Members of the remember the Triangle Fire Coalition spoke about the events history, memory, and relevance to today. Its an hour and 15 minutes. Welcome. Welcome to the triangle factory fire in american memory, a conversation between historians and activists. You may notice theres cameras. We are being filmed by