What do you think?
Rate this book
American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence
Pauline Maier shows us the Declaration as both the defining statement of our national identity and the moral standard by which we live as a nation. It is truly "American Scripture," and Maier tells us how it came to be -- from the Declaration's birth in the hard and tortuous struggle by which Americans arrived at Independence to the ways in which, in the nineteenth century, the document itself became sanctified.
Maier describes the transformation of the Second Continental Congress into a national government, unlike anything that preceded or followed it, and with more authority than the colonists would ever have conceded to the British Parliament; the great difficulty in making the decision for Independence; the influence of Paine's Common Sense , which shifted the terms of debate; and the political maneuvers that allowed Congress to make the momentous decision.
In Maier's hands, the Declaration of Independence is brought close to us. She lets us hear the voice of the people as revealed in the other "declarations" of 1776: the local resolutions -- most of which have gone unnoticed over the past two centuries -- that explained, advocated, and justified Independence and undergirded Congress's work. Detective-like, she discloses the origins of key ideas and phrases in the Declaration and unravels the complex story of its drafting and of the group-editing job which angered Thomas Jefferson.
Maier also reveals what happened to the Declaration after the signing and how it was largely forgotten and then revived to buttress political arguments of the nineteenth century; and, most important, how Abraham Lincoln ensured its persistence as a living force in American society. Finally, she shows how by the very act of venerating the Declaration as we do -- by holding it as sacrosanct, akin to holy writ -- we may actually be betraying its purpose and its power.
Maier describes the transformation of the Second Continental Congress into a national government, unlike anything that preceded or followed it, and with more authority than the colonists would ever have conceded to the British Parliament; the great difficulty in making the decision for Independence; the influence of Paine's Common Sense , which shifted the terms of debate; and the political maneuvers that allowed Congress to make the momentous decision.
In Maier's hands, the Declaration of Independence is brought close to us. She lets us hear the voice of the people as revealed in the other "declarations" of 1776: the local resolutions -- most of which have gone unnoticed over the past two centuries -- that explained, advocated, and justified Independence and undergirded Congress's work. Detective-like, she discloses the origins of key ideas and phrases in the Declaration and unravels the complex story of its drafting and of the group-editing job which angered Thomas Jefferson.
Maier also reveals what happened to the Declaration after the signing and how it was largely forgotten and then revived to buttress political arguments of the nineteenth century; and, most important, how Abraham Lincoln ensured its persistence as a living force in American society. Finally, she shows how by the very act of venerating the Declaration as we do -- by holding it as sacrosanct, akin to holy writ -- we may actually be betraying its purpose and its power.
336 pages, Paperback
First published May 26, 1997
106 people are currently reading
1,669 people want to read
About the author
Pauline Maier
32Ìýbooks40ÌýfollowersDr. Pauline Maier was a historian of the American Revolution, though her work also addressed the late colonial period and the history of the United States after the end of the Revolutionary War. She was the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of American History at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Maier achieved prominence over a fifty-year career of critically acclaimed scholarly histories and journal articles. She was a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and taught undergraduates. She authored textbooks and online courses. Her popular career included series with PBS and the History Channel. She appeared on Charlie Rose, C-SPAN2's In Depth and wrote 20 years for The New York Times review pages. Maier was the 2011 President of the Society of American Historians. She won the 2011 George Washington Book Prize for her book Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. She died in 2013 from lung cancer at the age of 75.
Maier achieved prominence over a fifty-year career of critically acclaimed scholarly histories and journal articles. She was a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and taught undergraduates. She authored textbooks and online courses. Her popular career included series with PBS and the History Channel. She appeared on Charlie Rose, C-SPAN2's In Depth and wrote 20 years for The New York Times review pages. Maier was the 2011 President of the Society of American Historians. She won the 2011 George Washington Book Prize for her book Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. She died in 2013 from lung cancer at the age of 75.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews
March 5, 2022
Every year on the Fourth of July, Americans gather together to eat grilled food and set off fireworks in celebration of the founding of their nation. The day is regarded as the nation’s birthday, yet the choice of date is in some respects an arbitrary one. Arguably as good of a case could be made for the nation’s birth taking place on the date of the battles of Lexington and Concord or the convening of the Second Continental Congress in 1775, or with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, or the establishment of the Constitution of the United States in 1788. Instead, the date of July 4, 1776 is regarded as the day the United States was born, because it was on that date that a particular document was signed.
That document, of course, was the Declaration of Independence. As a statement of the reasons the colonies were seeking independence, it served as a bill of charges that justified the extraordinary actions the revolutionaries undertook. With the Revolution won the generations that followed came to revere the Declaration as a statement of the values on which the new republic was based. Yet as Pauline Maier shows, such veneration has had the effect of reshaping the role of the Declaration in ways unimagined by the people who signed it. Her book demonstrates this by deconstructing the process that created the Declaration and examining how it subsequently gained the iconic status it enjoys today.
As Maier notes, the revolutionaries approached the act of declaring independence cautiously. Even after the outbreak of fighting against British troops, many of the members of the Continental Congress hesitated when faced with the question of declaring independence. Some delegates balked at the idea of separation from the British empire and the risks such a move entailed, while others felt constrained by their instructions from their state’s legislatures, which did not authorize such an extreme step. Moreover, the question of declaring independence was just one of the many war-related issues before a heavily burdened body, some of which were of greater urgency. Because of this, it wasn’t until April 1776 � a full year after the outbreak of fighting between colonial forces and British troops � that the Continental Congress committed to pursuing independence.
The Congress assigned the task of drafting the declaration to a five-person committee. Though the committee left no minutes of its proceedings, Maier sifts through the participants� (oftentimes contradictory) recollections and the surviving documentary record to detail the process. Thomas Jefferson is naturally at the center of her narrative, as she breaks down his work to show the elements that reflected its inheritance from similar English and colonial declarations of rights. Yet while giving Jefferson due credit for his role, she also describes the contributions made by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and others in the Continental Congress, who took Jefferson’s hastily-assembled draft and edited to down into the final document with which we are familiar. In the process she makes a convincing case for their efforts having improved the original product of Jefferson’s pen.
Once it was signed the Declaration was disseminated quickly throughout the rebelling colonies. Though it was preceded by some of the declarations issued by individual states, localities, and other groups, Maier sees its influence in the ones issued from that point onward. By the end of the war, however, the Declaration virtually disappeared from the discourse as Americans focused on the challenges of building a new nation. This changed with the rise of party politics in the 1790s, as Jefferson’s supporters began celebrating the document as the product of his genius. The stature of the Declaration grew as a new generation of Americans began to revere the revolutionary generation and its achievements. Among their number was Abraham Lincoln, whom Maier credits with doing more than any other single person to empower the Declaration as a document defining the nation’s principles, giving it its continuing relevancy for Americans down to the present day.
Meier recounts all of this in a deftly-written text is easily accessible for the general reader. It’s an outstanding work of scholarship, and all the more so for the modesty of her claims. While she acknowledges her debt to Carl Becker’s classic and disclaims any intention of duplicating his work, she builds nicely upon it to offer a fuller understanding of the document and its legacy. It makes for a book that joins Becker’s work as essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the Declaration and why it continues to matter today.
That document, of course, was the Declaration of Independence. As a statement of the reasons the colonies were seeking independence, it served as a bill of charges that justified the extraordinary actions the revolutionaries undertook. With the Revolution won the generations that followed came to revere the Declaration as a statement of the values on which the new republic was based. Yet as Pauline Maier shows, such veneration has had the effect of reshaping the role of the Declaration in ways unimagined by the people who signed it. Her book demonstrates this by deconstructing the process that created the Declaration and examining how it subsequently gained the iconic status it enjoys today.
As Maier notes, the revolutionaries approached the act of declaring independence cautiously. Even after the outbreak of fighting against British troops, many of the members of the Continental Congress hesitated when faced with the question of declaring independence. Some delegates balked at the idea of separation from the British empire and the risks such a move entailed, while others felt constrained by their instructions from their state’s legislatures, which did not authorize such an extreme step. Moreover, the question of declaring independence was just one of the many war-related issues before a heavily burdened body, some of which were of greater urgency. Because of this, it wasn’t until April 1776 � a full year after the outbreak of fighting between colonial forces and British troops � that the Continental Congress committed to pursuing independence.
The Congress assigned the task of drafting the declaration to a five-person committee. Though the committee left no minutes of its proceedings, Maier sifts through the participants� (oftentimes contradictory) recollections and the surviving documentary record to detail the process. Thomas Jefferson is naturally at the center of her narrative, as she breaks down his work to show the elements that reflected its inheritance from similar English and colonial declarations of rights. Yet while giving Jefferson due credit for his role, she also describes the contributions made by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and others in the Continental Congress, who took Jefferson’s hastily-assembled draft and edited to down into the final document with which we are familiar. In the process she makes a convincing case for their efforts having improved the original product of Jefferson’s pen.
Once it was signed the Declaration was disseminated quickly throughout the rebelling colonies. Though it was preceded by some of the declarations issued by individual states, localities, and other groups, Maier sees its influence in the ones issued from that point onward. By the end of the war, however, the Declaration virtually disappeared from the discourse as Americans focused on the challenges of building a new nation. This changed with the rise of party politics in the 1790s, as Jefferson’s supporters began celebrating the document as the product of his genius. The stature of the Declaration grew as a new generation of Americans began to revere the revolutionary generation and its achievements. Among their number was Abraham Lincoln, whom Maier credits with doing more than any other single person to empower the Declaration as a document defining the nation’s principles, giving it its continuing relevancy for Americans down to the present day.
Meier recounts all of this in a deftly-written text is easily accessible for the general reader. It’s an outstanding work of scholarship, and all the more so for the modesty of her claims. While she acknowledges her debt to Carl Becker’s classic and disclaims any intention of duplicating his work, she builds nicely upon it to offer a fuller understanding of the document and its legacy. It makes for a book that joins Becker’s work as essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the Declaration and why it continues to matter today.
November 6, 2016
A bit of thematic reading for July. Maier tells two stories, both well. The first of these debunks the myth that the Declaration of Independence was largely the product of Thomas Jefferson's singular genius -- a myth Jefferson had a habit of encouraging later in life. Against this she lays out the history of the many "Declarations of Independence" put forth by various colonial governments in the months between the beginning of the Revolution at Lexington and Concord and the Second Continental Congress' declaration on July 4, 1776 (which was only one date in a fluid process; John Adams was certain the US would forever celebrate July 2). Through this history, Maier shows that the ideas, and even sometimes the phrases, that made it into Jefferson's Declaration were already in circulation by the time he put pen to paper; Jefferson's Declaration was more synthetic than original, and Jefferson more draftsman than author.
The second story Maier tells is of how the Declaration itself was largely forgotten nearly as soon as it was signed, and only later became, as her title would have it, American Scripture. This story traces the Declaration's revived cultural presence starting with its partisan use in early 19th-century politics and culminating in its evocation in the Gettysburg Address. This was to me the far more interesting story, and I wish she had devoted more time to it. All in all, though, a very interesting read, with excellent and useful appendices.
The second story Maier tells is of how the Declaration itself was largely forgotten nearly as soon as it was signed, and only later became, as her title would have it, American Scripture. This story traces the Declaration's revived cultural presence starting with its partisan use in early 19th-century politics and culminating in its evocation in the Gettysburg Address. This was to me the far more interesting story, and I wish she had devoted more time to it. All in all, though, a very interesting read, with excellent and useful appendices.
April 17, 2014
It's a good book for those who want to go in-depth on the thought, work, debate, drafting, and subsequent history and influence of the Declaration of Independence, but not be appealing for those looking for recreational reading. At times, it reads too much like an academic journal article, particularly on the section dealing with its drafting.
However, Maier does do a good job at giving more credit to John Adams and Benjamin Franklin for their influence on the Declaration's development. The original draft written by Jefferson was more verbose, and I think that Maier shows --- unlike so many other committee products --- that Adams, Franklin, and the other members of the Continental Congress did a good job of making the Declaration clearer, more understandable, and to the point so that it is the great work it is today.
Perhaps because so much has already been written about the Declaration of Independence previously and due to a possible perceived need to plow new ground, I think Maier may go a bit overboard in taking away credit from Thomas Jefferson for his outstanding work in drafting the Declaration of Independence to an extent that gets annoying at times, seeming to smack too much of revisionist history.
Its best part in my opinion is the latter part where the Declaration's influence is shown, and I thought the last chapter especially good.
However, Maier does do a good job at giving more credit to John Adams and Benjamin Franklin for their influence on the Declaration's development. The original draft written by Jefferson was more verbose, and I think that Maier shows --- unlike so many other committee products --- that Adams, Franklin, and the other members of the Continental Congress did a good job of making the Declaration clearer, more understandable, and to the point so that it is the great work it is today.
Perhaps because so much has already been written about the Declaration of Independence previously and due to a possible perceived need to plow new ground, I think Maier may go a bit overboard in taking away credit from Thomas Jefferson for his outstanding work in drafting the Declaration of Independence to an extent that gets annoying at times, seeming to smack too much of revisionist history.
Its best part in my opinion is the latter part where the Declaration's influence is shown, and I thought the last chapter especially good.
April 30, 2013
This book, a history of the decision to break with the British Empire and of the document which officially declared it so, focuses mostly on events of the late eighteenth century. Its point, however, is discovered only towards its conclusion, beginning with the discussion of the Lincoln-Douglas debates and ending with a strong condemnation of what, in constitutional law, is called 'strict constructionalism.'
This book is well argued and well sourced. While the writing style of the author is generally academic and pedestrian, she rises to some stirring rhetoric as she nears her concluding point.
This book is well argued and well sourced. While the writing style of the author is generally academic and pedestrian, she rises to some stirring rhetoric as she nears her concluding point.
February 28, 2021
Solid, with a couple of good points but one caveat.
The first big point is that maybe, instead of celebrating either July 4 or, per John Adams, July 2 (the day Congress officially declared America independent), we should celebrate May 15. (In turn, that would honor Adams more.)
On that date, Congress approved a preface to a resolution to the 13 colonies which said that, if they had no current government "sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs," they adopt and create such governments.
The preface, written by Adams, Richard Henry Lee and Edward Rutledge, was even more inflammatory. Among other things, it said: "It is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed."
What is that but a declaration of independence?
Point 2 is noting how much the Declaration as we have it today was NOT written by Jefferson, and how many of the changes made it MUCH better. Adams and Franklin, of the Committee of Five, mad a few and a couple of changes, respectively, to Jefferson's first written draft. (Livingston and Sherman apparently made none.) It was Congress, adjourned into a Committee of the Whole, that made the wholesale changes.
==
Caveat: Maier is in the mainstream and center of the tide of what's called the "American conventional" or other names school of interpretation of American history. This was the school that developed in reaction to the Beards. She briefly mentions the original Revolutionary generation wanting to pull up the ladder and deny revolutionary rights to Daniel Shays and other 1780s insurgents. (That said, a kudo for calling them "insurgents" and not "rebels.") It would have been nice to hear more.
The first big point is that maybe, instead of celebrating either July 4 or, per John Adams, July 2 (the day Congress officially declared America independent), we should celebrate May 15. (In turn, that would honor Adams more.)
On that date, Congress approved a preface to a resolution to the 13 colonies which said that, if they had no current government "sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs," they adopt and create such governments.
The preface, written by Adams, Richard Henry Lee and Edward Rutledge, was even more inflammatory. Among other things, it said: "It is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed."
What is that but a declaration of independence?
Point 2 is noting how much the Declaration as we have it today was NOT written by Jefferson, and how many of the changes made it MUCH better. Adams and Franklin, of the Committee of Five, mad a few and a couple of changes, respectively, to Jefferson's first written draft. (Livingston and Sherman apparently made none.) It was Congress, adjourned into a Committee of the Whole, that made the wholesale changes.
==
Caveat: Maier is in the mainstream and center of the tide of what's called the "American conventional" or other names school of interpretation of American history. This was the school that developed in reaction to the Beards. She briefly mentions the original Revolutionary generation wanting to pull up the ladder and deny revolutionary rights to Daniel Shays and other 1780s insurgents. (That said, a kudo for calling them "insurgents" and not "rebels.") It would have been nice to hear more.
October 7, 2023
Pauline Maier, herself, an amazing historian, has written an equally amazing, well researched, day-by-day re-enactment of the change in the spirit of the American people, who were desperately hoping for reconciliation with their beloved Mother country and kinspeople, whom many still held ancestral ties with and considered themselves to be “Englishmen�, but realizing after Lexington and Concord that they not only had to defend themselves against her, but they had to cut all ties with her, and especially her tyrannical king, who forced their hand with his blatant disregard for their cries for help, and instead, declared them cut-off from English protection and in a state of rebellion, setting his troops against them, enlightening these people to the fact that cutting ties with His Majesty was not only necessary, it was a good thing, for they now could declare themselves free and independent, able to govern themselves as they saw fit for “the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community� , and so the spirit of these peoples shifted, and their delegates convened in Philadelphia to finally declare this independence from that tyrannical king and his country forever, giving the task to a committee of five to hurriedly write a most essential document, of which, Thomas Jefferson was the main draftsman, but this document was based also on the common ideas of not only other historical documents, but the constitutions of those states that had been forced to write them since “George the Third, King of Great Britain, has endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of this country, by breaking the original contract between King and People�; hence, this Declaration of Independence was spread throughout these United States not only telling of their independence, but more importantly, the “Consequences…from this Declaration of Independence, considered as the Ground & Foundation of Government, will naturally suggest the Propriety of proclaiming it in such a Manner, that the People may be universally informed of it� , in other words, they were now free to create their own government, to correct the mistakes the Mother country made, to make laws for themselves, by themselves, to be represented in that government and to be treated fairly as citizens of this new independent county, The United States of America!
October 13, 2022
A blurb on the back of this book refers to it as "a meticulous exhumation" regarding the Declaration of Independence. That is so true. Maier goes in depth on the document's origins, its drafting process, its editing process, and its relationship to other documents from the time. Some moments stand out. Maier's discussion of state and local independence instructions and resolutions made more clear to me just how much the Declaration comported with popular wishes. I think that matters - the Declaration had buy-in from beyond Philadelphia, a fact not often discussed when I think of the Declaration.
I also enjoyed Maier's discussion of the editing process. We as Americans seemingly view the Declaration as springing from Jefferson's mind in its final form. Maier dispels that myth - when confronted with the initial draft, the Congress deleted about a third of Jefferson's draft, including one passage on the slave trade. Not only is that interesting, but it's also amazing - group editing usually doesn't go that well.
My other favorite part was the final 30 pages or so. Maier tracks how the subsequent generations of Americans repackaged the Declaration from a justification of independency into a freestanding statement of equality on which the Founders had supposedly built the country. It made for very interesting reading, and I wondered throughout whether we as Americans improperly glorify the Declaration as a result of those efforts. As in, should we consider it in the latter way, or are we somehow subverting Jefferson's originl message? I think it's a fascinating question.
The book has one big negative, however, and that is its style. A bit ponderous and tough to read at points. That's not to knock Maier - she is an academic and her writing is reminiscent of most academics. But it often is a bit too dense. So I recommend taking your time with this one and not trying to speed read - you will fail and lose many of the nuggets she includes.
I also enjoyed Maier's discussion of the editing process. We as Americans seemingly view the Declaration as springing from Jefferson's mind in its final form. Maier dispels that myth - when confronted with the initial draft, the Congress deleted about a third of Jefferson's draft, including one passage on the slave trade. Not only is that interesting, but it's also amazing - group editing usually doesn't go that well.
My other favorite part was the final 30 pages or so. Maier tracks how the subsequent generations of Americans repackaged the Declaration from a justification of independency into a freestanding statement of equality on which the Founders had supposedly built the country. It made for very interesting reading, and I wondered throughout whether we as Americans improperly glorify the Declaration as a result of those efforts. As in, should we consider it in the latter way, or are we somehow subverting Jefferson's originl message? I think it's a fascinating question.
The book has one big negative, however, and that is its style. A bit ponderous and tough to read at points. That's not to knock Maier - she is an academic and her writing is reminiscent of most academics. But it often is a bit too dense. So I recommend taking your time with this one and not trying to speed read - you will fail and lose many of the nuggets she includes.
July 8, 2017
This book strips away the accretion of mythology and indeed even reverence for the Declaration to refocus our eyes on the essential nature of the document. It does so in four sections: how the colonies arrived at the decision that independence was the only avenue available to redress their grievances, the documents that predated and set a precedent for the language that was used in the Declaration, the process of its composition and revision by multiple delegates to the Congress in Philadelphia, and finally, the afterlife and evolution of the reputation of the document itself.
Until June 1776, it was not apparent that Independence was the only available option; King George precipitated that with a massive influx of military strength and guarantees that he would use it suppress a "rebellion". Once decided upon, many documents throughout history, including state declarations in the months and years prior, prove that the Declaration's language had precedence in previous covenants between government and governed. Jefferson did accomplish the bulk of the composition, but there were also significant contributions from other attendees, including some of the more quotable turns of phrase (in many instances, they "edited" Jefferson, often adding through subtracting his phrases). It also appears that the Declaration was not nearly as revered throughout the early history of the republic as it is now assumed; its legendary status began to grow after Jefferson's death, when it was appropriated by abolitionists and championed by Lincoln in his career. In our day and age, we often assume that the language of the document was inspired when it was in fact derivative of other documents. Indeed, the words quoted in the Jefferson Monument are not all original from Jefferson, but partially contributed by other Founders.
This is an important book, but it was a slog to read. It's only 215 pages of text (before Appendices that examine the drafts and influences), but it is so full of quotations of primary sources that I felt I was merely being guided through those documents rather than reading a lively examination of them. Again, if you want to examine the Declaration, this is probably the best book available, but read in sections (one of those four at a time).
Until June 1776, it was not apparent that Independence was the only available option; King George precipitated that with a massive influx of military strength and guarantees that he would use it suppress a "rebellion". Once decided upon, many documents throughout history, including state declarations in the months and years prior, prove that the Declaration's language had precedence in previous covenants between government and governed. Jefferson did accomplish the bulk of the composition, but there were also significant contributions from other attendees, including some of the more quotable turns of phrase (in many instances, they "edited" Jefferson, often adding through subtracting his phrases). It also appears that the Declaration was not nearly as revered throughout the early history of the republic as it is now assumed; its legendary status began to grow after Jefferson's death, when it was appropriated by abolitionists and championed by Lincoln in his career. In our day and age, we often assume that the language of the document was inspired when it was in fact derivative of other documents. Indeed, the words quoted in the Jefferson Monument are not all original from Jefferson, but partially contributed by other Founders.
This is an important book, but it was a slog to read. It's only 215 pages of text (before Appendices that examine the drafts and influences), but it is so full of quotations of primary sources that I felt I was merely being guided through those documents rather than reading a lively examination of them. Again, if you want to examine the Declaration, this is probably the best book available, but read in sections (one of those four at a time).
May 7, 2018
A very good book on the Declaration of Independence- the Declaration and not all the others, the struggle to write and edit it; what the final product meant to those who wrote it and how its power has grown over the centuries. According to Maier, it is a revolutionary document and what makes it revolutionary, essentially, is that it rejected the king and it makes legitimate government, as it states, premised on the consent of the government. A great refresher on the Declaration complete with information I cannot recall learning before. It seems to me that we need to return to the Declaration and define it for our own age as others, from Lincoln to MLK did for theirs. All men are created equal. In some ways, we seem farther away from it than we have been for a very long time.
February 22, 2012
Of all the things to criticize Thomas Jefferson for, pride of authorship seems to be the most heinous attrocity for Maier. Difficult to understand why she hates TJ and the Declaration of Independence so much. Her introduction includes a story about her smug satisfaction of knowing more about Revolutionary history than a 10-year-old in front of her in line at the National Archives, and this bitterness overwhelms the whole book. It ends with her complaining that Abraham Lincoln shouldn't have used the Declaration of Independence in his argument to end slavery. Wha?!? Maier provides excellent insight on the lead up to the Declaration, but the continual snark and bias against TJ and the document itself can make it a frustrating read.
March 7, 2009
A really in depth look at the multiple contributors to the Declaration of Independence. The book traces the roots of many concepts to British documents, and shows how the concepts within the document influence other nations of that time. Also, the document becomes highly contested as already existing rifts in the US are exacerbated in the lead-up to the Civil War.
June 5, 2015
Contains 1 excellent chapter, 2 alright chapters, and a whole lotta bias. Good to read once, but not to reread.
October 17, 2016
Bored me to death
June 19, 2017
The Declaration of Independence was a re-write...
and it didn’t start the Revolution.
A quick review of what we know about the Declaration, courtesy of Prof. Pauline Maier: basically, it’s trash talk to King George III.
This book exposes the backstory of the Declaration. Yes, Thomas Jefferson wrote the draft in his stuffy room in Philadelphia, but the final document is the work of many hands. The Second Continental Congress substantially reworked Jefferson's draft. The Declaration didn't "start" the American Revolution. It wasn't the "kickoff" event. It was more like a final formality to officially authorize the colonial rebellion which had been evolving for years and which had been a shooting war for more than a year.
A point that’s interesting to me: much of the stirring prose in the Declaration had already been written in various forms by Jefferson and others in the multitude of documents approved locally throughout the colonies, expressing the colonials' increasing frustration with the failure of their efforts to negotiate a suitable accommodation with the King and his ministers and Parliament. Until the shooting started, there was persistent strong support throughout the colonies for remaining within the empire as long as American self-government could be sustained.
Finally, there is Maier's take on the Declaration as a late blooming "American Scripture." She documents, and challenges, the 19th century politicians' cumulative (and heedlessly incorrect) re-interpretation of the Declaration as a statement of governing principles and a blueprint for American political values and American democracy. Maier makes a plain case that the Declaration was intended only to demonstrate why, finally, the colonial disdain of King George had made American rebellion necessary and unavoidable.
A note for the serious reader: Chapter 4 incongruously seems to stray into anecdotal commentary on various interpretations by Abraham Lincoln and others. I understand the imputed relevance, but this section of American Scripture seemed to be casually written and insufficiently edited.
Read more of my book reviews on my website:
and it didn’t start the Revolution.
A quick review of what we know about the Declaration, courtesy of Prof. Pauline Maier: basically, it’s trash talk to King George III.
This book exposes the backstory of the Declaration. Yes, Thomas Jefferson wrote the draft in his stuffy room in Philadelphia, but the final document is the work of many hands. The Second Continental Congress substantially reworked Jefferson's draft. The Declaration didn't "start" the American Revolution. It wasn't the "kickoff" event. It was more like a final formality to officially authorize the colonial rebellion which had been evolving for years and which had been a shooting war for more than a year.
A point that’s interesting to me: much of the stirring prose in the Declaration had already been written in various forms by Jefferson and others in the multitude of documents approved locally throughout the colonies, expressing the colonials' increasing frustration with the failure of their efforts to negotiate a suitable accommodation with the King and his ministers and Parliament. Until the shooting started, there was persistent strong support throughout the colonies for remaining within the empire as long as American self-government could be sustained.
Finally, there is Maier's take on the Declaration as a late blooming "American Scripture." She documents, and challenges, the 19th century politicians' cumulative (and heedlessly incorrect) re-interpretation of the Declaration as a statement of governing principles and a blueprint for American political values and American democracy. Maier makes a plain case that the Declaration was intended only to demonstrate why, finally, the colonial disdain of King George had made American rebellion necessary and unavoidable.
A note for the serious reader: Chapter 4 incongruously seems to stray into anecdotal commentary on various interpretations by Abraham Lincoln and others. I understand the imputed relevance, but this section of American Scripture seemed to be casually written and insufficiently edited.
Read more of my book reviews on my website:
July 21, 2022
If you’re looking for a good history lesson on the Declaration of Independence, this is it. This is a very dense and very detailed account of the circumstances, political ideals, and influences of the Declaration at the time of its drafting, along with a look at how it’s use, meaning, and interpretation have shifted over time. This can be slow reading because there’s just so much history and language interpretation here, but I enjoyed learning so much more about the ideals beyond the document.
January 2, 2025
This book gives the Declaration of Independence footnotes by tracing documents that influenced its authorship and the histories that elevated it to near-religious status. Maier's webs of local evidence are fantastic, and her writing is easy to read. Also includes a solid description of how the Declaration came about that I’d love to share with my undergrads because it’s so accessible.
September 24, 2024
Pauline Maier explores how and why the Declaration of Independence came to assume the role of expressing the values and ideals of the American people. In her book Maier argues:
“The remaking of the Declaration of Independence no less than its original creation was not an individual but a collective act that drew on the words and thoughts of many people, dead and alive, who struggled with the same or closely related problems. The eloquence of Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s texts depends in part on the resonances they captured, and their messages were convincing because the hearts of their audiences had been . . . “prepared� to received it (xx).�
While the First Continental Congress advocated moderation and defense of rights with hopes of reconciling with Britain, the Second Continental Congress functioned as a provisional government to lead a wartime effort that served as the backdrop to the Declaration. Even after Lexington and Concord, many colonial leaders in the state assemblies and the Second Continental Congress hoped for reconciliation with Britain after American grievances were redressed. Likewise, they feared based on historical precedent the long-term viability of a republic as a form of government. This meant that the Second Continental Congress faced a lingering question about the ultimate goal: independence or reconciliation. Most members, even the most radical, claimed to want to remain a part of the British Empire. The colonists wanted “to devise a way of establishing traditional English liberties within an imperial context (22).� However, the British believed in parliamentary supremacy, leading to a brutal response of declaring the colonies in rebellion, making lawful the seizure of any American ship, sending British troops to quell the rebellion, and burning down colonial towns, which ended any hopes of reconciliation.
By the spring of 1776 public opinion shifted towards independence. Even the staunchest moderates and hold-outs came to accept the inevitability of independence based on George III’s response to American grievances and support of the ministers.
Many states issued their own declarations, stating their reasons for breaking with Britain, before Jefferson wrote the one authorized by the Continental Congress. Colonists cited the destruction of their towns, the violent military conflict, confiscation of colonial property, the use of Native Americans in Canada and Lord Dunmore’s proclamation encouraging slave uprisings, the political act of the king removing the colonies from the crown’s protection, and the king choosing to ignore the mayor of London’s request for terms of peace in the American colonies before sending military forces, as reasons for independence.
Congress appointed the Drafting Committee on June 11, which consisted of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert R. Livingston of New York, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, and Benjamin Franklin (although he was absent until the end due to health problems). The surviving historical record makes the exact events of the committee and drafting process difficult to piece together, but most accounts agree Jefferson wrote the original draft after input from the original committee about basic points and incorporated some minor revisions of the initial draft by Adams and Franklin.
The last revisions occurred when the committee of the whole met to discuss Jefferson’s draft; they removed around 1/4 of the text. This involved minor changes in language, cutting superfluous phrases, while making some passages stronger in tone and others more moderate. Most famously the Congress eliminated Jefferson’s passages blaming the slave trade on George III as South Carolina and Georgia rejected the idea of ending the slave trade. Congress also added two additional references to God to the original draft, which Maier believes was included to reflect the strong religious beliefs of the country’s people. Jefferson didn’t react well to many of these edits, sending copies of his original draft to friends for them to judge which version was superior. Once approved, Congress made sure copies of the declaration were sent and read to state governments, committees of safety, and the army. Many local authorities further authorized the declaration to be read at churches during sermons and other public events.
Jefferson drew inspiration from his draft from the preamble of the Virginia Constitution, which itself borrowed from the English Declaration of Rights of 1689. He also took inspiration from George Mason’s draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Meanwhile Richard Henry Lee suggested Jefferson borrowed ideas from John Locke’s treatise on government, and John Adams wanting to downplay Jefferson’s role suggested the declaration wasn’t an original expression, but contained only those established ideas that had been debated in Congress for two years leading up to the writing of the declaration.
“Jefferson’s assertion of the right of revolution summarized succinctly ideas defended and explained at greater length by a long list of seventeenth-century writers that included such prominent figures as John Milton, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke, as well as a host of others, English and Scottish, familiar and obscure, who continued and, in some measure, developed that “Whig� tradition in the eighteenth century. By the time of the Revolution those ideas had become, in the generalized form captured by Jefferson, a political orthodoxy whose basic principles colonists could pick up from sermons or newspapers or even schoolbooks without ever reading a systematic work of political theory. The sentiments Jefferson eloquently expressed were, in short, absolutely conventional among Americans of his time (135).�
The spread of the declaration was met with celebrations, processions, and symbolic acts of rebellion against the old order such as tearing down a statue of George III in New York, but Americans celebrated the news itself, not the actual document, which was seen as a recapitulation of already stated grievances from previous documents.
“The Declaration was at first forgotten almost entirely, then recalled and celebrated by Jeffersonian Republicans, and later elevated into something akin to holy writ, which made it a prize worth capturing on behalf of one cause after another. The politics that attended its creation never entirely left its side, such that the Declaration of Independence, which became a powerful statement of national identity, has also been at the center of some of the most intense conflicts in American history, including that over slavery which threatened the nation itself. In the course of those controversies, the document assumed a function altogether different from that of 1776: it became not a justification of revolution, but a moral standard by which the day-to-day policies and practices of the nation could be judged (154).�
The popularization of the Declaration itself stemmed from the antagonistic party politics of the late 18th and early 19th century between the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. Republicans began to publish copies of the Declaration and read them publicly at their 4th of July celebrations in the 1790s, focusing on its beginning section with its philosophical principle about the fundamental rights of man. In the early 19th century, younger generations of Americans with a stronger sense of identity, especially with the 50th anniversary of independence approaching, developed a newfound interest in the American revolutionary past in which “members of the revolutionary generation were heroicized and the Declaration began to assume a certain holy quality (175).�
The sanctification of the Declaration continued as many new political causes used it to gain the moral high ground. Everyone from mistreated factory workers to the women’s right activists turned to the Declaration of Independence for inspiration for their own causes. Opponents of slavery turned to the Declaration of Independence and its claim of equality to oppose slavery. Abraham Lincoln especially helped develop this interpretation of all men being created equal.
“No less than Thomas Jefferson then, Abraham Lincoln gave expression to a powerful strain in the American mind, not what all Americans thought but what many did. The values he emphasized—equality, human rights, government by consent—had in fact been part and parcel of the Revolution, and as much the subject of controversy then as later. Lincoln and those who shared his convictions did not therefore give the nation a new past or revolutionize the Revolution. But as descendants of the revolutionaries and of their English ancestors, they felt the need for a document that stated those values in a way that could guide the nation, a document that the founding fathers had failed to supply. And so they made one, pouring old wine into an old vessel manufactured for another purpose, creating a testament whose continuing usefulness depended not on the faithfulness with which it described the intentions of the signers but on its capacity to convince and inspire living Americans (208).�
“The remaking of the Declaration of Independence no less than its original creation was not an individual but a collective act that drew on the words and thoughts of many people, dead and alive, who struggled with the same or closely related problems. The eloquence of Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s texts depends in part on the resonances they captured, and their messages were convincing because the hearts of their audiences had been . . . “prepared� to received it (xx).�
While the First Continental Congress advocated moderation and defense of rights with hopes of reconciling with Britain, the Second Continental Congress functioned as a provisional government to lead a wartime effort that served as the backdrop to the Declaration. Even after Lexington and Concord, many colonial leaders in the state assemblies and the Second Continental Congress hoped for reconciliation with Britain after American grievances were redressed. Likewise, they feared based on historical precedent the long-term viability of a republic as a form of government. This meant that the Second Continental Congress faced a lingering question about the ultimate goal: independence or reconciliation. Most members, even the most radical, claimed to want to remain a part of the British Empire. The colonists wanted “to devise a way of establishing traditional English liberties within an imperial context (22).� However, the British believed in parliamentary supremacy, leading to a brutal response of declaring the colonies in rebellion, making lawful the seizure of any American ship, sending British troops to quell the rebellion, and burning down colonial towns, which ended any hopes of reconciliation.
By the spring of 1776 public opinion shifted towards independence. Even the staunchest moderates and hold-outs came to accept the inevitability of independence based on George III’s response to American grievances and support of the ministers.
Many states issued their own declarations, stating their reasons for breaking with Britain, before Jefferson wrote the one authorized by the Continental Congress. Colonists cited the destruction of their towns, the violent military conflict, confiscation of colonial property, the use of Native Americans in Canada and Lord Dunmore’s proclamation encouraging slave uprisings, the political act of the king removing the colonies from the crown’s protection, and the king choosing to ignore the mayor of London’s request for terms of peace in the American colonies before sending military forces, as reasons for independence.
Congress appointed the Drafting Committee on June 11, which consisted of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert R. Livingston of New York, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, and Benjamin Franklin (although he was absent until the end due to health problems). The surviving historical record makes the exact events of the committee and drafting process difficult to piece together, but most accounts agree Jefferson wrote the original draft after input from the original committee about basic points and incorporated some minor revisions of the initial draft by Adams and Franklin.
The last revisions occurred when the committee of the whole met to discuss Jefferson’s draft; they removed around 1/4 of the text. This involved minor changes in language, cutting superfluous phrases, while making some passages stronger in tone and others more moderate. Most famously the Congress eliminated Jefferson’s passages blaming the slave trade on George III as South Carolina and Georgia rejected the idea of ending the slave trade. Congress also added two additional references to God to the original draft, which Maier believes was included to reflect the strong religious beliefs of the country’s people. Jefferson didn’t react well to many of these edits, sending copies of his original draft to friends for them to judge which version was superior. Once approved, Congress made sure copies of the declaration were sent and read to state governments, committees of safety, and the army. Many local authorities further authorized the declaration to be read at churches during sermons and other public events.
Jefferson drew inspiration from his draft from the preamble of the Virginia Constitution, which itself borrowed from the English Declaration of Rights of 1689. He also took inspiration from George Mason’s draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Meanwhile Richard Henry Lee suggested Jefferson borrowed ideas from John Locke’s treatise on government, and John Adams wanting to downplay Jefferson’s role suggested the declaration wasn’t an original expression, but contained only those established ideas that had been debated in Congress for two years leading up to the writing of the declaration.
“Jefferson’s assertion of the right of revolution summarized succinctly ideas defended and explained at greater length by a long list of seventeenth-century writers that included such prominent figures as John Milton, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke, as well as a host of others, English and Scottish, familiar and obscure, who continued and, in some measure, developed that “Whig� tradition in the eighteenth century. By the time of the Revolution those ideas had become, in the generalized form captured by Jefferson, a political orthodoxy whose basic principles colonists could pick up from sermons or newspapers or even schoolbooks without ever reading a systematic work of political theory. The sentiments Jefferson eloquently expressed were, in short, absolutely conventional among Americans of his time (135).�
The spread of the declaration was met with celebrations, processions, and symbolic acts of rebellion against the old order such as tearing down a statue of George III in New York, but Americans celebrated the news itself, not the actual document, which was seen as a recapitulation of already stated grievances from previous documents.
“The Declaration was at first forgotten almost entirely, then recalled and celebrated by Jeffersonian Republicans, and later elevated into something akin to holy writ, which made it a prize worth capturing on behalf of one cause after another. The politics that attended its creation never entirely left its side, such that the Declaration of Independence, which became a powerful statement of national identity, has also been at the center of some of the most intense conflicts in American history, including that over slavery which threatened the nation itself. In the course of those controversies, the document assumed a function altogether different from that of 1776: it became not a justification of revolution, but a moral standard by which the day-to-day policies and practices of the nation could be judged (154).�
The popularization of the Declaration itself stemmed from the antagonistic party politics of the late 18th and early 19th century between the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. Republicans began to publish copies of the Declaration and read them publicly at their 4th of July celebrations in the 1790s, focusing on its beginning section with its philosophical principle about the fundamental rights of man. In the early 19th century, younger generations of Americans with a stronger sense of identity, especially with the 50th anniversary of independence approaching, developed a newfound interest in the American revolutionary past in which “members of the revolutionary generation were heroicized and the Declaration began to assume a certain holy quality (175).�
The sanctification of the Declaration continued as many new political causes used it to gain the moral high ground. Everyone from mistreated factory workers to the women’s right activists turned to the Declaration of Independence for inspiration for their own causes. Opponents of slavery turned to the Declaration of Independence and its claim of equality to oppose slavery. Abraham Lincoln especially helped develop this interpretation of all men being created equal.
“No less than Thomas Jefferson then, Abraham Lincoln gave expression to a powerful strain in the American mind, not what all Americans thought but what many did. The values he emphasized—equality, human rights, government by consent—had in fact been part and parcel of the Revolution, and as much the subject of controversy then as later. Lincoln and those who shared his convictions did not therefore give the nation a new past or revolutionize the Revolution. But as descendants of the revolutionaries and of their English ancestors, they felt the need for a document that stated those values in a way that could guide the nation, a document that the founding fathers had failed to supply. And so they made one, pouring old wine into an old vessel manufactured for another purpose, creating a testament whose continuing usefulness depended not on the faithfulness with which it described the intentions of the signers but on its capacity to convince and inspire living Americans (208).�
January 21, 2018
Interesting study considering the newest Supreme Court Justice is a believer in interpreting the world from the point of view of the eighteenth century; ie, what the "original" meaning of things were. I assume he has a crystal ball that provides him guidance.
The book debunks the idea that the "founding fathers" were men unlike any other men in their wisdom and that they should be honored as prophets of the new order. It is a common fallacy that one group or person or generation is the "greatest" and that to question them in any way is heresy of some sort.
Not an easy read but quite good.
The book debunks the idea that the "founding fathers" were men unlike any other men in their wisdom and that they should be honored as prophets of the new order. It is a common fallacy that one group or person or generation is the "greatest" and that to question them in any way is heresy of some sort.
Not an easy read but quite good.
December 21, 2014
I am being unfair, for this is not a bad book. Trouble is Maier is dry, her asides are pointless, and her work lacks that driving fire as either a narrative or as a probing of the ideas behind the declaration. She does a good job of describing how our views on the declaration changed, but she rarely digs under the surface. This is the problem I also had with her other work and I hoped she would have progressed. However, when you come from the Ivy League and are lavished with praise, evolution is seemingly impossible. Why change when you are beloved coming out the gate? Great history either tells a story or digs deep and longingly. In that way not much has changed from Herodotus and Thucydides. Our modern analytical history has its charms but its impact on the larger world is insignificant.
June 13, 2015
Eloquently written with a deft hand and and elegant dry wit, this is close focus History at its best. A wonderful immersion in a fascinating and still very relevant subject. I especially liked the end, in which due weight is given to interpretation over the years, by different generations for an evolving epic of meaning. The characters come to life, the words speak aloud.Wonderful stuff! well worth the reading!
October 11, 2024
This is a multi-layered examination of one of the most famous documents in American history, and manages to do so without any “Founding Fathers� worship. Maier deftly interweaves a look at how it was written and contrasts it with many of the “other� declarations produced at the same time by many other people in the colonies. She also shows how the Declaration went from being forgotten to venerated.
September 26, 2021
In American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence, Pauline Maier sketches a history of the Declaration of Independence from its drafting in 1776 to reinterpretations of the document in mid-nineteenth century politics. Given the reverence for the Declaration in contemporary America, Maier seeks to explain the original intention of the document and how it became a national symbol. She argues that the Declaration emerged as a byproduct of the more critical decision by the Second Continental Congress to break from Great Britain and that its importance as a symbol for national self-definition emerged from the political battles of the early American republic.
Prior histories of the Declaration of Independence treat the document as a philosophical work produced by the individual brilliance of Thomas Jefferson and the general milieu of the Enlightenment. Maier presents the Declaration as an event and consummation of political struggle shaped by hundreds rather than by an individual. The Declaration is not the work of a single great man but rather an expression of the values of the American people. The Declaration of Independence emerges from a long-standing English constitutional tradition and particular sentiments already being expressed by Americans elsewhere. Pauline Maier presents a history of the Declaration of Independence as an expression of the American national character rather than the brilliance of any one man.
The text begins in “Introduction: Gathering at the Shrine� with a few anecdotes concerning the contemporary veneration of the Declaration of Independence by the United States. After considering the strangeness of the document’s current quasi-religious status, Pauline Maier states her intentions for writing a book on the Declaration of Independence due to her finding other histories lacking. Chapter One, “Independence,� charts how the Second Continental Congress moved from a position of reconciliation with Great Britain to the decision to break with the crown. Chapter Two, “The ‘Other� Declarations of Independence,� considers the famous Declaration in the context of hundreds of local state declarations of rights and independence that pulled from a longer English constitutional tradition. Chapter Three, “Mr. Jefferson and His Editors,� details the drafting of the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson and his fellow committee members John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, and the following substantial changes made to the final draft by Congress. Chapter Four, “American Scripture,� follows the post-Independence history of the Declaration from a forgotten legal document to a shibboleth by which each American generation defines itself through the partisan political struggles of antebellum America. Finally, the Epilogue, “Reflecting at the Memorials,� returns to modern America to reflect on how Americans define themselves today regarding the Declaration of Independence.
The book contains a solid scholarly apparatus with three appendixes, a section of endnotes, and an index. The appendixes contain a log of state and local declarations of independence, some examples of local resolutions on independence, and Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration draft with Congress’s editorial decisions. Pauline Maier makes an admirable attempt to deflate the document’s overestimation by historians and laypeople. Her arguments connecting Jefferson’s Declaration to prior English legal documents and local American documents shatter the document’s exceptionalism. Maier’s attempts to ground the Declaration from its lofty heights ultimately fail due to her intellectual inheritance to a Whig historiography preventing any sobering confrontation with American nationalism. American Scripture elides the thorny contradictions of social and political history with a triumphalist narrative of liberalizing progress. Her argument that the ideas contained within the Declaration of Independence are an expression of popular American sentiments flattens the differences in ideology, class, region, and race between Americans. Her evidence for the popular support for independence consists of local and state support by various political assemblies. The political assemblies of colonial and early republican America were hardly democratic and often excluded men without property. There were divisions among the propertied classes between the northern proto-bourgeois, the western petty-proprietors, and the southern slavocracy. Despite a proposed unity, loyalist Tories remained within the colonies. The Whig school of history only considers the American people as an abstract national collective rather than concrete historical individuals. The chapter, “American Scripture,� suffers from the worst of the Whiggish optimism as Maier completes her narrative with the triumphant inversion of the Declaration written by slave-owners into a rallying call for emancipation. She conveniently ends her narrative before the complications of postbellum and America and completely ignores the Cold War. During this period of American history, moral ambiguities creep in about the American nation that complicates any notion of a linear march of progress and liberty. Pauline Maier continues the nationalist trend of raising the Declaration of Independence above the dirt and grime of history. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence by Pauline Maier recapitulates many of the nationalist myths of America’s founding through a refusal to confront the complexities of social life.
January 27, 2025
A first-rate account of the creation of the Declaration. Supplanted Carl Becker's 1922 work, which means, if the half-life of definitive accounts is some fifty years, we can cling to Maier's readable, clear narrative for another generation or so. Book is as described on the cover. It offers a rich contextual account of the circumstances leading up to the commission to produce the document. While generous with praise for primary drafter Jefferson's abilities in quickly bringing the work together, Maier justly returns some of the focus to the larger committee that helped edit the draft, especially the fiery John Adams who ably shepherded the writing to approval by the Second Continental Congress. The haste (and overwork) of the various writers, overburdened with extensive committee assignments, helps explain Jefferson's adaptation of previous writing by himself and others in the composition of both the celebrated opening paragraphs and (what mattered most to contemporaries) the list of causes leading to the separation. Maier is particularly strong on tracing the filiations of key ideas from Locke on down to Jefferson in a variety of lesser known documents that played a part in Jefferson's composition. In this, she roundly rejects Garry Wills' hypothesis about the importance of Scottish Enlightenment thinkers to founding ideology. Maier is equally sharp on the reputation of the document after the fact. Within fifteen years of its composition, it had faded in some important respects from the cultural consciousness. It was only with the Federalist - Republican split in the 1790s that the Declaration became part of a partisan effort to burnish Jefferson's reputation. Rather unedifying to hear, but somehow typically American. With the passing of the revolutionary generation some fifty years after the fact, the Declaration began to take on its cultural character as secular scripture for Americans. It took later thinkers (Lincoln is especially prominent here) to read the opening paragraphs against the reality and reconfigure the meaning of the Declaration for later generations, work that 20th century orators like MLK furthered. (In the deepening gloom of the second coming of T, one breathlessly awaits the eloquent defender of the document's principles who can use it to focus on the rights of the LGBTQIA communities in a way that shames contemporary 'patriots' who believe freedom is about exclusion.) Clearly written and well worth consulting, especially the appendices, which include much interesting matter, such as the edited version of Jefferson's original text, where one can see co-authors striking out a fourth of his verbiage—if the DoI came from on high, God certainly abetted its appearance with loads of gifted editors who knew how to prune for clarity and sound.
July 8, 2018
I actually finished this on the 4th of July; appropriate timing, I think. This is an excellent chronicle of how the Declaration came to be written, the how and why of it, and also of how over time it became the sanctified text of our national identity. We seem to have this picture of the Congress meeting for the express purpose of having Thomas Jefferson write the Declaration, and then once that is done, the nation is established, the war is won, and we all live happily ever after......well, okay, maybe not happily ever after, but that's for another book. In reality, as the author describes, the Second Continental Congress had been in session for months, dealing with the struggles of managing the war which had begun the previous April of 1775, and the delegations from each colony met and with great difficulty came to the decision to declare independence. Jefferson was just one of five men on the committee appointed to write the paper, and even though it was written in just a few days, it was full of references and texts (mainly the justifications for cutting the colonies off from the control of King and Parliament) that had become familiar in the months leading to independence. Much of it, in fact, was built on the foundation of the English Declaration of Rights of 1688-1689, as well as declarations issued by each of the colonies as they declared for independence.
"In the end, the efforts of these five men produced a workable draft that the Congress itself, sitting as the Committee of the Whole, made into a distinguished document by an act of group editing that has to be one of the great marvels of history."
Maier goes on to describe how the Declaration fell by the wayside and was not considered important until the 1820s, then how Abraham Lincoln glorified it in his Gettysburg Address, and eventually to its "sacralization" and elevation to the "defining statement of our national identity."
This book is full of fascinating information about the founding of our country, most of which never makes it into any curriculum, more than likely because you could devote a whole semester entirely to its study. It's definitely worth the time it takes to read carefully, especially to those of us who love history!
"In the end, the efforts of these five men produced a workable draft that the Congress itself, sitting as the Committee of the Whole, made into a distinguished document by an act of group editing that has to be one of the great marvels of history."
Maier goes on to describe how the Declaration fell by the wayside and was not considered important until the 1820s, then how Abraham Lincoln glorified it in his Gettysburg Address, and eventually to its "sacralization" and elevation to the "defining statement of our national identity."
This book is full of fascinating information about the founding of our country, most of which never makes it into any curriculum, more than likely because you could devote a whole semester entirely to its study. It's definitely worth the time it takes to read carefully, especially to those of us who love history!
August 9, 2021
Although this work is a superb example of careful scholarship, I am giving it only four stars because I think it would be a poor choice for the general reader who is just beginning to study the period of America's Revolution and its founding.
The eminent historian Pauline Maier does a fascinating job of probing both how the Declaration was written -- by Jefferson as part of a committee and then extensively modified by the Congress operating as a committee of the whole -- as well as the origins of its principal arguments.
While John Locke's treatises were certainly influential, both Jefferson -- and the numerous similar declarations emanating from towns and state assemblies -- relied heavily upon previous English declarations addressed to the king in recent centuries.
This makes sense because a major argument of the colonists from the first was that Great Britain was violating their rights as Englishmen; hence, their appeals for reason and reconciliation, and then their declarations of separation and independence, followed the same lines of logic. "We have appealed to you, you have not listened, you continue to violate our rights and established procedures, now you leave us no choice."
It was also fascinating to read just how many local expressions of the need to separate from Great Britain circulated among the colonists, too. In essence, what Jefferson wrote and gave such profound expression to, was already a sentiment widely shared among the colonies, at least among those who held local and state office.
It should also be stressed that while there was wide support for independence, the colonists were by no means hoping -- let alone eager for -- war. The more realistic among them had to understand, of course, that Great Britain was not just going to stand aside and let the wealth the colonies represented slip away without a struggle.
For those relatively familiar with this period I believe this book can add additional dimension and understanding to that incredibly exciting and formative period in our history as Americans.
The eminent historian Pauline Maier does a fascinating job of probing both how the Declaration was written -- by Jefferson as part of a committee and then extensively modified by the Congress operating as a committee of the whole -- as well as the origins of its principal arguments.
While John Locke's treatises were certainly influential, both Jefferson -- and the numerous similar declarations emanating from towns and state assemblies -- relied heavily upon previous English declarations addressed to the king in recent centuries.
This makes sense because a major argument of the colonists from the first was that Great Britain was violating their rights as Englishmen; hence, their appeals for reason and reconciliation, and then their declarations of separation and independence, followed the same lines of logic. "We have appealed to you, you have not listened, you continue to violate our rights and established procedures, now you leave us no choice."
It was also fascinating to read just how many local expressions of the need to separate from Great Britain circulated among the colonists, too. In essence, what Jefferson wrote and gave such profound expression to, was already a sentiment widely shared among the colonies, at least among those who held local and state office.
It should also be stressed that while there was wide support for independence, the colonists were by no means hoping -- let alone eager for -- war. The more realistic among them had to understand, of course, that Great Britain was not just going to stand aside and let the wealth the colonies represented slip away without a struggle.
For those relatively familiar with this period I believe this book can add additional dimension and understanding to that incredibly exciting and formative period in our history as Americans.
August 18, 2018
Having participated in a public reading of the Declaration of Independence as part of the local July 4th celebration for the past two years, I was interested in learning more about the document. Prior to last year, I knew only the few phrases from it that most Americans know, and was surprised to find long list of grievances against the king, and I was curious about the background of those.
Maier gives far more detail than I was really interested in about the background and creation of the document, but I definitely learned some interesting things from it. I had not realized how much it borrowed from other documents (which was not considered plagiarism at that time), or how many other state and local documents were written in that period justifying independence. And I found out that the list of grievances is quite unspecific, so that even people at the time didn't know in some cases what it referred to.
I also found it interesting to read Maier's discussion of how the general public had come to see independence as the only path, based on decisions made by king and parliament. I was curious about those who remained loyalists, but she doesn't mention them, I suppose because that wasn't the focus of the book.
After all that (sometimes boring) detail about the creation of the document, I was surprised how quickly she dealt with the other theme she had mentioned at the beginning, how Americans' understanding of the Declaration changed over time. I would have appreciated more development of that history, and not just up through the time of Lincoln (with only a few very brief references to more recent history).
Maier gives far more detail than I was really interested in about the background and creation of the document, but I definitely learned some interesting things from it. I had not realized how much it borrowed from other documents (which was not considered plagiarism at that time), or how many other state and local documents were written in that period justifying independence. And I found out that the list of grievances is quite unspecific, so that even people at the time didn't know in some cases what it referred to.
I also found it interesting to read Maier's discussion of how the general public had come to see independence as the only path, based on decisions made by king and parliament. I was curious about those who remained loyalists, but she doesn't mention them, I suppose because that wasn't the focus of the book.
After all that (sometimes boring) detail about the creation of the document, I was surprised how quickly she dealt with the other theme she had mentioned at the beginning, how Americans' understanding of the Declaration changed over time. I would have appreciated more development of that history, and not just up through the time of Lincoln (with only a few very brief references to more recent history).
March 23, 2019
Pauline Maier's history of the Declaration of Independence covers many important details regarding the foundational document and sets the record straight on some of the misinformation that has persisted in the public consciousness over time.
She notes how the delegates only met on May 10, 1775 for the Second Continental Congress because they never received a response to their petition from the First Continental Congress. And how the transcript of the king's October speech helped nudge the indecisive delegates toward independence while Thomas Paine's famous pamphlet Common Sense encouraged the otherwise hesitant colonists themselves to join the fight.
She provides details of the committee which was charged with drafting the Declaration, which, of course, included Thomas Jefferson. However, she emphasizes how many anonymous delegates eventually issued edits to that draft much to Jefferson's irritation.
Perhaps most surprisingly to me was how poorly regarded the document was for many decades after its issuance. While there were some historians who eventually tried to breathe new life into the founders and their work, it wasn't until Abraham Lincoln drew upon the Declaration in his famous debates with Stephen Douglass that the Declaration began to achieve its elevated status.
For all its helpful details, the book suffers some from its flat writing style. It languishes somewhere between the crisp abstruseness of academia and the more thrilling narratives of popular historians and never quite finds its own voice.
She notes how the delegates only met on May 10, 1775 for the Second Continental Congress because they never received a response to their petition from the First Continental Congress. And how the transcript of the king's October speech helped nudge the indecisive delegates toward independence while Thomas Paine's famous pamphlet Common Sense encouraged the otherwise hesitant colonists themselves to join the fight.
She provides details of the committee which was charged with drafting the Declaration, which, of course, included Thomas Jefferson. However, she emphasizes how many anonymous delegates eventually issued edits to that draft much to Jefferson's irritation.
Perhaps most surprisingly to me was how poorly regarded the document was for many decades after its issuance. While there were some historians who eventually tried to breathe new life into the founders and their work, it wasn't until Abraham Lincoln drew upon the Declaration in his famous debates with Stephen Douglass that the Declaration began to achieve its elevated status.
For all its helpful details, the book suffers some from its flat writing style. It languishes somewhere between the crisp abstruseness of academia and the more thrilling narratives of popular historians and never quite finds its own voice.
December 19, 2020
In American Scripture, Pauline Maier (1938-2013), a long-time member of the history faculty at M.I.T. and a specialist in the era of the American Revolution, wrote what I consider the best book about the Declaration of Independence, one that finally surpassed a most literate earlier study by Carl Becker, first published in 1922.
Like Becker, Maier examined the contributions made to the Declaration by Jefferson and (often to his displeasure) those of his congressional colleagues. And for readers who have puzzled about just what that list of grievances against George III actually referred to, Maier tried to sort those out as well.
Perhaps the dullest part of the book is Maier’s most important contribution: an examination of the “other declarations� adopted by state governments and local groups, which she argued were “everywhere remarkably alike� (49) because they were derived from earlier English documents, especially the Declaration of Rights (1689). (Anyone who would like to believe that American independence sprang from class conflict or economic tensions or that 18th-century Americans were generally as doltish as their modern descendants needs to engage with Maier’s evidence here.)
Finally, Maier traces the process by which the Declaration was nearly forgotten immediately after the Revolution only to become “American Scripture� when it was resurrected to play a new role in early 19th-century politics.
Like Becker, Maier examined the contributions made to the Declaration by Jefferson and (often to his displeasure) those of his congressional colleagues. And for readers who have puzzled about just what that list of grievances against George III actually referred to, Maier tried to sort those out as well.
Perhaps the dullest part of the book is Maier’s most important contribution: an examination of the “other declarations� adopted by state governments and local groups, which she argued were “everywhere remarkably alike� (49) because they were derived from earlier English documents, especially the Declaration of Rights (1689). (Anyone who would like to believe that American independence sprang from class conflict or economic tensions or that 18th-century Americans were generally as doltish as their modern descendants needs to engage with Maier’s evidence here.)
Finally, Maier traces the process by which the Declaration was nearly forgotten immediately after the Revolution only to become “American Scripture� when it was resurrected to play a new role in early 19th-century politics.
August 31, 2021
Pauline Maier, one of the giants in early American history, has written a really incisive book that somehow cohere into one meaningful analysis. Part of the book is about the creation of the Declaration of Independence, digging deep into the timeline of its creation as well as the form and function. It includes lots of close analysis of word choice and intent, comparing the July 4, 1776 Declaration to its intellectual ancestors, but I never felt so bogged down in her analysis that I lost the purpose of the deep digging. Later, she examines the growth of the document into what she refers to as "American Scripture". Her examination of the "Other Declarations" of independence, issued by towns and counties in the months leading up to July 4 is really interesting, and was a feature with which I was unfamiliar. I highly recommend both this book and her later book, .
July 29, 2023
(Audiobook) (4.5 stars) This work looks at the back-story and history of the creation of the Declaration of Independence in a fairly in-depth perspective, looking at not only the political machinations of how the Colonies managed to declare independence, but of the backstory for the language and concepts found in the declaration. The work concludes looking at how people viewed the Declaration over the years, from the immediate aftermath of the Revolutionary War, when it perhaps wasn’t all that revered, to the following eras, when it became a point of pride to point out what the document was and what it came to mean for America.
Good history, even if there were times when it delved too much into literary/legal working/documentation history. Much to learn and reference in this work. Worth the read/listen.
Good history, even if there were times when it delved too much into literary/legal working/documentation history. Much to learn and reference in this work. Worth the read/listen.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.