Maryland’s Declaration of Independence and Its Relationship to the Continental Declaration
******
Maryland’s Declaration of Independence (July 6, 1776)
The parliament of Great Britain has of late claimed an uncontrollable right of binding these colonies in all cases whatsoever. To enforce the execution of this claim, the legislative and executive powers of that state have invariably pursued, for these ten years past, a studied system of oppression, by which the lives, liberties, and properties of the colonists have been endangered, and their constitutional rights violated. These numerous and oppressive acts of the British government have left the people of Maryland no choice but to dissolve their allegiance to the British Crown.
The convention of Maryland, therefore, with unanimous consent of its members, doth declare that the King of Great Britain has violated his compact with this people, and that they owe no allegiance to him. That this province is, and of right ought to be, a free, sovereign, and independent state; that it has full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, and establish commerce, and to do all other acts which other independent states may of right do. The good people of this province solemnly pledge themselves to support and maintain this declaration at the risk of their lives and fortunes.
******
The United States Declaration of Independence (1776) (July 4, 1776)
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
or taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
******
Maryland’s Declaration of Independence and Its Relationship to the Final US Declaration of Indepedence
In the months leading up to July 1776, Maryland navigated a complex path toward independence, initially resisting a break with Britain before ultimately joining the united cause. Maryland’s formal Declaration of Independence was issued on July 6, 1776, two days after the Continental Congress adopted the United States Declaration of Independence.
Maryland had been one of the last colonies to fully commit to independence, reflecting deep regional divisions within its borders. Understanding Maryland's Declaration requires a comparison with Thomas Jefferson's final Continental Declaration, particularly in language, themes, and focus. Additionally, the internal divisions within Maryland, the process of consensus-building, and the role of its delegates offer insight into the colony's unique journey to independence.
Comparison of Maryland’s Declaration with the Continental Declaration
Maryland’s Declaration of Independence, drafted by Charles Carroll of Carrollton and approved by the Maryland Convention on July 6, 1776, differs significantly from the Jefferson's Continental Declaration in tone and focus. While both documents enumerate grievances against British rule and justify separation from the Crown, Maryland’s Declaration is more legalistic and immediate in nature, while the Continental Declaration incorporates broader philosophical principles.
Philosophical Underpinnings
The Continental Declaration, primarily written by Thomas Jefferson, begins with a sweeping philosophical assertion "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." This document frames independence in terms of universal natural rights and the social contract, arguing that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
In contrast, Maryland’s Declaration lacks this broad philosophical foundation. Instead, it begins directly with an indictment of British rule "The Parliament of Great Britain has of late claimed an uncontrollable right of binding these Colonies in all cases whatsoever..." This reflects Maryland’s initial hesitancy, as the colony’s leadership initially sought to resolve disputes through legal channels rather than a revolutionary ideology.
Blame on the King vs. Parliament
Another major difference is the assignment of blame. The Continental Declaration places primary blame on King George III, listing a series of acts where He has refused He has plundered and He has abdicated Jefferson’s intent was to portray the King as a tyrant personally responsible for the oppression of the colonies.
Maryland’s Declaration, however, places significant blame on Parliament, referring to the impolitic, severe, and cruel acts imposed by Britain’s legislative body. This difference likely reflects Maryland’s legalistic tradition, as well as an earlier belief that Parliament, rather than the King, was the chief source of colonial grievances.
Specific Grievances and Justification
Both documents list grievances against Britain, many of which overlap. Maryland’s Declaration condemns taxation without representation, the alteration of colonial charters, and British military aggression. It denounces a studied system of oppression, including restrictions on trade and trials without juries.
The Continental Declaration similarly outlines these complaints, but with more rhetorical flourish and a broader view of the King’s role in orchestrating these abuses. Maryland’s version also explicitly mentions Britain’s use of enslaved people, Indigenous allies, and foreign mercenaries against the colonists, stating that the British had meanly hired such forces to wage war on American citizens.
Call to Action
Maryland’s Declaration concludes with a direct exhortation to its citizens, calling upon them to join the fight for independence "We exhort and conjure every virtuous citizen to join cordially in defense of our common rights..."
This impassioned plea contrasts with the Continental Declaration’s more formal closing, where the signers mutually pledge to each other "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." While both documents express unity, Maryland’s Declaration focuses more on mobilization within the colony, reflecting its late commitment to the cause.
Internal Divisions Within Maryland
Maryland’s path to independence was marked by internal conflict, with distinct regional divisions influencing the debate. The colony was divided between its Western Shore, including Baltimore, Annapolis, and western counties, which leaned toward independence, and its Eastern Shore, where loyalty to Britain remained stronger. Many Eastern Shore leaders, particularly wealthy landowners with economic ties to Britain, hesitated to support independence, fearing economic disruption and instability.
Overcoming Resistance
Initially, Maryland’s Provincial Convention instructed its delegates to the Continental Congress to refrain from supporting independence. However, growing pressure from local committees of correspondence, particularly in pro-independence counties, led to a shift in sentiment.
Samuel Chase, an ardent supporter of independence, played a key role in rallying support across the colony, famously writing to John Adams on June 28, 1776, that "Our people have fire if not smothered..." On that day, Maryland finally voted unanimously to authorize its delegates to support independence.
Maryland’s Delegation to the Continental Congress
Maryland’s delegation in 1776 played a crucial role in securing the state’s eventual support for independence. Key members included
Mathew Tilghman 1718–1790 Known as the Father of the Revolution in Maryland, Tilghman presided over the Provincial Convention. He withdrew from Congress to lead the establishment of Maryland’s new state government.
Thomas Johnson 1732–1819 A strong advocate for independence, Johnson was instrumental in nominating George Washington as commander-in-chief. He later became Maryland’s first elected governor.
Samuel Chase 1741–1811 A fiery orator and leading advocate for independence, Chase helped convince Maryland to reverse its earlier hesitation. He signed the Declaration of Independence and later served as a Supreme Court Justice.
William Paca 1740–1799 A key revolutionary leader, Paca helped draft Maryland’s 1776 state constitution and later became governor. He signed the Declaration as one of Maryland’s five signers.
Thomas Stone 1743–1787 Initially hesitant, Stone ultimately supported independence and was involved in drafting the Articles of Confederation.
Charles Carroll of Carrollton 1737–1832 The only Catholic signer of the Declaration, Carroll was added to Maryland’s delegation on July 4, 1776, to ensure full support. He played a major role in Maryland’s transition to statehood.
Conclusion
Maryland’s Declaration of Independence, though closely aligned with the Continental Declaration, reflects the colony’s cautious, legalistic approach to the revolution. Initially divided along geographic and political lines, Maryland overcame internal hesitation through grassroots advocacy and the efforts of key leaders. The state’s delegates ultimately signed the Declaration of Independence, contributing to the unified break from Britain. Maryland’s journey to independence highlights the complexities of revolutionary politics and the importance of local leadership in securing the American colonies' collective freedom.
Bibliography
Armitage, David. The Declaration of Independence A Global History Harvard University Press, 2007. This book examines the broader international influence of the Declaration of Independence, including the colonial declarations that preceded it
Beeman, Richard R. Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor The Forging of American Independence, 1774-1776 Basic Books, 2013. A detailed account of how different colonies moved toward declaring independence, including Maryland’s role
Maier, Pauline. American Scripture Making the Declaration of Independence Knopf, 1997. An in-depth analysis of how colonial declarations contributed to the final national document
Moran, Gerald F. Maryland and the Declaration of Independence A Study in Political Consensus Maryland Historical Magazine, vol. 67, no. 3, 1972, pp. 221-245. This article explores Maryland’s particular path to independence, highlighting the tensions and compromises within the colony
