When the Declaration of Independence Was News

BOOK REVIEW: When the Declaration of Independence Was News by Emily Sneff. (Oxford University Press, 2026) $29.99 hardcover

Most accounts of the Declaration of Independence focus on the events leading up to the pivotal July 2, 1776, vote on independence. Taking a different tack, historian Emily Sneff, in a book based on her Ph.D. thesis, examines how this seminal document was disseminated in the six months after its adoption. The consulting museum curator offers interesting insights and raises provocative questions about the Continental Congress’s efforts to distribute its landmark pronouncement.

Sneff begins by highlighting a little-explored friendship between John Adams and Mary “Polly” Palmer, the daughter of Mary Smith Cranch, Abigail Adams’s sister’s niece. John met Polly during his courtship with Abigail, and their scholarly relationship deepened when they both received the smallpox inoculation at the same location. Adams regarded Palmer as an “accomplished historian” (page 3). The day after the Declaration’s first printing, Adams sent Palmer a letter enclosing the momentous document. Sneff recounts this story to illustrate the Continental Congress’s informal approach to disseminating the seminal pronouncement.

Next, the author describes the often-overlooked Congressional resolution of May 15, 1776, which authorized the colonies to establish sovereign state governments. Many delegates to Congress and some foreigners viewed this resolution as an assertion of independence. As the states began acting on Congress’s authorization, John Adams and the other delegates believed that greater formality was required. This need was especially acute to accomplish Congress’s goal of securing foreign alliances and aid.

Advertisement

Therefore, Congress established a five-person committee to draft a formal Declaration of Independence. Congress’s objective was to create two identities—national and international (p. 8). They sought to secure recognition of the United States from Americans who identified their citizenship with their colony and from European nations. As a result, the Committee worked in June to expand the lawyerly two-paragraph May 15 resolution. The final Declaration contains over 1,300 lyrically written words and twenty-seven grievances.

After the momentous approval vote, John Dunlop, the contracted congressional printer, produced hundreds of broadsides containing the Congressional declaration on the night of July 4-5. Congress sent these copies to Continental Army generals and to state governors, assemblies, and committees of safety. Soon, newspapers picked up the story and republished copies of the Declaration. It took about a month for the news to reach all the states. The author masterfully traces the Declaration’s provenance through the printers who introduced numerous errors and stylistic changes. For example, Sneff identifies an undated copy of the Declaration published in a British newspaper that originated in New Hampshire, based on similar typos.

Often overlooked in the story, Sneff describes how the news was disseminated to representatives of the Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqey Nations in what is now Maine. Chief Ambrose Bear exclaimed, “We like it well” (p. 121). Other Native nations learned of the news by word of mouth.

Congress’s global distribution of the Declaration was less effective. This is particularly odd, given Congress’s stated objective of using the Declaration to secure French and other European recognition and support. On July 8, the Congressional Committee of Secret Correspondence sent the Dunlap broadside on a fast ship to Silas Deane, the American representative in Paris. The pronouncement of independence never reached France. The courier threw the Declaration into the sea to prevent capture when a British warship threatened the American ship (p.140-1).

Advertisement

Unintentionally, the British government learned of the Declaration before the French. Because Congress was not declaring war, it did not send a formal copy of the Declaration to the British government. However, the British intercepted a ship carrying a copy of the Dunlap broadside that Jonas Phillips had sent to a fellow merchant in Amsterdam (p. 137-8). British papers quickly picked up the story and published the Declaration. Sneff points out several important modifications made by British printers to avoid prosecution for sedition or to portray colonial actions in a more favorable political light.

Much to Deane’s consternation, the French government learned of the Declaration from British newspapers. For good reason, the French and other European ministers were unwilling to base policy decisions on unverified reports. The courts of Europe needed an authenticated copy and could not rely on misinformation in the British press (p. 176).

Commissioner Deane was also miffed at Congress for two other reasons. First, Congress did not send him a special, more formal copy to present, as was customary in European diplomacy. Second, there was no accompanying draft treaty to initiate negotiations for a French alliance (p. 167).

Finally, after months of rumors and misinformation, Deane received a copy of the Declaration to present to the French ministry. To his dismay, it was neither on parchment with customary ceremonial flourishes nor translated into French. Despite these limitations, Deane presented the Declaration to the long-awaited ally in late November 1776 (p. 10). By then, it had become an “Old Storey” throughout Europe (p. 176).

As valued potential partners, France and other potential European allies expected to hear directly from the Continental Congress in a timely manner, using established protocols. Whether better communication would have secured a French alliance sooner is unknown. It would take months for the personal diplomacy of Benjamin Franklin and Arthur Lee to build the essential trust required for treaty-making.

The question remains: why did Congress do a reasonably good job nationally but a lackadaisical, haphazard job globally? The imperative for formal alliances was well understood, even prioritized over declaring independence by some. For example, John Dickinson wanted to conclude alliances before declaring independence (p. 48). Perhaps domestic issues took precedence, which explains why communications spread rapidly among the rebelling colonies. Or maybe Congress did not understand courtly European protocols or was hoping that veteran diplomats such as Franklin and Lee would be sufficient advocates. The question of why Congress did not more aggressively and promptly disseminate the Declaration to European governments remains open. This is an interesting question for Sneff or other scholars of the Declaration to examine.

PLEASE CONSIDER PURCHASING THIS BOOK FROM AMAZON IN HARDCOVER or KINDLE.
(As an Amazon Associate, JAR earns from qualifying purchases. This helps toward providing our content free of charge.)