declare these colonies to be free state of Great Britain is, &

& independent states,* & that ought to be, totally
as free & independent states, dissolved; & that as free &

they have full power to levy independent states they have
war, conclude peace, contract full power to levy war,

alliances, establish commerce, conclude peace, contract
& to do all other acts & alliances, establish commerce &

things which independent to do all other acts & things
states may of right do. which independent states

may of right do.
And for the support of And for the support of this

this declaration we mutually declaration, with a firm
pledge to each other our reliance on the protection of

lives, our fortunes, & our divineprovidence we mutually
sacred honor. pledge to each other our

lives, our fortunes, & our
sacred honor.

The Declaration thus signed on the 4th, on paper was engrossed
on parchment, & signed again on the 2d. of August.

Some erroneous statements of the proceedings on the declaration
of independence having got before the public in latter times, Mr.

Samuel A. Wells asked explanations of me, which are given in my
letter to him of May 12. 19. before and now again referred to. I

took notes in my place while these things were going on, and at their
close wrote them out in form and with correctness and from 1 to 7 of

the two preceding sheets are the originals then written; as the two
following are of the earlier debates on the Confederation, which I

took in like manner.
On Friday July 12. the Committee appointed to draw the articles

of confederation reported them, and on the 22d. the house resolved
themselves into a committee to take them into consideration. On the

30th. & 31st. of that month & 1st. of the ensuing, those articles
were debated which determined the proportion or quota of money which

each state should furnish to the common treasury, and the manner of
voting in Congress. The first of these articles was expressed in the

original draught in these words. "Art. XI. All charges of war & all
other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence, or

general welfare, and allowed by the United States assembled, shall be
defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the

several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every
age, sex & quality, except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony,

a true account of which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall
be triennially taken & transmitted to the Assembly of the United

States."
Mr. [Samuel] Chase moved that the quotas should be fixed, not

by the number of inhabitants of every condition, but by that of the
"white inhabitants." He admitted that taxation should be alwais in

proportion to property, that this was in theory the true rule, but
that from a variety of difficulties, it was a rule which could never

be adopted in practice. The value of the property in every State
could never be estimated justly & equally. Some other measure for

the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard
referred to which would be more simple. He considered the number of

inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this
might alwais be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode

which we could adopt, with one exception only. He observed that
negroes are property, and as such cannot be distinguished from the

lands or personalities held in those States where there are few
slaves, that the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to

lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c. whereas a Southern farmer
lays out that same surplus in slaves. There is no more reason

therefore for taxing the Southern states on the farmer's head, & on
his slave's head, than the Northern ones on their farmer's heads &

the heads of their cattle, that the method proposed would therefore
tax the Southern states according to their numbers & their wealth

conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers only: that
negroes in fact should not be considered as members of the state more

than cattle & that they have no more interest in it.
Mr. John Adams observed that the numbers of people were taken

by this article as an index of the wealth of the state, & not as
subjects of taxation, that as to this matter it was of no consequence

by what name you called your people, whether by that of freemen or of
slaves. That in some countries the labouring poor were called

freemen, in others they were called slaves; but that the difference
as to the state was imaginary only. What matters it whether a

landlord employing ten labourers in his farm, gives them annually" target="_blank" title="ad.每年；按年计算">annually as
much money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them

those necessaries at short hand. The ten labourers add as much
wealthannually" target="_blank" title="ad.每年；按年计算">annually to the state, increase it's exports as much in the

one case as the other. Certainly 500 freemen produce no more
profits, no greater surplus for the paiment of taxes than 500 slaves.

Therefore the state in which are the labourers called freemen should
be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves. Suppose

by any extraordinary operation of nature or of law one half the
labourers of a state could in the course of one night be transformed

into slaves: would the state be made the poorer or the less able to
pay taxes? That the condition of the laboring poor in most

countries, that of the fishermen particularly of the Northern states,
is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of labourers which

produce the surplus for taxation, and numbers therefore
indiscriminately, are the fair index of wealth. That it is the use

of the word "property" here, & it's application to some of the people
of the state, which produces the fallacy. How does the Southern

farmer procure slaves? Either by importation" target="_blank" title="n.进口">importation or by purchase from his
neighbor. If he imports a slave, he adds one to the number of

labourers in his country, and proportionably to it's profits &
abilities to pay taxes. If he buys from his neighbor it is only a

transfer of a labourer from one farm to another, which does not
change the annual produce of the state, & therefore should not change

it's tax. That if a Northern farmer works ten labourers on his farm,
he can, it is true, invest the surplus of ten men's labour in cattle:

but so may the Southern farmer working ten slaves. That a state of
one hundred thousand freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of

one hundred thousand slaves. Therefore they have no more of that
kind of property. That a slave may indeed from the custom of speech

be more properly called the wealth of his master, than the free
labourer might be called the wealth of his employer: but as to the

state, both were equally it's wealth, and should thereforeequally
add to the quota of it's tax.

Mr. [Benjamin] Harrison proposed as a compromise, that two
slaves should be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did

not do so much work as freemen, and doubted if two effected more than
one. That this was proved by the price of labor. The hire of a

labourer in the Southern colonies being from 8 to pound 12. while in
the Northern it was generally pound 24.

Mr. [James] Wilson said that if this amendment should take
place the Southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves,

whilst the Northern ones would bear the burthen. That slaves
increase the profits of a state, which the Southern states mean to

take to themselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence,
which would of course fall so much the heavier on the Northern. That

slaves occupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your
slaves & freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay every

discouragement on the importation" target="_blank" title="n.进口">importation of slaves; but this amendment would
give the jus trium liberorum to him who would import slaves. That

other kinds of property were pretty equally distributed thro' all the
colonies: there were as many cattle, horses, & sheep, in the North as

the South, & South as the North; but not so as to slaves. That
experience has shown that those colonies have been alwais able to pay