cisely the point of the original controversy. They had uniformly
denied that parliament had authority to make laws for them. There
was, therefore, no subjection to parliaments to be thrown off. [2] But
allegiance to the king did exist, and had been uniformly acknowledged;
and down to 1775, the most solemn assurances had been given that it was
not intended to break that allegiance, or to throw it off. Therefore, as
the direct object and only effect of the declaration, according to the
principles on which the controversy had been maintained on our part,
were to sever the tie of allegiance which bound us to the king, it was
properly and necessarily founded on acts of the crown itself, as its
justifying causes. Parliament is not so much as mentioned in the whole
instrument. When odious and oppressive acts are referred to, it is done
by charging the king with confederating with others, "in pretended acts
of legislation," the object being constantly to hold the king himself
directly responsible for those measures which were the grounds of
separation. Even the precedent of the English revolution was not
overlooked, and in this case as well as in that, occasion was found to
say that the king had abdicated the government. Consistency with the
principles upon which resistance began, and with all the previous state
papers issued by congress, required that the declaration should be
bottomed on the misgovernment of the king; and therefore it was properly
framed with that aim and to that end. The king was known, indeed,
to have acted, as in other cases, by his ministers, and with his
parliament; but as our ancestors had never admitted themselves subject
either to ministers or to parliament, there were no reasons to be given
for now refusing obedience to their authority. This clear and obvious
necessity of founding the declaration on the misconduct of the king
himself gives to that instrument its personal application, and its
character of direct and pointed accusation.

The declaration having been reported to congress by the committee, the
resolution itself was taken up and debated on the first day of July, and
again on the second on which last day, it was agreed to and adopted, in
these words:

"Resolved, 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 Britian i