Declaration Archives - Karen A. Chase

Declaration

The Missing Declaration of Independence Signers: America’s Contract

July 23, 2025 By Karen A. Chase

When we picture the Declaration of Independence signers, most Americans envision fifty-six determined patriots gathered in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, solemnly affixing their signatures to the document that would birth a nation. This cherished image has been powerfully reinforced by John Trumbull’s famous painting, commissioned in 1817 and hanging in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, though the painting actually depicts the presentation of the draft on June 28, 1776—not the signing—and includes delegates who were never in the room together at the same time. (Plus the chairs and placement of the windows is incorrect, among other things.) But both this iconic artwork and our national mythology obscure one of the most precarious moments in American history—the weeks and months when seven crucial Declaration of Independence signers remained missing, threatening to unravel the very unity the document was meant to establish.

The Illusion of Unity on July 4th

The truth about July 4, 1776, is far more complex than our national mythology suggests. While Congress approved the final text of the Declaration that day, the formal signing ceremony wouldn’t occur until August 2, 1776. Even then, seven crucial delegates were missing, scattered across the colonies by war, illness, and urgent state business.

This wasn’t merely a clerical inconvenience. In the 18th century, signatures carried profound legal and political weight. More than half the Congress consisted of lawyers and merchants who understood that without unanimous consent demonstrated through actual signatures, the colonies remained vulnerable to British divide-and-conquer tactics.

Why Unanimity Mattered: The Declaration as Contract

The stakes couldn’t have been higher. The Declaration of Independence functioned as more than a political statement—it was fundamentally a contract binding thirteen separate colonies into a unified nation. Without complete signatures, this contract remained legally incomplete, representing only a partial commitment to independence.

Britain understood this weakness and could exploit it by offering separate peace terms to individual colonies, potentially fracturing the fragile American alliance before it truly began. The Crown’s strategy had always been divide and conquer, and an incomplete Declaration provided exactly the opening they needed. Only through unanimous agreement—demonstrated by actual signatures—could the colonies ensure that King George III could not convince individual states that they weren’t truly bound together in common cause.

Here lies one of the most intriguing gaps in the historical record. Despite the enormous importance of completing the Declaration, surprisingly little contemporary documentation exists about exactly how those final seven signatures were obtained.

The Seven Missing Declaration of Independence Signers

The missing delegates weren’t random absentees—they included some of the most prominent leaders in the independence movement:

Richard Henry Lee (Virginia) – The very man who had introduced the Lee Resolution calling for independence was in Virginia helping draft his state’s new constitution. His absence was particularly ironic given his central role in initiating the independence movement.
George Wythe (Virginia) – Thomas Jefferson’s former law teacher and one of the most respected legal minds in America was similarly engaged in Virginia’s constitutional convention. His expertise in constitutional law made his signature especially valuable.
Thomas McKean (Delaware) – Was commanding militia forces in New Jersey alongside George Washington. McKean had cast the crucial deciding vote for Delaware’s approval of independence on July 2, making his signature essential for legitimacy. His situation became increasingly precarious as the war intensified. In his own words to John Adams in 1779, McKean described being “hunted like a fox by the enemy, compelled to remove my family five times in three months, and at last fixed them in a little log-house on the banks of the Susquehanna, but they were soon obliged to move again on account of the incursions of the Indians.”
Elbridge Gerry (Massachusetts) – Was away managing critical war supplies and military logistics for his home state, duties considered essential to the war effort.
Oliver Wolcott (Connecticut) – Was handling military affairs in Connecticut, including the famous melting down of King George III’s statue to make musket balls.
Lewis Morris (New York) – Was with Gerry on military business, as New York faced immediate threat from British forces.
Matthew Thornton (New Hampshire) – Wasn’t even elected to Congress until September 1776, making him impossible to include in any August ceremony. Thornton and Thomas McKean were the last signers.

Each absence represented not just a missing signature, but a potential crack in American unity that enemies could exploit.

The bottom signature area of the Declaration of Independence. Stars indicate the names of the seven men missing from the formal August 2nd signing. #DeclarationOfIndependence #AmericanHistory #FoundingFathers #America250 #RevolutionaryWar #AmericanRevolution #HiddenHistory #IndependenceDay #1776 #HistoricalMystery — The men signed the document by colonies, south-to-north, with Georgia on the far left, and Connecticut on the bottom far right. However not all the names are in order. Matthew Thornton had no room to sign with Josiah Bartlett and others from New Hampshire.

Congress Faces an Unprecedented Challenge

Faced with this crisis, Congress confronted an unprecedented challenge: how to secure the remaining signatures without compromising the document’s security or the safety of the signers.

The options were limited and fraught with risk. They could wait for all delegates to return to Philadelphia, but with war raging and state governments demanding attention, there was no guarantee when—or if—all would return. Alternatively, they could carry the original document to collect signatures, but this would expose the irreplaceable parchment to the dangers of 18th-century travel and potential British interception.

The Historical Mystery: How Were the Signatures Obtained?

We know the basic facts: all seven missing delegates eventually signed the Declaration between September 1776 and early 1781. However, the historical record provides surprisingly little detail about exactly when or where these crucial signatures were obtained. Matthew Thornton, elected to Congress only in September 1776, signed in November when he first arrived in Philadelphia. Thomas McKean’s signature date remains the most disputed—historians believe he signed anywhere from 1777 to as late as 1781, with some evidence suggesting it could have been even later.

But the crucial question remains unanswered: were these signatures obtained when the delegates returned to Philadelphia, or was the Declaration carried to them? The historical record is remarkably silent on this critical point.

Evidence That Congress Wanted In-Person Declaration of Independence Signers

Several factors suggest that Congress preferred delegates to return for in-person signing rather than having the Declaration carried to them. The physical arrangement of signatures on the Declaration shows careful planning, with spaces deliberately reserved for absent delegates. George Wythe’s signature appears at the top of the Virginia delegation, suggesting his colleagues anticipated his eventual presence in Congress.

The Continental Congress’s July 19, 1776 resolution ordered that the Declaration “when engrossed be signed by every member of Congress”—language that suggests a preference for signing to occur in Congress rather than elsewhere. Additionally, the ceremonial importance of the signing would have made in-person presence politically significant for such a momentous document.

However, wanting delegates to return and actually requiring it are different matters. The resolution doesn’t specify what should happen if delegates couldn’t return, leaving the crucial question unanswered.

Inkwell with feather pens in the Statehouse in Philadelphia. Inkwell used to sign historic documents.

Evidence the Declaration of Independence was Carried

However, other evidence suggests the possibility that the Declaration of Independence signers had it carried to them. Different ink compositions in some signatures indicate they weren’t all signed with the same materials used in the August 2 ceremony. Timothy Matlack had prepared consistent iron gall ink in Philip Syng’s silver inkwell for the formal signing, so variations could suggest signatures were affixed elsewhere with different materials. (Syng’s inkwell is in fact featured in Trumbull’s painting.)

The Continental Congress had already demonstrated sophisticated document distribution capabilities, having successfully circulated over 200 printed copies of the Declaration throughout the colonies. The infrastructure existed for secure document transport if the Declaration needed to be carried to absent delegates.

The Missing Evidence

Perhaps most telling is what’s absent from the historical record. No contemporary letters, diaries, or official documents describe the logistics of obtaining these crucial signatures. For such a momentous undertaking, this silence is remarkable. Whether this reflects routine administrative processes, deliberate secrecy for security reasons, or simply lost records, we cannot know.

Thomas Jefferson’s July 8, 1776 letter to Richard Henry Lee mentions sending “a copy of the declaration” but provides no insight into plans for the original signing document or whether it might be carried to missing delegates. Continental Congress journals record that signatures were obtained but offer no details about the process.

A Nation Hanging in the Balance

What we do know is that for several crucial months in 1776, American independence hung by a thread. The Declaration that proclaimed the birth of a new nation remained legally incomplete. Its signers were unprotected by the unanimous commitment they had sought to establish.

This period of uncertainty reveals the fragile nature of the American experiment in its earliest days. The founders understood that without complete consensus, their bold Declaration might amount to nothing more than an ambitious document signed by a partial coalition.

The eventual completion of the Declaration’s signatures, however achieved, represented more than bureaucratic thoroughness. It marked the transformation of thirteen separate colonies into a unified nation, bound together by mutual commitment to independence and the radical principles the Declaration espoused.

The Enduring Historical Legacy

The period when the Declaration remained incomplete is a reminder that American independence was not achieved through a single moment of bold declaration. Instead, it was through months of painstaking work to build and maintain the unity necessary for survival. In our current era of political division, we need this reminder. It takes careful, deliberate effort required to forge a unified nation from diverse and sometimes competing interests.

Read the full novel, Carrying Independence, by purchasing an autographed copy. This deep dive focuses on chapter 8 of the novel, which I am serializing for America250 via substack. Read for free here.

#DeclarationOfIndependence #AmericanHistory #FoundingFathers #America250 #RevolutionaryWar #AmericanRevolution #HiddenHistory #IndependenceDay #1776 #HistoricalMystery

When Home Becomes the Enemy: The Declaration of Independence Devastated Families

July 9, 2025 By Karen A. Chase

The summer evening of 1776 should have been like any other for Jane Marten. Smoke curled from her Pennsylvania farmhouse chimney, carrying the familiar scent of pork and beer stew. The towering Eastern Hemlock her father had planted cast its protective shadow across the porch where she often sat reading letters from relatives across the Atlantic. But when her son Nathaniel rode up that July evening with news that “Congress has declared independence,” everything Jane thought she knew about belonging shattered in an instant.

“Dear God. We are separated,” she whispered, sinking onto the stone steps as the weight of those four words crashed over her. “I still feel… I am English. Where does this leave me? Us?”

Jane’s anguish captures one of the Declaration of Independence’s most overlooked consequences: the nuanced emotional devastation visited upon families whose heritage suddenly marked them as potential enemies in their adopted homeland. When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it didn’t just create a new nation—it tore through the hearts of thousands of families caught between worlds.

Cartoon showing a European gentleman with the Boston Port Bill in his pocket pouring tea down a [native American] woman's mouth. She is being held down by a lascivious gentleman at her feet and a judge at her arms. A woman holding a spear and shield covers her eyes while a gentleman holds a sword with "Military Law" on it. In the background is a scene of "Boston cannonaded" and in the foreground is a tattered paper containing Boston's petition to England. #DeclarationOfIndependence #America250 #ColonialFamilies #AmericanRevolution #HistoricalFiction #ImmigrantExperience #RevolutionaryWar #CarryingIndependence #FoundingFathers #IndependenceDay — Graphic cartoons like this one published in 1774, vilified the British, and riled up Americans against those who still identified as English. Britannia weeps as Frederick, Lord North, pours tea into the mouth of America. She is held down, and about to be raped. A woman holding a spear and shield covers her eyes while a gentleman holds a sword with “Military Law” on it. Published in the Royal American Magazine, 1774, it was created by Paul Revere.

The Declaration of Independence: More Than Political Separation

Jane Marten embodied thousands of colonial women caught in an impossible bind when the Declaration of Independence was signed. Born in London but raised in Pennsylvania, she had spent decades building a life between two worlds. Like many English immigrants, she maintained deep emotional connections to family across the ocean while nurturing equally strong roots in American soil.

The Declaration of Independence didn’t just separate political entities—it tore through the hearts of families whose very existence bridged the widening chasm. Jane “devoured their regular missives like a starving stray,” treasuring letters from English relatives that she carefully stored in her family cookbook alongside recipes that sustained her American household. These women lived authentically in both worlds until the moment politics demanded they choose just one.

But here’s what made Jane’s situation uniquely heartbreaking: she faced not just the loss of her English identity, but the terrifying possibility of persecution for it. Her “pale, English skin” and refined accent—once sources of pride—now marked her as potentially suspect. Would neighbors who had shared harvest meals and helped birth her children suddenly view her as a threat? Would her husband’s gun shop, already under pressure to supply weapons for the Continental Army, face additional scrutiny because of his wife’s heritage?

When Heritage Became Liability After the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration created an atmosphere where decades of integration could be undone overnight. Families with English surnames faced whispered suspicions. Women with distinctive accents found themselves explaining their loyalty. Children caught between their parents’ heritage and their own American birth navigated questions about where their true allegiances lay.

Jane’s terror wasn’t unfounded. Throughout the colonies, families with English connections faced social ostracism, economic boycotts, and worse. The very traits that had once made them valued community members—their cultural knowledge, business connections, refined manners—suddenly became evidence of potential disloyalty.

This transformation of asset to liability creates a psychological trauma that reverberates through generations. When the place you call home begins to view your heritage as dangerous, the foundation of identity itself becomes unstable. Understanding these historical parallels helps us better comprehend today’s immigration challenges.

Declaration of Independence Legacy: Echoes Across Centuries

Jane Marten’s anguish resonates powerfully today as American families navigate their own impossible choices between heritage and belonging. Across our nation, people with deep roots in their communities find themselves questioned about their loyalty based on their names, accents, or countries of origin.

Consider the mother whose children ask her not to speak their native language in public, fearing unwanted attention. Think of the small business owner who worries that his family name might hurt his livelihood when political tensions rise. Picture the college student who downplays her cultural heritage to avoid uncomfortable questions about her “real” loyalties.

Today’s policies increasingly emphasize isolation and deterrence, with new detention facilities built in remote locations where natural barriers provide security. Officials openly discuss using harsh conditions as deterrents, echoing the same psychological tactics used to pressure families like the Martens to prove their American loyalty through visible sacrifice of their English heritage.

The current climate has left millions of established Americans living in fear. Recent surveys show that 42% of Hispanic families worry about deportation affecting their loved ones, regardless of legal status. When heritage becomes a liability, the very diversity that strengthens our nation becomes a source of anxiety for those who embody it.

It’s easy today to think of immigrants as someone else, someone other than us. Yet, even for those of us with ancestors who were English, they were at one time immigrants, too.

The Declaration of Independence and Universal Belonging

Jane Marten’s story reminds us that the question “Where does this leave me?” transcends any single era or policy. It’s the cry of every person caught between worlds when politics demands impossible choices about identity and belonging.

Her Eastern Hemlock still casting shadows, her cookbook still holding those precious letters from England, her heart still breaking for the impossible choice between who she was and who she needed to become—Jane represents the human cost of political separation. She reminds us that behind every policy decision about immigration, citizenship, and belonging are real families facing real choices about how much of themselves they’re willing to sacrifice for safety.

The Declaration of Independence promised that “all men are created equal,” but Jane Marten’s tears that summer evening remind us that the path to that equality has always been more complicated for those whose very existence bridges the gaps between nations, cultures, and identities.

As we approach the Declaration’s 250th anniversary, Jane’s story challenges us to ask: How do we honor the promise of equality while protecting those whose heritage connects us to our shared humanity? How do we celebrate independence while ensuring that belonging doesn’t require the erasure of identity?

In Jane’s tears, we find both the heartbreak of impossible choices and the enduring hope that America might someday become a place where heritage enhances rather than threatens our belonging. Me too, Jane. Me too.

Illustration of a woman in mourning, leaning against a cemetery monument of stone. The woman is weeping. Behind her to reiterate here worries, is a weeping willow tree. — Illustration of a woman in mourning, leaning against a cemetery monument of stone. The woman is weeping. Behind her to reiterate her worries, is a weeping willow tree. The illustration was found in Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land-Warrant Application File W25373 for Francis Drew, New Hampshire.

Read the full novel, Carrying Independence, by purchasing an autographed copy. This deep dive focuses on chapter 6 of the novel, which I am serializing for America250 via my substack. Read for free.

Ready to explore more stories from America’s founding era? Visit carryingindependence.com to learn about the novel that brings these nuanced voices to life.

#DeclarationOfIndependence #America250 #ColonialFamilies #AmericanRevolution #HistoricalFiction #ImmigrantExperience #RevolutionaryWar #CarryingIndependence #FoundingFathers #IndependenceDay

No Kings: When Personal Loyalty Trumps Declaration of Independence Ideals

June 18, 2025 By Karen A. Chase

Loyalty Oaths and the American Revolution

In Chapter 3 of Carrying Independence, Nathaniel and his friends face a moment that echoes through American history: the pressure to sign an oath of allegiance. As evidenced by loyalty oaths that still exist from the American Revolution, allegiance was not to a specific leader, but to a country. To ideals. This scene resonates powerfully today as Americans grapple with recent “No Kings” protests across the nation, where millions demonstrated to defend Declaration of Independence ideals against what they view as excessive loyalty to a single individual rather than to democratic institutions.

The ideals articulated in the Declaration of Independence—that all men are created equal, that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed—weren’t just revolutionary arguments against King George III. They became America’s foundational promise, the principles we’ve adopted as our national ideals to uphold across generations. Yet here we are, nearly 250 years later, still fighting to honor that promise against the pull of personal loyalty.

The parallels between 1776 and 2025 are striking—and troubling.

The King’s Oath: Personal Loyalty as Political Control

Revolutionary-era oaths of allegiance weren’t abstract pledges to freedom or democracy. To sign an oath to the Crown was a deeply personal declaration of loyalty to King George III as an individual. British subjects swore to “be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George the Third” personally, not to Britain as a concept or even to the Crown as an institution.

This wasn’t accidental. Personal loyalty has always been authoritarianism’s most effective tool. When you pledge allegiance to a person rather than principles, that person becomes the sole arbiter of what’s right, what’s legal, and what’s patriotic.

Thomas Paine understood this danger perfectly. In Common Sense, he wrote “that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” This wasn’t just rhetoric—Paine and the founders deliberately chose a republic over direct democracy or monarchy, creating a system where representatives would be accountable to law and institutions rather than to personal loyalty. The Declaration of Independence ideals echoed this, rejecting personal rule and establishing that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed, not from loyalty to a monarch. (Even Benedict Arnold who flip-flopped signed an oath to the United States, shown above and here. Oh the irony of looking at this document in light of June 14th protests.)

When Party Becomes Person

Yet here we are, nearly 250 years later, watching congressional leaders openly defer to presidential power rather than assert their constitutional authority. During a recent congressional recess in Anchorage, Senator Lisa Murkowski made a stunning admission: “We are all afraid,” she told constituents. “It’s quite a statement, but we are in a time and a place where I certainly have not been before, and I’ll tell ya, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real.” This reveals how personal loyalty has again become the currency of American politics.

Trump has fundamentally transformed the Republican Party into one defined by loyalty to him, turning it against other major institutions in ways that echo the very system America’s founders fought to escape. When 61% of Republicans want their president to “stand up to” Democratic leaders even if it makes solving critical problems harder, we see the same dynamic that split colonial families: loyalty to a person superseding loyalty to the common good.

This isn’t partisan observation—it’s historical pattern recognition. The founders specifically designed our system to prevent exactly this concentration of personal loyalty around one individual.

The Cost of Choosing Sides

During my research at Colonial Williamsburg and Yorktown, I watched reenactments simulate a moment in which representatives for the Crown and for the colonies demanded oaths be signed—respectively one for the King, and one for the Cause of Independence. To other reenactors the struggle was real, but to the modern tourists, the choice was clear. We would absolutely support ideals for the betterment of all over loyalty to and for a single man. And in part because we know how the Revolution ended—and on which side of history.

Yet that clarity came from historical distance. The colonists depicted in that scene had no such advantage. Research on charismatic authority explains how supporters accept a leader’s extraordinary qualities without question, creating what scholars describe as cult-like devotion—whether to a king or revolutionary leaders. But questioning that authority is how we actually came around to declaring our independence from a leader who no longer justly served the people.

Nathaniel’s conflict in Chapter 3 mirrors that original uncertainty. His English mother represents heritage and tradition; his father’s rifle-making supports the colonial cause; his friend Kalawi offers an entirely different perspective on the conflict. Must he choose one loyalty and abandon all others, and during a time of war?

“Who would he be aiming at exactly?” Nathaniel asks himself in a later chapter, capturing the profound confusion of someone caught between competing loyalties.

The revolutionary generation faced this impossible choice. Families split. Communities fractured. Neighbors became enemies. All because personal loyalty to either the King or revolutionary ideals and causes became the test of political legitimacy.

The Founders’ Warning in Declaration of Independence Ideals

What would Thomas Paine say about Americans again debating loyalty to a single person? Perhaps he’d be stunned that we’re relitigating principles he thought settled in 1776. In Common Sense, he wrote of America’s potential to be “the glory of the earth”—not the glory of any individual.

The recent “No Kings” demonstrations, with their explicit rejection of monarchical tendencies, echo Paine’s central insight: free people don’t pledge allegiance to individuals. They pledge allegiance to ideas, institutions, and laws that transcend any single person.

Jefferson would perhaps have mixed reactions to our current moment. He’d be dismayed by institutional erosion, but perhaps proud of the “No Kings” demonstrations. When over 5 million Americans took to the streets in more than 2,000 cities to protest what they viewed as monarchical tendencies, they embodied the Declaration of Independence ideals—its core principle—that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Like the Declaration’s 27 grievances against King George III (nearly all of which begin with the word HE), the protesters articulated specific objections to individual overreach. While more than half of American voters elected Trump, more than 5 million on June 14th refused to accept personal rule over democratic institutions—exactly the kind of popular resistance Jefferson championed when he wrote in our founding document, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive” of the people’s rights, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

The Choice Before Us

The characters in Carrying Independence didn’t have the luxury of historical hindsight. They couldn’t know that rejecting personal monarchy would create the world’s most successful democracy. They had to choose based on principle, not certainty.

We face a similar choice, but with the advantage of knowing where personal loyalty leads. We’ve seen democratic backsliding around the world when citizens transfer their allegiance from institutions to individuals. We’ve witnessed how loyalty tests and conspiracy theories can undermine democratic norms. Even President Zelensky understands loyalty is not unto himself. In his own inaugural address he stated, “We need people in power who will serve the people. This is why I really do not want my pictures in your offices, for the President is not an icon, an idol or a portrait. Hang your kids’ photos instead, and look at them each time you are making a decision.”

The question Nathaniel faces in Chapter 3 is this and it remains urgent today. What would compel you to sign an oath of allegiance, especially when it divides you from others? But perhaps we should be more clear: What would prevent you from signing such an oath? What should? What principles and ideals are worth more—and worth fighting for—over personal loyalty?

The founders answered clearly when 56 of them signed the sole copy of the Declaration of Independence: the principle that no individual should be above the law, that power belongs to the people, and that government exists to serve citizens rather than the other way around.

As we approach America’s 250th anniversary, the wisdom of 1776 feels both ancient and immediate. The choice between the Declaration of Independence ideals and our founding-vision of government by “consent of the governed” versus personal rule isn’t historical artifact—it’s the living challenge of every generation.

This post is a deeper discussion for Chapter 3 of Carrying Independence, my historical novel about the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It is part of my ongoing weekly chapter serial release—56 chapters FREE—in honor of our America250 Sesquicentennial on July 4, 2026. Join in and read the chapters on my substack: From the Wandering Desk of Karen A. Chase.

#AmericanRevolution #DeclarationOfIndependence #ColonialAmerica #America250 #HistoricalFiction #CarryingIndependence #1776 #RevolutionaryWar #AmericanHistory #NoKings #RepublicanIdeals

Declaration of Independence Novel: Serializing for America’s 250th

June 4, 2025 By Karen A. Chase

It’s been six years since Carrying Independence, my novel about the Declaration of Independence, was published. Now, we are a year away from celebrating the 250th anniversary of that document on July 4, 2026. In honor of that anniversary, I feel compelled to share this story more widely—my gift to my fellow Americans.

Starting today, I’m releasing Carrying Independence, chapter by chapter—leading up to the 250th—on my new Substack Publication: From the Wandering Desk of Karen A. Chase.

Along with it, every other week on my blog here, I will take you on a deep dive about a historical fact within that week’s chapter. You can also join the conversation, and collectively we can have a good (and civil, please) discussion about our Declaration.

Join me & read the prologue & chapter one.

Why This Revolutionary War Novel Matters Now

This story matters, now more than ever, for two compelling reasons.

First, it’s a celebration. The 56 chapters I am releasing are a tribute to the 56 men who ultimately signed that one sole copy of the Declaration on August 2nd, 1776. In reality, however, in 1776, it was thousands of ordinary individuals—not merely those founding fathers—who decided to band together behind a Cause greater than themselves. And that action became the motto of the United States. E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one.

Second, it’s necessary. Today, various news outlets and politicians use our founding document for sound bites and publicity, often describing its purpose or content incorrectly or without context. Such acts are dividing us at a time when we should be coming together, just as we did in the beginning. As Thomas Paine wrote in American Crisis, “The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall.”

The Untold Story of Our Declaration of Independence Founding Document

The novel, Carrying Independence, is laying on the Declaration, along with a pocket-watch, ink, and other vintage pieces from 1776.

When I began researching this book in 2009, I discovered something remarkable: there were no historical novels focused on the actual process of signing the Declaration of Independence. Everyone knows the document, but few knew when it was formally signed (August 2, 1776). Even fewer knew how. (Historians still debate this point.)

Carrying Independence tells the story of Nathaniel Marten—a reluctant Revolutionary War courier tasked by Congress with carrying the document (hence the title) and acquiring the final signatures on a sole copy—a contract that would unite us as one nation. The novel opens at a woodpile, with Nathaniel—the very man charged with the Declaration’s protection—determined to destroy it. Because all seemed lost. Because we were losing that war.

My Goals in Crafting This Historical Novel

Choosing to write a factually-accurate historical novel about a document everyone knows—yet of which I knew very little—seems, well… foolish. Yes, looking back, that’s the word that comes to mind. To set that Revolutionary War novel during a time period I also knew scant about? About a war so long ago that even the most deeply born-and-bred Americans have six or even eight generations between them and 1776? Ludicrous.

I don’t tend to do things halfway. (Hold my ale.) So, I set two ambitious requirements for this Revolutionary War story:

Share deeper, lesser-known truths. I wanted readers to repeatedly ask, “Was that true? How did I not know this?” By revealing true yet hidden stories about real people and events, I hoped to make even well-informed Americans question what they thought they knew about our founding. (Did you know a woman’s name is on a 1777 copy of the Declaration—the first to broadcast all the names?)

Create genuine suspense about known history. I needed to weave unknown facts with familiar events to generate such tension that even Revolutionary War enthusiasts would worry about the outcome—like watching Apollo 13 and wringing your hands over whether the crew actually made it home safely.

The Response Has Been Extraordinary

Did we win? Or did the Redcoats? Did the Declaration of Independence actually receive all the signatures? Or was it stuffed in a dresser somewhere, or worse, thrown onto a fire by the very person tasked with its completion?

Since publishing Carrying Independence in 2019, the response has been remarkable. Thousands of copies sold in the US, Canada and even the UK! Over 100 presentations and book clubs nationwide. (And now even a job as an onboard history lecturer on American Cruise Lines as a result!) A handful of awards, including second place in the Cinematic Screencraft Cinematic Book competition, and being recognized as Number 12 of the Top 100 Indie Books of 2019. An award for independence. How fitting.

I’m thrilled by readers who’ve shared how worried they were while reading. One woman told me she yelled out loud, “No, Nathaniel, don’t go in there! You have to finish this!”

I’m in awe of historians who asked me for resources I’d discovered so they could research more about these lesser-known Revolutionary figures and events.

And I’m honored by Americans linked by lineage to Patriots—Daughters and Sons of the American Revolution—who said they picked up the Declaration of Independence and read it beginning to end—some for the first time.

Why the Revolution Was About More Than Battlefields

The Semiquincentennial celebrations of our founding document is the perfect moment for more of us to learn about the Declaration’s journey through a war that could have ended very differently. A war won against insurmountable odds, and fought, in part, for the ideal of becoming something better. However, unlike what we’re taught in school, the Revolution wasn’t just on battlefields. Hopefully, by reading Nathaniel’s story, you’ll understand why John Adams said the real American Revolution “was in the minds and hearts of the people.”

Join Nathaniel’s Journey to July 4th, 2026

Today, there is no other historical novel about the American Revolution quite like this—focused on the actual signing of the Declaration of Independence, following a reluctant courier through the perilous journey that brought our nation into being.

Although Nathaniel is fictional, you’ll discover the facts about how our founding document and this nation came into being against impossible odds, a Cause carried by ordinary people like you and me who chose something bigger than themselves.

This story isn’t just mine. It’s ours. At the very least, I hope you’ll learn about and read our original Declaration of Independence. As Nathaniel’s father says at a critical turn in the novel, “The only person more ignorant than a man who cannot read, is one who can and chooses not to.”

Join me—share the message far and wide—and together we’ll be Carrying Independence.

Subscribe and Read the First Chapter

Join the conversation on Substack: From the Wandering Desk of Karen A. Chase

Ready to discover the untold story of how our founding document survived the Revolutionary War? Visit Carrying Independence to learn more about the novel, or secure your autographed copy at my bookstore.

Mary House: Recognized as Female Patriot of the American Revolution

March 27, 2024 By Karen A. Chase

During this Women’s History Month, and ahead of the nation’s 250th celebrations, I have the great fortune of announcing a new Revolutionary female Patriot. I spearheaded an application with the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (NSDAR) to prove a new female American Revolutionary-era Patriot.

Mary House owned and operated a boarding house in Philadelphia, the House Inn. Because she paid taxes on the inn, her support tax directly helped fund the Revolutionary war. Just two blocks from the famous State House, where Revolution was debated and the Declaration of Independence signed, the inn was a respected political hub, frequented by familiar founding fathers.

In this press release issued by NSDAR, Pamela Wright, NSDAR President General and the National Society’s volunteer elected CEO, says, “We are thrilled to add Mary House to our list of verified female Patriots. As we approach our nation’s 250th birthday, DAR members across the country are concentrating on sharing the stories of these amazing Americans, helping contemporary U.S. citizens understand the relevancy of Patriots to our lives today. As a female entrepreneur myself, I am inspired by the story of Mrs. House.”

The star on this map shows the location of the House Inn. To red outline to the left is the State House. The red outline down and to the right, is the Arch Street Quaker Burial ground where Mary House was buried.

The House Inn hosted Thomas Jefferson and Other Founders

Mary House was a wise entrepreneur. After her husband died, the widow established the boarding house, which quickly became known for what was then called “fine entertainments.” It offered quality lodgings, good food and refreshments, and above all an atmosphere that encouraged convivial engagement. It quickly attracted founding fathers familiar to us now. Silas Deane, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. Mary recognized that congressmen visits to Philadelphia would increase as Revolution rumbled through the colonies. Consequently, she wisely moved her already established House Inn closer to the action, to Fifth and Market Streets. Like the famed City Tavern, the House Inn was a gathering place for end-of-day political discourse over dinner and drinks.

Finding Mary House and Proving Her as Patriot

Although I spearheaded the search and the NSDAR application, the journey to validate Mary House’s Patriot status was a collaborative effort. It took multiple years and involved more than 15 individuals across five NSDAR chapters and three states, along with additional historians and translators. To submit an application for patriot status for Mary House, we found and proved lineage to a living descendant. That descendant is also related to two other significant figures: Jefferson and the subject of what I call my Eliza Project.

Mary House’s Daughter, Eliza Trist, Went West & Kept a Journal

Mary House is significant in her own right as a supporter of the Cause and an entrepreneur. She is also the mother of Eliza House Trist—a woman who traveled west in 1783, two decades before Lewis and Clark. Eliza Trist kept this journal for Thomas Jefferson. Trist met Jefferson when he lodged at the House Inn. The two became significant in each others lives, and long after her westward journey, Eliza Trist’s grandson married Thomas Jefferson’s granddaughter. Consequently, this new NSDAR member on this application, is related to House, Trist, and Jefferson.

To be frank, I feel like we’ve hit the NSDAR’s version of a quadfecta or superfecta. Myself, and this incredible network of genealogists and historians, have correctly proven four positions significant to the NSDAR. New female Patriot. New Female Explorer. New member. And all connected to Thomas Jefferson.

The only known portrait of Eliza House Trist. From the Ledger book of William Bache, National Portrait Gallery.

What will the Patriot Status Achieve?

Mary House was buried in Philadelphia, in the Quaker Arch Street burial ground, which was built over in the late 1800s. Eliza Trist is buried at Monticello. Neither woman has a gravestone, and their contributions have never been granted state historical markers. As I mentioned in the press release, “The goal is to ensure each of these women has a grave marker and historical recognition… In honor of the 250th, we are striving to broaden the narrative we tell about the founding of this country. Eliza and Mary matter. Who we tell our origin stories about matters so more of us can envision ourselves contributing to our future.”

The Permission slip provided by the Quakers to bury Mary House in the Arch Street grounds.

To learn more about Eliza House Trist

I am producing a more comprehensive and widely-accessible narrative for Mary House and Eliza Trist. For now, you can learn more about Eliza House Trist’s journey when you pre-order a copy of The Travel Journal of Eliza House Trist, 1783-84. It’s a brand new transcription, with a brief introduction. For the first time, her journal is replicated as she originally wrote it. In this beautifully hardbound book, is an all new introduction and a map of her journey. The book publishes April 15th.

The American Revolution and the Shawnee at Fort Pitt, This Week in 1776

October 31, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

The Shawnee, Colonel Morgan, and the Treaty of 1776

Take a read through pretty much any high school history textbook, and you’ll find what I initially did about the Shawnee in 1776. They, like all Native Americans, were supposedly choosing sides between the Colonists and the British. Take a visit to many museums, like the Fort Pitt museum, and you’ll see over-told tales of the Shawnee capturing white settlers. Clearly they do not know about Colonel Morgan, Gregory Schaaf, or the treaty of 1776.

Who was Colonel Morgan?

Colonel Morgan was the Indian Commissioner for the Colonies in 1776. He was also good friend to the Delaware, the Iroquois, and he spoke a multitude of languages—so endeared was he to the Indians, that they gave him nicknames like “Council House” and “Brother Tamanend.” In the fall of 1776, he called a treaty of all Indian Nations to meet in Fort Pitt to discuss the issue at hand. Land.

The Native Americans Came to Fort Pitt in 1776 to Discuss Land Rights

The Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768 had drawn a dividing line down the middle of the land at Fort Pitt. The east belonged to the British and west of that line belonged to the Native Americans. When the colonists separated from Britain, that treaty went kaput, and the land was once again up for grabs. Additionally, the land hadn’t been yet surveyed that far west, so it wasn’t certain if Fort Pitt sat upon Pennsylvania or Virginia soil. And to make matters worse, George Washington himself was speculating on land—including about 1500 acres in and around Fort Pitt.

To the Shawnee, and many of the Indian nations, it was their sacred hunting ground. Just as it always had been. So over 650 Native Americans from more than six nations came to Fort Pitt to meet with Morgan, this last week of October, 1776. That included Netawatees, grandfather to the Delaware, who was nearing 100.

How Do We Know The First American-Indian Treaty was in 1776?

We can thank both Colonel Morgan and Gregory Schaaf. Schaaf was working on a dissertation back in the 1980s. He was convinced that there was more to this October 1776 treaty than had previously been discovered. I had seen only one line about it, and I hunted, too. I found Gregory Schaaf, and Gregory Schaaf had been persistent. After knocking on the door of several of Morgan’s descendants, one of them called him to say… wait for it… “here’s a packet of letters and documents I came across in an old chest.”

It included a 73-page journal written by Colonel Morgan, the Indian Agent who had invited everyone to Fort Pitt. An article in People Magazine, described Schaaf’s find as “The Mother Load.”

It was to me, too. The treaty, and the results from it, were described by Morgan. Schaaf transcribed the journal, added his interpretations, and I used it and other sources to frame the facts of the treaty in my historical novel.

So, What Was the Result of the Treaty of 1776?

Keep in mind that treaties like this were often discussions, from which written appeals or pleas were developed. Not always were lines drawn, and land divided. In this case, the Shawnee, along with the Iroquois, the Munsee, the Delawares, the Mohicans, and other nations, drew up a request for Congress, submitting a plea they hoped would resonate with the men who had drafted the Declaration of Independence. The Indians asked for a right to political sovereignty, to religious freedom, and a fair piece or payment for their tribal hunting grounds.

And in exchange for agreeing to stay out of the “White Man’s War”—choosing the side of neither the colonists nor the British—the Native Americans asked for just three rights in exchange. Three little ideals they knew the colonists would find familiar:

“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

That puts our founding document in a new light now, doesn’t it? What a different world we would live in now if, back then, the ideals of one group had been expanded and designed to include the others.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reader Insights: To read more about the Treaty and what happened beyond 1776, stay tuned or pick up my novel, CARRYING INDEPENDENCE. I’m forever grateful to historians like Gregory Schaaf and Colin Calloway who helped me with my research, and who are striving to tell the Indian story faithfully in part by constantly seeking new information.

I think it’s also fair that Native Americans be given the opportunity and the means to tell their own stories. As such, a portion of the proceeds of my novel are being donated to the DAR American Indian Scholarship Fund. I hope you’ll donate, too.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For more history nerd posts like these, subscribe to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

Why July 19th, 1776 Matters

July 19, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

An Engrossed Copy

As many readers now know, CARRYING INDEPENDENCE is about the importance of gathering signatures on a single copy of the Declaration of Independence. Today’s date was a significant moment in history that indicated to me that I could indeed write such a story.

July 19th, 1776, was the day the Continental Congress agreed to have one “engrossed” copy of the Declaration made. One readable, handwritten copy, signed by all. Why?

New York Finally Approved the Declaration

Ten days earlier, on July 9th, New York representatives finally agreed to the wording of the Declaration—the last of 13 states to do so. This mattered because their approval finally made the separation from Britain unanimous. But words are hollow without a contract everyone will sign.

Would you agree to move out of your home, while only verbally agreeing the guy moving in could take over? Nope. You’d ensure he came in and signed some papers assuming the mortgage, and absolving you of responsibility. You’d want all parties in agreement.

So did the Congress.

If you really want to see how we began, put down the Constitution and pick up the Declaration.

So what? Why does this decision and day in history matter now?

In a country that too often operates divisively and viciously, we need to remember that this nation began by coming together. By compromising. By being optimistic in the face of grave danger and the real possibility that we might not stand a snowball’s chance of surviving the heat. We began by laying down our lives and our fortunes and our sacred honor for the sake of each other—no matter which colony or country we were born in.

If you really want to see how we began, put down the Constitution and pick up the Declaration. When you read it—actually study it— you’ll find that our country, with this document as evidence, was founded not upon seeking what was best for us individually.

Even with all its flaws, the Declaration was an agreement to collectively be better. And not just for Americans, but for and before “a candid world.”

* * *

Reader Insider Note: I’ll admit it… not before this book had I really studied the Declaration. But with chapter 23 of CARRYING INDEPENDENCE, I wrote myself into a corner. George Wythe, the man who taught Jefferson, was to explain to Nathaniel, my protagonist, the reasoning behind the Declaration. Not the intent. The reasoning.

Of all my chapters and scenes, it took me the longest to write this one—days and days of researching the ideologies, reviewing academic interpretations, and studying the document itself. At times I wondered if I was smart enough to grasp and then convey the meaning of it all. And then I decided I would simply allow Wythe to explain it to me as if I were Nathaniel—a nonacademic, uncertain yet hopeful, resident now living in a foreign land.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For more history nerd posts like these, subscribe to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

For behind-the-scenes author-related news, giveaways, and to find out where I might be speaking near you, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.

The Woman on the Declaration

July 4, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

Founding-Documents Blog Series: Part Six

On this, July 4th, my blog features the last in a brief series related to the history and signing of the Declaration of Independence… Part one began here.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So many blogs will rightly tell you that the Declaration of Independence was not written, voted for, or even signed on July 4th. All true. Today, however, I’d rather talk about the only woman whose name graces the Declaration. A woman featured in Carrying Independence.

Mary Katharine Goddard

Her brother was a drunkard. He owned his own print-shop which often fell into neglect as he stumbled around the colonies bemoaning (whining) that Benjamin Franklin had been given the title of Postmaster General over him.

When the print shop was left in Mary Katharine’s hands in Baltimore in the mid 1770s, Mary Katharine (with two As) became known not only as the printer, but the editor and the first female Postmaster of Baltimore. (As she says in novel, “It does not take a man to organize the mail… I was already writing and publishing both the Maryland Journal and the Baltimore Advertiser, so why not know the post routes, too?”)

Postmasters in the colonies were paid by Congress, making Mary Katharine the first female federal employee of the newly formed United States. But by the end of 1776, problems in that new country were afoot.

Congress Had a Failing Army

Getting all the congressmen to sign a sole copy of a Declaration—while hiding their identities—was one thing. Ensuring troops stayed to fight was quite another. By January of 1777, the enlistments of soldiers who had joined in July of ’76 were nearly up. Their morale was severely down. Would you have stuck around after 6–8 months of marching, starving, and losing, or would you go home to tend your farm and eat?

Congress decided to admit “to a candid world” who the signers were. They put out the call to printers asking them to make a copy of the Declaration with all their names typeset so all those soldiers could see exactly who and what they were fighting for.

A Woman Volunteers

Enter Mary Katharine Goddard. In February of 1777, she volunteered her print shop in Baltimore to print documents, called broadsides. She used the font Caslon, which, ironically, was created in a type foundry in England. Two hundred copies were made and circulated among the states. To date, nine copies still exist.

Only one signer’s name does not appear on the Goddard broadside. That of Thomas McKean of Delaware. It’s believed that when Goddard printed these copies, the congressmen had yet to sign the original—further proof that the congressmen were not all together on August 2nd for the formal engrossing.

Although her name doesn’t appear on the original signed version of the Declaration, I still point to her when historians ignore women’s roles in the struggle for independence. Mary Katharine not only participated, she even had the wherewithal to typeset her own name on her copies, thereby inking herself into history.

The Smithsonian has a lovely article by Erick Trickey on Mary Katharine Goddard‘s life, background, and achievements.

Reader Insider Note: In order to make copies like the Goddard broadside, printers often worked alongside the original document. In my novel, my protagonist, Nathaniel, not only delivers the document, but stays to help Mary Katharine Goddard typeset the thing. To read how it was done, and to see the sparks fly between Postmistress and Post rider, you can get the book… (ahem—it’s just 99¢ all this week).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For more history nerd posts like these, subscribe to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

For behind-the-scenes author-related news, giveaways, and to find out where I might be speaking near you, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.

Declaration of Independence Mistakes

June 13, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

Founding-Documents Blog Series: Part Five

Between now and July 4th, my blog features an ongoing series related to the history and signing of the Declaration of Independence… Part one began here.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

While researching the Declaration for Carrying Independence, I came across a few unique things about the the document itself.

The Declaration is a Document With Mistakes

Timothy Matlack was hired to copy the text from Jefferson’s drafts onto the official document. He was responsible for the ink used for the text and the signers (see Part Four here), but in the copying, there were a couple mistakes.

As Kris Spisak wrote, when she was a guest on my blog in her article on Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of an American Language, we often discuss the use of “unalienable” versus “inalienable.” Alison VanNest also wrote an article for Grammarly.com on the spelling and grammatical errors. She illustrates how some mistakes (the spelling of “Brittish” and “shewn”) are simply because of the usage at the time.

The Declaration was Later Corrected

Personally I love the two corrections that were made—some assume by Jefferson’s hand—after it was fully crafted. The word “representatives” was missing the “en” so that was penned in. The word “only” was inserted about ten lines up from the bottom into, “…our repeated Petitions have been answered only in repeated injury.” Cropped images of those sections are below (see the whole document close up here).

A Handprint on the Declaration

There is also a handprint is embedded into the paper in the bottom corner, possibly having seeped through from the back. The size is smaller, as if from the hand of a woman. It’s impossible to determine when it was set or to test for any traces that might result in a DNA examination without pulling up chunks of the actual document. So there it sits, an unknown shadow sealed forever in parchment.

Reader Insider Note: What’s more fun that an unknown piece of history like an inky handprint when you’re a fiction writer? Not much, so youbetchya… I had to scoop that up and provide a scenario for how it got there! No… I can’t tell you what that scenario is right now, but you can get the book… (ahem).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For more history nerd posts like these, subscribe to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

For behind-the-scenes author-related news, giveaways, and to find out where I might be speaking near you, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.

Faded Ink Informs 1776 History

June 4, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

Founding-Documents Blog Series: Part Four

Between now and July 4th, my blog features an ongoing series related to the history and signing of the Declaration of Independence…

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evidence to Support An Incomplete Declaration of Independence

My novel, Carrying Independence, as covered in Part One, is fiction supported by the fact that not all 56 congressmen were in the same room on August 2nd, 1776 to affix their signatures to the Declaration. Two factors contributed to my being assured that there were men missing from that formal signing.

Ink Fades Based on the “Recipe”

“Timothy Matlack, a revolutionary leader and one of the official scribes of the Declaration of Independence, copied the official document,” writes Kelly Dickerson for LiveScience.com. “[The delegates] signed it in iron ink, which is made with an acidic chemical compound that bleeds into parchment. The staining makes the ink last longer.”

There was one batch of ink made for one hand-made silver inkwell holding the one pen used by 49 congressmen assembling in the one room at the State House on August 2nd, 1776. The subsequent signers used whatever ink was on hand—some of which are different recipes than Timothy Matlack’s. Those signatures have faded differently.

A Woman Proves the Last Signer of the Declaration

In Part Three of this series, I noted that Thomas McKean was the last man to sign the document. For proof, enter Mary Katharine Goddard (more on her in the next post).

In 1777, Congress decided to typeset a copy of the Declaration that included all the names of the signers. ALL their names. But it doesn’t.

Goddard volunteered to make the copies (shown above) in her print shop. Just like other printers, when she reproduced large documents it was customary to build the printing plates (text inserted, one letter at a time, into metal frames) with the original document before her for comparison.

She would read, and then she or an employee (a composer) would type-set that line. “When in the course of human events…” Type-set. “…it becomes necessary for one people…” Type-set. All the way down to the signatures. “John Hancock…” Type-set. “Thomas Jefferson…” Type-set.

In January of 1777, she completed 200 copies. One name, based on one signature, is missing. Thomas McKean.

Reader Insider Notes: The Goddard Broadside (of which, to date, 9 still exist) helped fix my time frame for inserting McKean into the novel. Also, when you discover a fact in history that suggests the very document your fictional protagonist, Nathaniel, is carrying ended up in the print shop of an historical figure… well, what would you do? Put him there working alongside her, of course! Here, an excerpt from the chapter informed by the research:

“So long as the document stays, so do you. I have to follow the original to replicate it exactly, and I was told your being here should be hush-hush.” Mary Katharine waggled the apron at Nathaniel, and he [reluctantly] took it from her. “Also, my pressman is ill, and my best type composer joined the Cause last week. It must be you.”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For more history nerd posts like these, subscribe to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

For behind-the-scenes author-related news, giveaways, and to find out where I might be speaking near you, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.