Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Remember the Ladies

Hi everyone, I know you've been working very hard on this article and you've done a magnificent job. On this day, in 2011, I would like to appeal to you with the same request that Abigail Adams made to John Adams – to please "Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors." [1] The Constitution of the United States specifically excluded women by not mentioning them. [2] [3] [4] And even today, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claims that women are not protected by the US Constitution because they are not mentioned [5] even though there are court rulings that say otherwise. [6] This issue was just as controversial back then as it is today and should be included in the article, specifically that most of the population of the United States was excluded from the Constitution and it took many years and many additional amendments for the rest of the citizens to get the same protection under the law as adult white men who owned property. [7] USchick (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are mostly about the US Constitution and don't have as much relevance in this article about the Declaration of Independence. And keep in mind: our job here is to accurately summarize the reliable sources, and nothing more. —Kevin Myers 00:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

USchick brings up a good point, in terms how revolutionary was the War of Independence. White women could not vote or own property. There only protection was the fact that they were white and could not be made slaves. Women were caught between being a slave and citizenhip. The term "All men are created equal" only applies to men. Blacks who fought in the War and women who helped fight in the War, Betsy Ross, were denied citizenship after the War. Voting rights was only for white men who owned property. Not much of a democracy. If the Declaration of Independence in this article if viewed as a great work of democracy, then this is highly exagerated. Scalia is correct, there really needs to be an amendment that takes out the "he" and puts in "person". A judge can interpret the constitution strictly and not include women. However, one can argue that the 14th and 20th amendmendment do this constitutionally. If there is a valid source that states the Declaration was not much of a Democratic document, then, I believe that source can be used in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In the Legacy section, I believe there needs to be a new segment, titled, Womens suffrage and the Declaration of Independence. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Ladies" have been remembered; added on women's suffrage segment in the Legacy section. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

For white men

Is there any objection into putting into the lede section that the Declaration was only for white men. Free blacks, slaves, and women were denied citizenship rights in the United States. The Declaration did not mention free blacks, slaves, or white women. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

For that matter, it didn't make a point of saying rich white guys, either. But there are people willing to assert that. TEDickey (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Black slaves were not set free by this document, something that was even noted by the British Tories. If all men were created equal, then slavery would be abolished, however, Continental Congress did not abolished slavery after the Declaration. Blacks were set free by the Constitutional Congress for participating in the War, but were denied citizenship. Clearly, the Declaration of Independance was made for landed white gentry. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I added more information on how African American slaves responded to the Declaration of Independence. I mentioned that William Whipple, signer of the Declaration, freed his slave Prince Whipple. I have yet to find a reference on how women responded to the Declaration. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to remember that the Continental Congress didn't have any power to abolish slavery or define citizenship rights in the individual states, notwithstanding the language of the Declaration. I object to putting into the lede section that the Declaration was only for white men. I don't think that's accurate (I'm with Abraham Lincoln on this one), and I certainly don't think that view is common (if it exists at all) in scholarly literature on the subject.--Other Choices (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)--Other Choices (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. This is a soapbox issue, far from neutral TEDickey (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. The issue is dropped. I believe putting in information on how slaves were influenced by words in the Declaration is important. However, citizenship in the U.S. was only for white persons, and voting was allowed for white men with property. Since women could not vote they could not run for public office. This meant that white men with property controlled the government and the laws. African American men, women, and children were relegated to slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the issue won't go away, since introduction of soapbox edits such as those tends to make people skip over the topic - just another wikipedia warzone. TEDickey (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw the request to insert "only for white men". I do not want a warzone, just discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I think the Declaration of Independence needs to be semi-protected to stop or minimize vandalism. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You could try to request it at WP:RFPP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that that vandalism of the page has been excessive as of late.--JayJasper (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested temporary semi-protection. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Need to mention "treason"?

A question or suggestion has come up at the Thomas Jefferson article to note that he and other signers of the Declaration would have been considered treasonous by Britain and in danger of being hung, and that some mention of that, to indicate the risky state of affairs, should be added to TJ's article. All the signers were equally at risk - should the question be addressed in this article, or the situation described? should the issue of "risk for treason" be added to each signer's article? This article on the Declaration fully describes how the colonies had been at war for a year, and many had already issued their own declarations of independence, so the fact that some men signed another declaration may not have been so important at the time. This article says nothing about treason. Parkwells (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Length of article

Isn't the article a bit long? It seems to me that it might be prudent to split it or at least trim it a bit for improved readability. At the very least, the Text section could be rewritten - it appears to quote most or all of the original document, which falls under WP:LONGQUOTE. Whitecroc (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The 1581 Act of Abjuration

It's not too widely written of, but it has been noted, and the rhetorical and structural similarities are very substantial, there's a cited sentence in a work that the Act was widely printed in European, British, and American pamphlets, a book notes that it's certain that the founding fathers knew about it, and another book notes that John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were familiar with dutch history. Also, it's the only other and previous declaration of independence in history. So the fact is quite solid, and it's important enough to the topic overall that it should be noted in the introduction, which does treat of the writing of the document.Kbih67 (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Certified copy?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Thomas_Gilcrease Was that a typeset copy or was it handwritten? What's the story there? Also, who was the calligrapher (they wouldn't have called him that at that time, because back then people better handwriting -- off on a tangent) who wrote out the actual copy in the national archives, the one which everyone signed? --RThompson82 (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm -- i suppose it means that the dealer who sold it to Gilcrease certified it was printed in 1776. The "official" text is not the one people signed, but the text that passed by unanimous vote in Congress on July 2. It was destroyed. Rjensen (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind on the second question, I just saw it in the article: Timothy Matlack. I was wondering what the copy referred to in the Thomas Gilcrease article was. --RThompson82 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of certain Words

In Jefferson's Draft and in the draft that was accepted by Congress, words such as "laws of nature", "creator", "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were not capitalized. Why then should they be capitalized in this article if we are to maintain the Founders' intent? See the Library of Congress scanned image at [[8]] -- Skyemoor (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The original published version of the Declaration capitalized those words. If it was the "Founders' intent" to leave them uncapitalized, they failed. In reality, Capitalization was haphazard in those Days, and no one paid much Attention to it nor attached any Meaning to it. —Kevin Myers 02:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "original": what really counts is what Congress approved, the 'fair' copy that Jefferson cleaned up. In keeping with his Rough Draft, and the changes made by other members, there is no evidence that the version Congress approved had capitalized the words. -- Skyemoor (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit

The article was heavily edited on July 4 (shown here), was wondering if other editors have thoughts about this. Looks ok to me, but after all, it is a massive overhaul of the previous "Text" (now the "Annotated text of the Declaration" section and thought it should be discussed. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm up in the air about this change. Editor NateOceanside has obviously put a bit of work into the change. Things I note:

• too much italic text—not like shouting in caps, but definitely not as easy to read as the standard font.
• too much text with the darker background of the generic wikitable—not as easy to read as text over the normal background.
• putting the text in a wikitable invites edits that will disrupt the table structure—too many times this editor has seen wikitables that don't look quite right because inadvertent edit-errors have broken the table's intended layout.
• The annotation right now is light and mostly states the obvious. However, nothing on Wikipedia is static so it would seem possible that someday the annotation might outweigh the text of the Declaration—as annotation often does. Should that occur, then this editor thinks that there will be too much information—the article will have morphed from an encyclopedic article to a monograph.

As I've thought about this I've come to wonder if inclusion of the text is at all required. There are at least two copies of the text in Wikisource (United States Declaration of Independence and United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/Organic Laws of the United States/Declaration of Independence). Having yet another copy doesn't seem practical as it is yet another copy that needs to be maintained.

However, it also occurs to me that a separate article might be written, perhaps Analysis of the United States Declaration of Independence, where the sole purpose of the article is to annotate the Declaration in the most excruciating detail. That would leave this article to focus on the Declaration's history, etc.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a link to Wikisource but this particular editpr deleted it. Shearonink (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a {{wikisource}} template at the bottom of §References.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource

Why is the text here and not (or also which is almost as bad) on Wikisource where it in my opinion actually belongs at least would be better placed? A link to and from here is ok.
Kind regards, Klaas ‌ V 13:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's on wikisource at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence Petershank (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Influences on Jefferson

I suspect that this section is probably best reduced to Jefferson's admiration for Locke. Jefferson clearly had a mind of his own and may have been familiar with all the 'influences' mentioned, but in whatever he ingested and digested them, it was Jefferson's decision ultimately to write what he wrote, always mindful, I daresay, of the 'input' of his fellow declarants (Pamour (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)).

I respectfully disagree; I think that the article as written is well sourced. Furthermore, Jefferson's own words contradict your opinion. He stated that he drew from other philosophers as well as Locke (as well as the common sense of the situation), and he clearly stated that there was nothing original in the document that he put together. Furthermore, the philosophical content of the Declaration conformed to that of the clearly anti-Lockean original declaration of independence, drafted by John Adams and Richard Henry Lee, and passed by Congress on May 10 and 15, 1776.--Other Choices (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

chronology of reduction of the text by one-fourth

There are presently two places which mention "having reduced the writing by 1/4" or "deleted nearly a fourth of the text" and the text referring to slave trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.247.219.101 (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

parchment can we link this to parchment paper of Wikipida

Just wanted to add parchment around the word there seems to be a great deal of discussion on what this document is made of. Thank you
--OxAO (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

British Constitution

Multiple references are (incorrectly) made in this article to the British Constitutional Order that misunderstand it as being written or subject to interpretation. This is misleading as the real debate was about natural law, not the constitutional propriety of the laws (there being no British Constitution per se to have recourse to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy.conder (talk • contribs) 22:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what is meant by "British Constitutional Order," and there is nothing in the article to imply that the British Constitution was written. The article's references to the British Constitution are sourced to an eminent historian, and reflect mainstream scholarship. If you have a specific disagreement with the wording of a particular sentence, backed up by a reliable source, then please share your thoughts.--Other Choices (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirect from Declaration of Independence to US Declaration of Independence?

Surely it would be more appropriate to offer a disambiguation page to allow for other declarations of independence to be listed appropriately. This redirection seems to show a certain American bias! Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You apparently overlooked Declaration of independence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2013

Add Category:Declarations of independence 94.65.29.101 (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is already in Category:United States Declaration of Independence, which is a subcat of the declarations of independence one. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

removed new wordy "cultural and religious background" section

There was recently added a very large "cultural and religious background" section by a new editor who may not understand wikipedia policies well. So, I'm listing some of the reasons for removing this material, with the invitation to discuss if the editor in question still wants to incorporate elements of it into the article:
--The "cultural and religious background" section violates WP:SYNTH and it violates WP:OR. I remember what it's like to be new around here, and these two wikipedia policies can be hard to get your head around at the beginning.
--The section is a very long, tangental addition to an article that is already on the long side. In my opinion it's not needed and shouldn't be added.
--The section relies predominantly on a single author, Robert Middlekauff, who is not a specialist in the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence -- he has never published anything on the subject. Basically, Middlekauff's general history of the American Revolution is a tertiary (not secondary) source for the philosophical content of the Declaration of Independence, and is less than ideal as a source for the article, which already has a number of other reliable sources on the subject.
--The adulatory statement that "Middlekauff has answered the important questions" is a no-no: we can't use wikipedia's voice to support a single author on a subject where the experts have diverging and often conflicting opinions.
--Sorry to say it, but the "cultural and religious background" section simply does not reflect a grasp of the natural law tradition, especially in the 18th century. (And really, Middlekauff is just as bad.) I'd recommend, for starters, Knud Haakonssen's Natural Law and Moral Philosophy: From Grotius to the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge University Press, 1996).--Other Choices (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Including the entire text

Okay, I mentioned this sometime last year and got no response. I don't know much about the subject of the article, but do we really need to have the entire text in the article? It looks cluttered and most of it is only interesting from a scholarly perspective. The low discussion-to-citation ratio also makes it look as if it's being cited only for the purpose of being cited. Also, what happened to the link to Wikisource? Whitecroc (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the article, I would have to agree with Whitecroc. Perhaps we could turn the 'annotations' into a text summary? FallingGravity (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2013

In the first line of this article, the past tense verb "was" should be changed to the present tense "is." Since the Declaration still exists, the use of a past tense is unwarranted. It could also be inferred that using the past tense is a mild way to denigrate the importance of the Declaration. — daranz [ t ] 02:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sister Elias (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Good edit. -- Dianna (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

fractured sentence

The sentence quoted (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.)is shown as complete, and you end it with a period. My copies show a dash, followed by the main point. Please review this and the implications. 67.185.135.172 (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what you're talking about, could you clarify. I see a dash/underline before the sentence and a dash/underline after the sentence, but nothing that I see contradicts the quote. Here is the copy I'm looking at. Morphh ^(talk) 16:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Grammatical change requested

The statement: "they now formed a new nation--the United States of America." is grammatically incorrect, as the signers of the Declaration of Independence did not call the newly-formed country "the United States of America" at that time. In fact, the document itself refers to the "thirteen united States of America". The "U" of "united" did become capitalized by the time the US Constitution was created 11 years later.DonW1986 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

there are two issues-- was this the birthday of the U.S.A.? answer, yes and it has always been so celebrated (with a bit of difference regarding July 2 or July 4). Second is spelling. the official document is the Journal of Congress which uses capital-U "United" -- the typo came later and is not official. Rjensen (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Journals of Congress use a capital "U" in the title: "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America" as can be seen here. However, they use a lowercase "u" in the last paragraph: "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America." as can be seen here. The wikipedia article should at least reflect this. What makes you say the lowercase "u" is a typo? And if the Journals of Congress, the official document, use both the lower case and the upper case, how do we determine which one is the "typo"? (Maybe look at the other documents, which seem to prefer the lower case?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeCid57000 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Why the title says "Жmerica" instead of "America"

If you look at the title of the document, you should notice that this is no way to write the letter "A". According to the following research, this title has a very curious history, not to mention that the first variant declared independence of the "United States of Жmerinca". Here is a translated version of the article (which was originally written in Russian): http://www.artlebedev.com/mandership/113/ --Hunternif (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's an uppercase 'A' in a handwritten font style as written by Timothy Matlack, see Declaration Blackletter for example. While you may not be familiar with it, it is definitely not a Russian Ж, nor was the document originally written in Russian. FanN | talk 00:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

Under Declaration of Independence Wikipedia states: 'the text of the Declaration was initially ignored after the American Revolution'. While this is somewhat accurate, the use of the word "ignored" can be easily misconstrued. To characterize the Continental Congress and the creators & writers of the Constitution as "ignoring" the Declaration is a mischaracterization. The preamble section of the Declaration (and its historical antecedents) comprises much of the theoretical foundation on which the Founders, by intention, laid the Constitution. Perhaps, the sentence can be re-written or removed to adhere more closely to this historical fact.

Brent92037 Brent92037 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved new reference to Dutch Act of Abjuration to footnote 81

I reverted the recent attempt to give more emphasis to the Dutch Act of Abjuration, moving the newly-added reference to Footnote 81 (per WP:UNDUE), where we already have a reference to the Act of Abjuration. The wikipedia article on the Act of Abjuration correctly notes -- giving the same two references -- that scholars have SPECULATED about the influence of the Act of Abjuration on the Declaration of Independence. This is a fringe view which has been dismissed by Pauline Meyer, a leading mainstream scholar (as is already mentioned in Footnote 81).
For whatever it's worth, the members of the Continental Congress formally abjured their "oaths and affirmations necessary to support any government under the Crown of Great Britain" in the original declaration of independence -- the Congressional Resolution of May 10 and 15, 1776. See "Safety and Happiness: The American Revolutionary Standard for Governmental Legitimacy". Of course the Dutch Act of Abjuration was an earlier abjuration of oaths of allegiance to an oppressive king after he resorted to military force to crush his good subjects. Maybe the future will bring mainstream sources that discuss the Declaration in relation to the Congressional Resolution of May 10 and 15, which uses the same argument (based on the age-old "original contract" between king and subjects, which is part of natural law, as was discussed in English case law in Calvin's Case (1609), which was prominently mentioned by the American founders -- no need to look to the Dutch for this doctrine, except as a useful illustration of the general principle, which was also cited as the reason in 1649 for chopping off the head of King Charles I of England).--Other Choices (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed

I haven't taken the time to examine the whole article yet, but I'm seeing too major changes to the lead from the GA approved version of this article. While the GA approved version stated that "Although the wording of the Declaration was approved on July 4, the date of its signing has been disputed. Most historians have concluded that it was signed nearly a month after its adoption, on August 2, 1776, and not on July 4 as is commonly believed" the current version claims "Although the wording of the Declaration was approved on July 4, the date of its signing was August 2". It's evident from the article that it is a disputed issue so the lead should not paint this issue like it's not disputed. I'm also surprised at the inclusion of the statement "The original July 4 United States Declaration of Independence manuscript was lost while all other copies have been derived from this original document". The copy held by the National Archives is widely held to be "the original" and the lead does not make it clear which version was lost. The article states that the first version sent to the french was lost. The copy that was lost and submitted to Congress appears to have been considered lost before the signing. The disputed text claims that the July 4 version was lost. Ryan Vesey 00:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, lots of garbage edits have accumulated in the article in the last year or more. It appears no knowledgeable person has been keeping careful watch. I've pruned the garbage. A couple of wording or style choices may have been lost in the cleanup, but we can polish without much problem. —Kevin Myers 03:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Rjensen has restored the garbage. Have fun fixing it! —Kevin Myers

if there are problems let's take them one paragraph at a time instead of wholesale erasures. Ryan's complaonts are all about very minor points that can easily be resolved retail. Rjensen (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time nor inclination to debate much of the obviously stupid stuff that you've restored. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 07:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Rjensen ...I mean really, you've made minor errors that are spread throughout the page. Your time has gone, now let someone else fix this. - User:ForCom5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.150.163.78 (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've given a rewrite to the lead paragraph on the various versions, which I hope resolves some of the problems raised. The most important known versions are addressed here; if there is a question over whether there was another lost signed version that may need to be better addressed in the body (signing, publication, and history sections, and the seperate physical history article) before including it in the lead. Acerimusdux (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement: "they now formed a new nation--the United States of America." is simply false. THe Delcaration established 13 independant nation-states, united only in language and custom. Even under the Articles of Confederation the use of the word "nation" is a stretch. It was not until ratification of the Constitution that anything close to a nation emerged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.8.29.122 (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the early founders commonly referred to the "union" and never to the "nation."--Other Choices (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia depends on reliable secondary sources --so what do the RS say? they say there was one United States of America and the RS call it a nation. 1) Jefferson " made his life a monument to the creed of the American nation born in 1776" Merrill D. Peterson (1993). The Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson. p. 11.; 2) it was a nation with one army (under Washington) and treaties with France and others signed by Congress. 3) see the title The Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution, 1763-1776 by Merrill Jensen (2008). 4) "The Declaration of Independence is the founding document of the American nation." says David Andrew Schultz (2009). Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. p. 187.; 5) "With Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, Benjamin Franklin wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776. He was immediately sent to France to help get recognition for the newAmerican nation; he obtained that recognition from Louis XVI" Bill Marshall (2005). France And The Americas: Culture, Politics, And History. ABC-CLIO. p. 475.; 6) As Lincoln said in 1863: "four score and seven years ago [ in 1776], our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation". 7) Howe says "Lincoln was referring to the Declaration of Independence, not to the ratification of the Constitution, as the foundation of theAmerican nation." Daniel Walker Howe (2009). Making the American Self: Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. Oxford UP. p. 147.; 8) "Taken together, the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation...create the first constitutional system for the American nation and state." Scott Douglas Gerber (2002). The Declaration of Independence: origins and impact. CQ Press.. Now lets see if there are any RS that say otherwise. Rjensen (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have access to a research library; I'm not even in the States anymore. But I'm going to share three points for consideration: 1) None of Rjensen's sources (EDIT: with the exception of Peterson, who really should have known better) are specialists in the early history of the United States, so perhaps they can be excused for their ignorance regarding this fine point of early American political terminology. In other words, they are all less than ideal sources for this particular question. 2) I clearly remember, from my graduate studies and years of wide reading in the secondary sources regarding the Founding Era and the ante-bellum period, that the word "nation" to describe the United States was consciously avoided by the Founding generation (they invariably used "Union," giving the term an almost mystical aura of reverence which extended through most of the ante-bellum period, a reverence that was shared even by the likes of John C. Calhoun); the word "nation" first came into use with John Quincy Adams, who can hardly be said to have popularized the term. 3) I observed that historians of the early decades of the USA overwhelmingly follow the Founders' aversion to using the word "nation" when referring to the United States, a term that only came into popular use in the Civil War era.--Other Choices (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few excerpts from Gordon S. Wood (2002). The American Revolution: A History. p. 70-72. that are relevant to the discussion: "When people in 1776 talked about their 'country' or even their 'nation', they usually meant Virginia or Massachusetts or Pennsylvania." "Despite all the talk of union, few Americans in 1776 could conceive of creating a single full-fledged continental republic." Wood also points out the language of the Articles of Confederation in Articles 2 and 3: "Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."; "Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other [...]" If I may add a personal (unsourced) thought: I don't think the writing, signature or publication of the Declaration of Independence can be pinpointed as the moment the United States became a nation. We can safely say that the birthing process started at that moment, and would be continued with the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, but saying that with the sole Declaration of Independence the United States became one nation is a dubious statement at best. Finally, I would like to highlight the contradiction between the discussed sentence and the one that precedes it: "The Declaration of Independence is a statement [...] which announced that the thirteen American colonies [...] regarded themselves as independent states [...] They now formed a new nation—the United States of America." If the states were sovereign, they were not only independent from Great Britain, but also from each other. How could sovereign, independent states form one nation? LeCid (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could resolve this issue by ambiguous language. Instead of "they now formed a new nation—the United States of America", the text could read: "they formed a union that became a new nation—the United States of America." This is intentionally ambiguous language that avoids a decision on when the USA became a nation, and thus respects both the RS that see the Declaration as merely forming a union and the RS that use the language of the USA then becoming a "nation". Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You can download the original at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html 70.184.120.168 (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not the "original" it's the fancy engrossed copy with errors added by the copyist. The official text is the one approved by Congress and recorded in the Journal. Rjensen (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There were no copyist "errors" as stated by Rjensen: There are two "official" editions of the D-of-I. [1] "A DECLARATION" by the representatives of the States (as ordered printed on 7/4/1776) and [2] The "UNANIMOUS DECLARATION" by the States themselves (as ordered printed on 1/18/1777). The resulting 1777 printed edition was authenticated by John Hancock on 1/31/1777. An original copy was then sent to the governor of each of the thirteen States. The text of this 1777 printed edition (the "Goddard Broadside") is that featured in the first printing of the Journals of the Continental Congress (1776 volume, entry for July 4, as published in April 1777); with one emendation this text has been carried thru verbatim until the present day edition of the Journals. The only change since 1777 is the much later addition of one delegate name, Thomas McKean of Delaware, who didn't sign the UNANIMOUS DECLARATION until 1781. Thus 55 signatures were affixed variously between July 16, 1776 and November 4, 1776; Thomas McKean's became the 56th. The D-of-I was rendered unanimous in Congress only on July 15, 1776. There is no record of whether or not the first signature on the UNANIMOUS DECLARATION was affixed on or just after July 16, 1776; Charles Carroll reports in a letter that he signed the D-of-I on July 18, 1776, the date of his first day in Congress as a delegate from Maryland. The 55th signature, dated 11/4/1776, is that of Matthew Thornton, delegate from New Hampshire, who signed on his first day in Congress. During 1776 the D-of-I was formally ratified by each of the thirteen States: the first, New York, did so on July 9, 1776 at the state's White Plains convention; the thirteenth, North Carolina, did so on November 13, 1776 at the state's Halifax convention. The duration of the formal ratification process, from July until November 1776, thus accounts for the timing of the Congress decision taken at Baltimore on January 18, 1777 to publicize, not A DECLARATION by the representatives, but the engrossed UNANIMOUS DECLARATION by the States themselves, being "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" [and by the case-variant title of the 1777 "printed" Goddard Broadside: "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America"]. In closing, furthermore, I point out a crucial Wikipedia statement in error that the D-of-I was "ratified" in Congress on July 4, 1776; this statement's error is misleadingly incorrect. As just pointed out, ratification was performed by each of the States themselves, not by their representatives in Congress. JohnTWB — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTWB (talk • contribs) 06:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK to remove tag?

Recent edits seem to have addressed the issues that led to placing of the "factual accuracy disputed" tag. Can we agree that the tag can now be removed? WCCasey (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• No, this is wikipedia 50.132.103.137 (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any protest against the recent edits, so I went ahead removed the tag.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Bias

The article, the "Background" introduction and everything in it is written from a British perspective, is strongly biased and far from objective.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.5.71 (talk • contribs)

I tend to agree [EDIT: about the "Background" section], especially the reference to the "orthodox" British view, when in the opinions of the colonists (and of legal scholars like John Phillip Reid), the British Parliament was imposing a revolutionary reinterpretation of the British Constitution on the American colonies.--Other Choices (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2013

It is appropriate to not 'censor' or 'paraphrase' the actual contents this crucial piece of writing from the public. Many people who know the Declaratoin have memorized only those first few words from their school-days, and over time will have consequently lost or re-shaped their understanding of the true revolutionary spirit that inspired the document in the first place.

In the first few paragraphs of the wiki, if there is to be any quotation (as appears in Paragraph 5), it should NOT be the much hackneyed cotton candy few words that are big on pomp and small on the crucial sub-text of revolution against oppressive government.

Most people reading Wikipedia, lose their attention span after the first couple of paragraphs. Therefore, the beginning of the Wiki is Crucual. We do not need so much "interpretative commentary" to tell us what the Declaration says. It is, SELF-EVIDENT. The reader doesnt NEED a slug of paraphrasing or 're-education'.

If the Wiki is to provide "Expert Interpretation", then it should do so in the context of one paragraph of QUOTE, for one paragraph of Interpretation.

Moreover, the first quote to be rendered from the Declaration should be something that the Declaration itself spends 90% of its content discussing. That is "the overthrow of oppressive regimes". Instead, the quote excerpted in the first crucial part of the Wiki concentrates on the second sentence of the Declaration, and effectively stultifies the power of the original document moving the focus from INDEPENDENCE OF THE PEOPLE AND THE NATION to the 'soft philosophising' of concepts like "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

In effect, this Wiki tends to subtlely propagandize by taking the emphasis away from the crucial. The crucial quote in these paragraphs should be:

"— That to secure these rights, [(Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness)] 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 Declaration is not just a navel-gazing exercise. It is a declaration of HOW TO IDENTIFY, and HOW TO STYMY oppressive regimes. It matters not who or where or when that regime exists.

Cgiakmoz (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The entire document is quoted in the article, not just part of it. RudolfRed (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Alleged authorship of Thomas Paine

I only recently read/heard about this, but apparently there is a strong case for the original author being Thomas Paine. There is a book by Joseph L. Lewis that lays out a strong case of pieces of evidence, that when combined, rule out everyone except Paine. I have not read this book, but I plan to soon. I think it is important to include at least a section referencing the alleged authorship, as a few people have made this case. I just wonder if anyone is knowledgable about this. If not, when I read the book, I will add the claims.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree here, unless there is a very recent scholarly source that I haven't heard of. In 2007 and 2008 I did an exhaustive search of scholarship on the Declaration of Independence (for an introductory chapter to my master's thesis), and I never once came across any mention of the idea that Thomas Paine was the author of the Declaration. To quote from WP:DUE, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." So it would be up to you to demonstrate that the "Tom Paine authored the Declaration" view is more than that of a tiny minority.--Other Choices (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Citation for quote in "Slavery and the Declaration" section

The "Slavery and the Declaration" section contains the following sentence:

Referring to this seeming contradiction, English abolitionist Thomas Day wrote in a 1776 letter, "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves."

There is a controversy as to whether the citation for the quote should be the primary source or a secondary source.

The primary source, which Thomas Day authored, is available on-line through a link. The primary source is therefore easily verifiable. The secondary source is not available on line, and is thus not easily verifiable.

On 18 March 2014, Indopug replaced the primary source with the secondary source while stating on the "Revision history" page for Declaration of Independence that according to WP:PRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on...primary sources". However, this is only a partial quote from WP:PRIMARY, which more fully states:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

The referenced sentence is a complete quote from the primary source. As a result, there is no need to cite a secondary source to avoid a novel interpretation of the primary source. Further, the sentence's notability and relevance to the section is not in question. Because the primary source is easily verifiable while the secondary source is not, and because there is no real need to cite a secondary source, I am reverting the edit that Indopug made. This reversion permits the article to cite the primary source. I consider that the reversion "is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense". Corker1 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Corker, the reason why scholarly secondary sources are always preferred is that it avoids unnecessary editorial judgement exercised by us amateur editors. Even in this case, if you remove the Armitage source, it begs the question why this particular quote from this particular 17th-century abolitionist (Thomas Day) is important, but not any other. Without Armitage, we ourselves have determined that Day's letter is important, which is exercising far too much editorial judgement, and is pretty clear-cut original research. As for the online source being more "easily verifiable", there is no Wiki guideline or policy that recommends that we prefer offline sources over online ones for any such reasons or any other. We should be using the best possible sources, period. If anything, online sources are susceptible to WP:LINKROT, while books last much much longer.—indopug (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think the primary source is appropriate in this case; it is the best possible source for the quotation. It fits the guidelines for primary sources. There is no Original research (OR = no footnote). And yes, all Wiki editors select the best material for the article: that is our job. Editors select. For example a reliable secondary book may have 500 pages and we use just one page. that's selection. Indeed an editor selected the book from a choice of many--on this topic an average university library will have several hundred reliable secondary books (indeed it will have scores of books on Jefferson alone). Rjensen (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to read the guideline that recommends using primary sources for direct quotations, because I've never heard of any such exception to the secondary-sources-preferred rule.

And you're incorrectly equating primary sources with secondary ones when no equivalence exists; WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. ... When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." What is happening here is that, without Armitage, we are interpreting Day's letter by ourselves and attributing meaning/relevance to it.

Lastly, when our guidelines and policies unequivocally say that we should "rely on secondary sources whenever possible", and we have a perfectly scholarly source here, why should we settle for less?—indopug (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• the advantage of having the text in front of our eyes allows everyone to verify it immediately AND read it in its full context rather than snippet form. That is a big advantage to the reader. There is no debate on the meaning of the quote. In fact there is no interpretation of the quote at all going on -- the Armitage interpretation ("went even further") is not used in our article. Actually several hundred historians have used this very famous quote by Day as seen in google. Now the Armitage text is in fact online at David Armitage (2009). The Declaration of Independence: A Global History. p. 77. but he only gives a snippet, not the context. Here's a case where the primary source is far more useful than the snippet in Armitage. Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Simple compromise to end this: include both?—indopug (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Indopug's solution is ok with me Rjensen (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with the compromise to which Rjensen and indopug agreed. I am therefore adding the primary source as a reference. The article will therefore reference both the primary and the secondary source. Corker1 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Introduction: Lincoln commentary

The following text should be removed from the already lengthy introduction for the Wikipedia article, revised from a neutral point of view, and edited within the 9.4 Legacy: Lincoln and the Declaration section

"...Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, references to the text of the Declaration were few for the next four score years. Abraham Lincoln made it the centerpiece of his rhetoric (as in the Gettysburg Address of 1863), and his policies. Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:

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.

This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language",[6] containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history".[7] The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.[8] It provided inspiration to numerous national declarations of independence throughout the world."

There should also be a note to the glaring omission from this Wiki article pertaining to the Declaration of Independence that there is not one reference to the first draft or ""original Rough draught" of the Declaration of Independence submitted by Thomas Jefferson to the Congress in which Jefferson actually mocks "the CHRISTIAN King of Great Britian" for maintaining slavery within the British American colonies:

...he [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Lincoln was neither a "Founding Father" contributing to the authorship of the Declaration and Articles of Confederation, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, nor was Lincoln ever a justice on the United States Supreme Court participating with the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution --- the text within this Wiki article was seemingly written with the attempt to weave Lincoln's historical commentary about the Declaration of Independence (Lincoln was specifically referring to "all men being created equal" being understood as equality between white adult males of European descent and black adult males - freemen or enslaved) in with the contemporary political revisionist advocacy by Dominionists within the United States.

Likewise, non-referenced declaration, "The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive", should also revised (e.g.: "The passage came to represent a rationale supporting social equality to which United States citizens should strive") or simply deleted from the article as NPOV.--Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln's words set the standard of interpretation. he and many since them made the text "a moral standard to which the United States should strive" -- does anyone think otherwise? Rjensen (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, not moved, Declaration of Independence retargeted to Declaration of independence once links to "United States Declaration of Independence" through "Declaration of Independence" are disambiguated. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

---

United States Declaration of Independence → Declaration of Independence – This is an established WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, in that the proposed title has redirected here for most of its 12+ years of existence. One of two things should happen here: (1) The article should be moved as proposed, or (2) Declaration of Independence should be retargeted to Declaration of independence, the article on the general concept. If we go with #2, Declaration of Independence (United States), as the current title uses un-NATURAL disambiguation.

Yes, I know no one likes US-centrism, but here, it's already the status quo; WP:RFD would be the place to go to change that. BDD (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Hard to understand how anyone can legitimately say this isn't the primary topic for the term. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We should do option #2 instead. Declaration of Independence of the United States] works. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

there is a problem here. the 1776 document never uses the term "Declaration of Independence" and that is not its official name--- i wonder when it was first used. Rjensen (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, etc. Red Slash 04:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – given the generic topic Declaration of independence and the long history of argument about where to redirect Declaration of Independence, this seems to be an inappropriate claim that the proposed title is precise enough; it's not. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

So Declaration of Independence should be retargeted? --BDD (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Declaration of independence (generic) is the primary topic. Also, no parenthesis as natural disambiguation is to be preferred by wp:dab ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So Declaration of Independence should be retargeted? --BDD (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ok with retargeting. ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too generic and Americanocentric to be a primary term. Obviously used without a qualifier within the United States, but not generally outside. In Britain, for example, we would commonly say "American Declaration of Independence" when referring to it. Not sure what the nom means when he says "here, it's already the status quo" when referring to US-centrism. In this article or on Wikipedia? The latter certainly isn't true and shouldn't be true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to the fact that Declaration of Independence redirects here. Given that, and given your opposition, do you believe it should be retargeted to the generic Declaration of independence? --BDD (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-RM discussion

Geez, that's a lot of incoming links. Over 500 in mainspace, and none of those are coming from navboxen. Dicklyon, Victor falk, Necrothesp, are you sure about this? Incoming links is specified as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criterion, but I don't think I've ever come across a case like this. Realistically, I don't know who's going to take the time to fix all those so the redirect can be retargeted. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That's because a lot of editors are American and just link "Declaration of Independence"! Doesn't make it a primary topic except in US-centric land. It's as generic as "President" and "Senate", which most Americans would probably also associate primarily with their homeland! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this a big problem and is why the redirect is not to be changed until it is dealt with. I don't know who is likely to take it on. Maybe it will stay indefinitely. Dicklyon (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC) The first link I looked at in the list was wrong, not intending to refer to the US DoI. So I fixed it. This is why the ambiguity deserves work to fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ready to go

I have disambiguated the last 30-40 links. (Hats off to whoever did the rest.) Now no mainspace pages link to Declaration of Independence. I won't perform the retargeting, however, as it will break many talk pages and so on; someone else can move it if they think it wise. BethNaught (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you edit this article?

In this paragraph "Adams persuaded the committee to select Thomas Jefferson to compose the original draft of the document,[2] which congress would edit to produce the final version. The Declaration was ultimately a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The national birthday, the Independence Day is celebrated on July 4, although Adams wanted July 2", can you also put that the document was formally written and finished on July 3 as well? I'm only asking this because it came up in every book/article that I read about the Declaration of Independence. DEATHSHADOWPYRE (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: - Is it this one, you are looking for? It is in the "External links" section of the article. If not, then sorry! And, please note that, you can ask questions without using {{edit semi-protected}} template. Use {{edit semi-protected}} only, when you meant to bring some changes in the corresponding article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Anybody know when was the USA was founded??

Abe Lincoln & the reliable secondary sources all think the USA was founded in 1776. Editor ‎Soffredo seems to think otherwise; he has no sources and he does not say when it actually was founded. Abe said in 1863: "Four score and seven years ago [1776] our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation." Rjensen (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A nation and a country/State are two different things. The USA was founded in 1776 as a union of 13 sovereign states, similar to the European Union. It didn't become a sovereign state until 1787, when Delaware was admitted as the first state. [Soffredo] 23:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Journeyman 3 made that up. No reliable source makes such a weird statement about 1787. Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

1787 is the year the constitution was ratified, therefore the year the USofA was founded, prior to that it was a different country, functioning under the previous constitution, the Articles of Confederation, which was officially founded in 1781, but functioning as of 1777. Prior to that it was an alliance of rebellious colonies. The technical difference between the pre 1787 and post 1787 USA is the same as the difference between the French Fourth Republic and the French Fifth Republic, being technically different countries, called "France". So Soffredo (Journeyman3) is looking at it through the technicality of Delaware being the first state to ratify the constitution. So, when did the USA get founded? It depends on what you mean by founded. The difference between 1777 and 1787 is used by some states rights advocates to say the 1787 country is illegitimate and some freemen to ignore the federal government as unconstitutional under the 1781 constitution. Though one could also claim 1783 as the founding date, since that was when the Treaty of Paris was signed, or 1775, when hostilities began. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

let's see the scholars who agree with any of that. France for example has gone through 5 constitutions and is a new nation each time!!!! that is ridiculous. Do US States become brand new when they write a new constitution? Note that in the 18th century the US was the first major country to write a constitution....the other countries dd not exist until France wrote one. But you're right that there is a nutty finge that say the 1787 country is illegitimate and some freemen to ignore the federal government as unconstitutional under the 1781 constitution. Wiki rules requires us to avoid these weird fringe theories that no reliable source accepts. Rjensen (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is well to keep in mind that in 1776 the states wrote their constitutions (with the exception of South Carolina's provisional constitution) at the behest of the pre-existing Continental Congress, which essentially acted as the midwife of the nascent states, several of which copied the language of the original May 1776 declaration of independence into their new constitutions.--Other Choices (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the founding of the United States of America took place on February 5, 1778... when South Carolina joined Virginia under the Articles of Confederation (thus having two states agree to unite under a legal document). Prior to that date the Continental Congress did not have even limited legislative power as a governing body, each state was allied but independent of the others. It was the the Articles of Confederation that gave Congress its (limited) governing authority, and legally united the various states. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You could possibly say that the U.S. was founded, officially, on July 4, 1776, but you could also argue that it was technically formed when the colonists first felt a sense of unity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEATHSHADOWPYRE (talk • contribs) 03:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

First sense of unity... the Stamp Act Congress of 1765? Perhaps the sentiment was unified throughout the colonies, some colonies didn't attend. The original declaration of independence of May 10 and 15? It wasn't unanimous, and it precipitated a coup d'etat in Pennsylvania, so "unity" is'nt the right word to use there -- but it effectively severed ties with Great Britain, including in Pennsylvania. The later Declaration of Independence actually was unanimous, eventually.--Other Choices (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A Declaration versus a Proclamation

A declaration implied submissiveness to God while, in response, a proclamation denoted someone who possessed the authority of God (According to the chapter 8 of the book of Romans). For example, the unanimous Declaration of these united States written and signed by our Founding Fathers versus the royal Proclamation of 1763.

Our Founders divorced us out from under the old British order (economy). They then utilized the science of the day, the metaphysical science of natural law, to establish a natural law as a whole new order (economy).

This action by them was in contrast to creating a new nation by the standard legal precedence. This entailed taking the strongest, smartest individual possible and after crowning him a king then telling the king of England to come over and challenge himUncle Emanuel Watkins (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Uncle Emanuel Watkins. This should be considered common knowledge as I learned about it extensively while taking political science and philosophy of science classes.

Um, if you could please indicate a published source for your point of view, that would be most interesting. Please keep in mind that, here at wikipedia, we can only introduce ideas into the article that are based on reliable sources. For whatever it's worth, when I was writing my master's thesis on the Declaration of Independence, I didn't come across anything that sounded like what you say. My understanding, based on Richard Armitage's The Declaration of Independence: A Global History, is that the American colonists, in their decision to present a declaration of independence to the world, were closely following Vattel's then-new departure in international law. --Other Choices (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The date in the first sentence under "Signing" is wrong

The first sentence under "Signing" states accurately that the Declaration became effective when it was passed, but it says this was on July 4. As stated elsewhere the voting for the Declaration was on July 2. Gene Kleppinger (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleppingerg (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Period versus Comma

Could someone please edit the article to include the debate over whether the punctuation after "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a period or a comma and the subsequent implications for the essential role of government in securing those rights? A Period Is Questioned in the Declaration of Independence Jtropp1 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Instead of adding the debate to the article, someone went ahead and changed the period to a comma. The referenced article is clear that this is not a settled issue, and the archives.gov transcript has not been changed. Is there any good reason that this change should stand? Mrkwcz (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion of the punctuation issue at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-declaration-of-independence-punctuated-with-confusion/2015/06/12/8a05bd14-106b-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.````

The fourth paragraph has an error according to Declaration scholar, Danielle Allen

Here is the fourth paragraph:

'The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, references to the text of the Declaration were few for the next four score years. Abraham Lincoln made it the centerpiece of his rhetoric (as in the Gettysburg Address of 1863), and his policies. Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:

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.

The author of this paragraph puts a period after "happiness." However, according to Daniell Allen in an interview this month with Diane Rehm on NPR, the original document does NOT have a period at the end of "happiness," but a dash, making the second sentence quite long. The ONLY copy of the DOC that does NOT have a dash is the transcript of the copy that is currently on the US government archive website, which, according to Allen, was printed in error by a printer in 1823. Here is the second sentence as it should be according to Allen:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - - That to secure these right, 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 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.

Why is this important? Because, according to Allen, to end the sentence after "pursuit of Happiness" is to miss the point that this document is about ALL of our lives, liberties, and happiness together! Not simply my life, liberty and happiness. We don't get the FULL impact that each our lives, liberties, and pursuits of happinesses is guaranteed all of us together. I have to have YOUR back. You have to have mine.

The only correction I am suggesting is to remove the period, add the dash, and add the rest of the sentence. I would change it myself, but it's locked. 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Chuck Watts, co-founder, Empathy Surplus Project

References

Actually, the function of the dashes is a bit different: to serve as placeholders instead of repeating the initial phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident." The paragraph lists three "self-evident" truths, separated by dashes.--Other Choices (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2014

At the end of the second paragraph of the section titled "Signing" there is a sentence which needs revision. It currently reads " One signer, Matthew Thornton from New Hampshire, who was seated in the Continental Congress in November, asked for received the privilege of adding his signature at that time, and signed on November 4, 1776.[98]"

It should either say "...asked for the privilege...", "...received the privilege...", or "...asked for and received the privilege...".

As the sentence currently stands, it makes no sense.

MMarechal (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2014

At the end of the second paragraph of the section titled "Signing" there is a sentence which needs revision. It currently reads " One signer, Matthew Thornton from New Hampshire, who was seated in the Continental Congress in November, asked for received the privilege of adding his signature at that time, and signed on November 4, 1776.[98]"

It should either say "...asked for the privilege...", "...received the privilege...", or "...asked for and received the privilege...".

As the sentence currently stands, it makes no sense.

MMarechal (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Already done looks like a duplicate request answered below Cannolis (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2014

Please change

"Adams persuaded the committee to select Thomas Jefferson to compose the original draft of the document,[2] which congress would edit to produce the final version."

to

"Adams persuaded the committee to select Thomas Jefferson to compose the original draft of the document,[2] which Congress would edit to produce the final version."

"Congress" should be capitalized here. 160.39.132.107 (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the eye Cannolis (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Influence of Political Philosophy on Drafting Language

So I was fact checking the John Adams HBO special (because I am just weird like that) and came across this article and I was wondering if we could devote a few sentences and provide links to the thinkers that provided our forefathers with the language and concepts they codified in our nation's document. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is clearly John Locke's adapted life, liberty, and property. In the introduction of the article the last reference is used as evidence that our DoI had tremendous political and cultural significance for the century to come across the globe- yet no mention that these ideas were not originally our own. I do not wish to take away from the event or achievement, nor slight the great men who were responsible. I would just like people to know where these men drew their influence from, so a few links to John Locke or John Stuart Mill while discussing the influence of the document itself seems appropriate.

Benjamin 68.2.168.28 (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Misleading statement in text

The statement "All Northern states abolished slavery by 1804." is misleading by incompleteness, as "abolition" left many slaves in slavery. (Tell that to the thousands of slaves who weren't freed by these laws).

In http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_New_Jersey it is stated correctly that "The last 16 slaves in New Jersey were freed in 1865 by the Thirteenth Amendment." But a less well-informed reader (and we should always think of such readers) would think that impossible.

Suggested as a less misleading explication: "All Northern states abolished slavery by 1804. However, despite most Northern states having few slaves, abolition was almost always gradual. Only decades after 1804, and in New Jersey not until 1865, were the last slaves in the North freed."

BaliTiger (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)BaliTiger, 01:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Slavery was in fact not legal there--the people in question were NOT slaves and slave laws did not apply to them. They had a different status--for example they could not be bought or sold. Keep in mind that this was the positions advocated by the abolitionists, so let's not ridicule them for failure. Rjensen (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen - thanks for your reply. Please clarify:

1) Which people ("in question") were not slaves?

2) Can slavery not exist in more than one form? One definition of a slave could be "someone who can be owned as property, and who must by law work for no compensation beyond subsistence, with the margin accruing to the owner." You are correct that in the North it was immediately outlawed to sell such people under the gradual abolition laws, but in my view, that feature alone doesn't constitute liberation of those people or abolition of their slave status. They just became slaves who couldn't be trafficked, a weak improvement.

3) Can you clarify where in my comment I ridicule anyone, including abolitionists, or label their efforts a failure?

I am simply imagining a slave in New Jersey, who hears of this great abolition in 1804, and who consequently asks to be paid a wage for his work, or to move or change his place of employment, only to be told no, that those things won't ever be possible for him, but he should still understand that slavery is abolished. Might such a person find that argument puzzlingly thin or self-contradictory?

4) Please note that I supported my statement with reference to another Wikipedia article. The two articles are inconsistent with each other. Do you propose that there were no slaves in New Jersey after 1804? Can you support your own claim, without adding features to my argument (like "ridicule") that my argument does not contain? If slaves exist in a place with legal protection for their slave status, can we say that a place has abolished slavery? If you are correct, should we edit the other article?

BaliTiger (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)BaliTiger

Date of USA

Re the recent back and forth on my change.

Historian Joseph Ellis has argued in his 2015 book The Quartet that Lincoln's Gettysburg address is simply mistaken, though It is a bit ambiguous IMO.

There was indeed by 1776 a (second) Continental Congress which after creating the Declaration of Independence in turn formed a Continental Army which fought against Britain until 1783. The third continental Congress convened from March 1, 1781, to March 4, 1789 running under the Articles of Confederation which were adopted in 1778. But the Declaration of Independence refers to "the thirteen United States of America" and "these colonies".

The concluding paragraph of the Declaration refers to "the united States" and then says "That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, and finally "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."

In 1776, the United States was a confederation, but it is not clear that at this point it was a single nation. Rather this could arguably be dated to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation.

An interesting review of Ellis' book in the New York Times is here. [9] --WickerGuy (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ellis has some peculiar views--but he hedges and qualifies: He writes "no such thing as a coherent American nation." So who says it had to be coherent? Let's see if Ellis's view becomes an accepted interpretation or is just a one person thing. Of course few if any nations has a written constitution in 1770s, so it's hard to see why the USA had to have one to be a nation. Ellis does not explain. There was a national army and a national Congress, and one (not 13) peace treaty. Other historians: 1) Richard Alan Ryerson - 2012 " Political Parties in a New Nation: The American Experience, 1776-1809:; 2) Eva Sheppard Wolf, Race and Liberty in the New Nation: Emancipation in Virginia from the Revolution to Nat Turner's Rebellion (2006); 3) MAK Clements, NF Ellerton (2015): "With these words, on July 4, 1776, the former colonies became a new nation."; 4) Saillant "Evangelicalism and the Politics of Reform in Northern Black Thought, 1776-1863" 2012 "led African Americans to mingle biblical religion and natural rights theory, to hold the new nation to an antislavery standard 5) MM Edling (2013) Continental Congress was a " government that could represent the American nation in the world." 6) Making America: A History of the United States, Volume 1 By Carol Berkin et al. (7th ed 2015) ch 6 = "Independence and a new nation, 1775-1783"; Rjensen (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If one or more authoritative sources argue that the United States did not begin as a "nation" with the Declaration of Independence, then that scholarly dispute could be included in the article. For a WP editor to make that claim without sources, however, seems like original research. WCCasey (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2015

In this sentence, "Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, references to the text of the Declaration were few for the next four score years.", the phrase 'four score' is used for the purpose of being reminiscent of Abraham Lincoln's 'Gettysburg Address' (which is then discussed in the next sentence) in which Lincoln uses this phrasing. While I think this sentence is clever from a literary point of view, my ability to appreciate its cleverness is only a result of my prior knowledge of Lincoln using this phrasing to refer to this same gap in time between the Declaration of Independence and his Gettysburg Address. This 'allusion' would be lost on any reader without that prior context. This itself is not a problem, per se, but in order for the sentence to retain any meaning to a reader without this prior context, the reader would have to know that "four score" actually means "80". Without either having knowledge of the allusions to the Gettysburg Address or knowledge of the meaning of "four score" as "80", the sentence loses all meaning. I would venture to guess that, considering this, the meaning of this sentence would be lost on the majority of readers. This situation could be remedied by simply changing "score" into a link to an article explaining the meaning of "score" as a word for twenty. Careful though, if they read it as "four twenty" instead of "four twenties" then they'll think old Abe was just talking about getting high. 71.179.249.172 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Good catch; this concept is discussed at WP:TRITE. Looking further down the article into the body, it implies that attention to the declaration was revived long before the Lincoln's address. I think this diff captures the gist. VQuakr (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Only John Hancock and Charles Thomson signed the Declaration on 7/4/1776

A strong argument can be made that John Hancock was the only representative of Congress that signed the fair copy of the Declaration on 7/4 with Secretary of Congress Charles Thomson attesting it, thus explaining why these two names appear on the bottom of the 200 Dunlap broadsides. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:1C96:2508:525A:2F69 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Then you will need to source it. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"states" replaced by "Colonies:"

Hello, it seems like there may be a mistake in one of the usurpations on the Annotated text of the engrossed Declaration--the word "states" should be replaced with the word "Colonies:" The line in question currently reads, "For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these states," but instead should read, "For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:"

Thank you.

Monture834plaisant (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Done As far as I can tell, the requester is correct. I searched the phrasing and found it elsewhere. If I'm mistaken, please revert me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References