Talk:United States Declaration of Independence

Please Fix the Dating

Could someone please edit this puzzling dating? The article says:

a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776

but then later:

it was created after July 19 and was signed by most Congressional delegates on August 2.

so that makes no sense now does it? How can the Continental Congress adopt a declaration 2 weeks before it has been created? Gschadow (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing the engrossed copy of the Declaration with the Declaration as a statement adopted by the Congress. This is a very common error. If you read the complete article, you should understand that the "Declaration of Independence" can refer to the text approved by Congress on July 4, the broadside issued by Congress shortly thereafter, or the famous signed version created later and signed on August 2. Generations of imprecise writing about the Declaration has blurred these distinctions, but I believe that our article has them sorted out properly. —Kevin Myers 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(Non)-Signers

The article [formerly & erroneously --Kevin] states:

Three delegates never signed. Robert R. Livingston, a member of the original drafting committee, was present for the vote on July 2 but returned to New York before the August 2 signing. John Dickinson, a member of the Continental Congress from Pennsylvania, was against separation from Great Britain and labored to change the language of the Declaration of Independence to leave open the possibility of a reconciliation with Great Britain. Thomas Lynch voted for the Declaration but could not sign it because of illness.

However, the biography of Thomas Johnson (Governors of Maryland: From the Revolution to the Year 1908) says that:

"Mr. Johnson voted for the Declaration of Independence, on July 4, 1776, but on the second of August—when the document was to be signed—there was illness in his family and he remained at home. Having helped to make the Declaration a fact, he permitted himself to be deprived of the honor that came to those who placed to it their signatures, in order that he might respond to a call from home for the comfort of his presence. As a consequence the name of Thomas Johnson is not among those of the signers."

Shouldn't his name be included among non-signers? Qblik talk 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That old, unreferenced biography appears to be in error. Congress did not take attendance, so historians can only piece together who was present on certain days from letters and other documents. Friedenwald doesn't list Johnson as present on July 4, and Hazelton seems to indicate that Johnson returned to Maryland in June and thus was not present for the debate or voting on the Declaration. —Kevin Myers 03:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hancock, typeset, printed, publication

Regarding material removed from lede - some may be too detailed for lede, but not all. Some still needs to find its way into body.

1. "Over their printed names" is needlessly weak. The typeset broadside does actually say "signed by ... John Hancock" with an ATTEST (witness) by Thomson -- the ATTEST makes it extremely likely Hancock did actually sign the document sent to the printer.
2. Rather than write some "original research" about common misconceptions, we can simply write what evidence there is that ANYONE at all signed it on July 4.
3. "Typeset" is clearer than "printed" as for at least many decades now, handwritten documents and even pictures can be reproduced in a process that is not incorrectly called "printing".
4. Thus "First published as a printed broadside, the famous handwritten version..." is confusing in its reference - it could easily be mistaken to refer to a single dcument
5. The Dunlop broadside was published within a few days - apparently into the "minutes" the very next day --JimWae (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
6. "While "engrossed" may be clear to those who have the jargon down, one of its ordinary meanings ( To write or print the final draft of an official document) does not necessarily entail handwritten - so at least the first reference should say "engrossed, handwritten document" to clarify. --JimWae (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Handwritten drafts by Jefferson survive - with deletions and additions in the hand of TJ, but also apparently in the hand of others (such as Franklin & Adams) --JimWae (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jim. Yes, I think the stuff you added to the lede didn't belong there. To make responses easier, I've taken the liberty of numbering your points above so we can better refer to them.

I agree with 3, 4, and 6, and will adjust the wording to make things clearer. I'm not sure what 5 means, although you may be confusing "printed" with "published", perhaps. The draft you mention in 7 is discussed at some length in the article, with more to come later. Your assertion in 1 that it was "extremely likely Hancock did actually sign the document sent to the printer" is original analysis that is contradicted by a leading expert on the matter, Julian Boyd, who thought it "doubtful" that Hancock and Thomson signed anything on July 4. Whether Hancock signed anything on the 4th is ultimately just a speculative piece of trivia anyway: what's important, as reported in the article, is that his name appeared on the published broadside, and that his famous signature appeared later on the engrossed version. Regarding 2: certainly the myth about Congress signing the Declaration on the 4th is one of the most famous misconceptions about the Declaration, a misconception that historians have written about and tried to correct for more than 100 years (only to be thwarted by the popular musical and film 1776). A relatively recent History News Network article lists it as the #2 myth about the Fourth of July. —Kevin Myers 08:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think the article is presently too slanted against the DoI being signed by anyone on July 4. It states "Contrary to a once-common misconception, Congress did not sign the Declaration of Independence on 1776 July 4." While it is undoubtable that not all of Congress signed that day, some COULD have - we just do not know since the document has been lost. Further, it is worth remarking that Hancock's name is not simply BELOW the DoI on the broadside - the broadside specifically presents JH name as a signature on the document - and attested (witnessed) by Thomson. It is certainly NOT WP:OR to report that fact, no matter what Boyd "thought was doubtful". To suggest that Thomson attested anything -- without being present at any event to attest to -- is a most extraordinary claim against the integrity of the process.
• When I mentioned Wp:OR with respect to "most famous misconception" there was no ref for it.--JimWae (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Article lacks information about where DoI was signed

The current article fails to mention where the Declaration of Independence was signed--in Philadelphia, in the building now known as Independence Hall, which in 1776 was known as the Pennsylvania State House. And it fails to explain why the delegates met in Philadelphia and why this location--Philadelphia and its culture (then the world's largest English speaking city after London and a major international center of commerce)--mattered in crafting this document. The article also fails to explain how Philadelphia's charter and the thinking of its founder, William Penn, influenced the thinking behind the DoI as well as the thinking behind the later-crafted US Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdkelly1969 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia and the State House are mentioned. I'm not aware of any scholarly source that mentions any influence of William Penn on the Declaration. —Kevin Myers 03:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AoC quotation

I see we seem to have an edit war over a quote from the Articles of Confederation. Several users are concerned that the quote seems to be inaccurate (looking at both Wikisource and the source provided, it does indeed appear to be a bit off), but I'm not even sure what the immediate relevance is. Discussion, if you please? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote is not literally from the given source; it is combining parts of sentences from the introduction and Article II. Aside from the "quote", the paragraph adds some fragmentary POV (unsourced). Tedickey (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

While people today may have difficulty remebering any other event from 1776 related to independence, in 1777 many would remember that on July 2 the Congress declared, by majority vote, the US independent from the UK. On July 4 the majority approved the wording of the document that would be published asserting their July 2 declaration, and John Hancock likely signed it. On July 5 the distribution of the document began. On or about July 19, the declaration was made unanimous and a new publication in script form was ordered. On August 2 that unanimous document was signed by the delegates still in Philadelphia, followed soon by others who were not available on that date. When the AoC says that 1777 is the "Second year of the Independene of the United States", while WE may think of July 4 first, we cannot be sure which of these dates (if indeed any SINGLE one is intended) was in the mind of the drafters of the AoC. Neither independence nor the DoI happened in one day. The AoC does not support any single day. The text does not establish the relevance of the AoC to the DoI article. --JimWae (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please restore this article to pre- July 3, 2008 Version

I urge established users to compare the July 2, 2008 version of this article to the last July 3, 2008 version.

In my opinion the wholesale editing of the article by Kevin Myers did NOT improve the article.

I particularly like the Side-By-Side "Annotated Text" of the Declaration (in the earlier article). It allows easy separation of the commentary from the Declaration of Independence text itself.

Elsewhere Myers has judged much of the article to be inferior and deleted it.

I'd suggest that such a dramatic gutting of the article deserved discussion in the forum here, before a single individual should embark on such a process.

No doubt, errors have crept in, and omissions exist, it's understood that those edits are appropriate. This article has constant vandalismm problems, so I understand the need for protection. NateOceanside (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

factual questions...

Does this have implications for the legal system? Do people use it in the way that legal code, precedent, and the constitution are utilized within the legal system? Or do we just celebrate it once a year and feel good about having collectively said it? Emesee (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That sort of explains things - Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness#Pursuit of happiness Emesee (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of both. The Declaration is not a "law", if that's what your asking; it's a guiding principle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading of the Declaration of Independence

It seems to be omitted that the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence happened in 3 cities on July 8th. The three cities were Philadelphia (PA), Trenton (NJ), and Easton (PA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.94.226 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Kind of a low-tech simulcast. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia on the 8th is mentioned, the others not yet. I'm working on an expansion of the "publication" section which will outline the dissemination of the Declaration, including of course the famous pulling down of the statue of George III in New York City on the 9th. Lots of good stuff to come. —Kevin Myers 01:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln most notable publicizer???

One (old) version claims, "Its symbolic stature grew over the years, most notably through the influence of Abraham Lincoln." There is no evidence that Lincoln used this founding document any more than any other politician. The one citation offered only shows that Lincoln (like many others) wrapped himself in the Declaration; it does not show that he was particularly influential in publicizing it. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The support is provided in the source cited that you deleted. Historian Pauline Maier, who specializes on the Revolutionary era, demonstrates how Lincoln changed the significance of the DOI from simply a statement of the reasons for the war against Great Britain into "a living document for an established society, a set of goalsto be realized over time." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's one solitary historian's opinion. Hardly the last word on the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this particular "solitary historian" is a recognized authority of the era who has been widely reviewed in journals and cited in works by other historians, her opinions have significance. In fact, Lincoln and his reinterpretation of the DOI is a very common theme among Lincoln and Civil War scholars. Phil's claim that "there is no evidence that Lincoln used this founding document any more than any other politician" is simply not true, but if you have some reliable, published, secondary source that says otherwise, please share. Whether or not Neo-Confederate types care to recognize the lasting significance of Lincoln or the influence of the DOI on his political thoughts and publc policy, serious profesional historians do. You might want to check out Alan Guelzo, Harry Jaffa, or Doglas Wilson as a representative sample of historians who have addressed this issue. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm from the Land of Lincoln, so don't you dare call me "Neo-Confederate". All I'm saying is that we have to take one author's word that somehow nobody thought much about the Declaration between 1776 and 1863. That seems rather incredible to me. We also have to take your word that this guy is as wonderful as you say he is and that hence his editorial comment, unsupported by any specifics, is valid. But I'm not a professional historian, I'm just some country bumpkin from Illinois. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call you a Neo-Confederate -- I identified the attempt to minimize the positive and continuing influence of Lincoln with shoddy scholarship as Neo-Confederate. This particular debate that you have joined extends over four different articles. You don't have to take my word for anything about the qualifications of Professor Maier -- you can use JSTOR, Amazon, Google, or your local library to verify her credentials or check out the other historians I mentioned. In fact, since you apparently have no knowledge at all about either the author, the work cited, or the subject matter I'm not sure why you are even commenting on this subject -- although you certainly have every right to do so. Your attempted paraphrase "that somehow nobody thought much about the Declaration between 1776 and 1863" is a very poor effort. The issue raised is the novel interpretation placed on the DOI by Lincoln -- an interpretation that continues to this day. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, as Garry Wills put it, "For most people now, the Declaration means what Lincoln told us it means...." He won a Pulitzer for saying that. ;-)

For anyone uncertain about Lincoln's role in the legacy of the Declaration, this will be dealt with at length when I update the article soon. Tom is right (as he usually is). Lincoln popularized a new way of looking at the Declaration: he saw it as THE founding document of the United States, rather than the Constitution. Lincoln thought the principles of the preamble of the Declaration applied to blacks; his opponents (not just Southerners) did not. The traditional states' rights and conservative criticism of Lincoln is that he violated the Constitution by reading "all men are created equal" into it. This will all show up in the article soon, I hope. —Kevin Myers 15:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I found and added the Wills quote and made a small start in filling in the Legacy section. I will add a little more, primarily from Maier and the McPherson source that I added, but will gladly leave the majority of it to you and others. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The claim is the lede is: "Its symbolic stature grew over the years, most notably through the influence of Abraham Lincoln,[2]" But the Myer quote does not support that claim. The Myer quote says that Lincoln had a new interpretation of the Dec of Ind. It does not support "most notably" at all; it does not mention relative notability vis a vis other people. (And the burden of proof is on the person who wants to include this claim, contra Tom who says the burden of proof is on those who doubt it.) The fact (I do not dispute) that Lincoln had a new take on the Dec is interesting, but it certainly does not belong in the lede. The "most notable" part should be deleted until/unless there is some pertinent citation to this effect. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The new lede is still factually dubious. It is claimed that, "Abraham Lincoln, beginning in 1854 as he spoke out against slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act[2], provided a reinterpretation of the Declaration that stressed that the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” were not limited to the white race.[3]" Yet here is what Lincoln himself said in Peoria in 1954:

Judge Douglas frequently, with bitter irony and sarcasm, paraphrases our argument by saying “The white people of Nebraska are good enough to govern themselves, but they are not good enough to govern a few miserable negroes!!”

Well I doubt not that the people of Nebraska are, and will continue to be as good as the average of people elsewhere. I do not say the contrary. What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without the other's consent. I say this is the leading principle--the sheet anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.”

. . . Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary. - Abraham Lincoln , October 16, 1854, http://www.assumption.edu/ahc/Kansas/LincolnKansas-Nebraska.html

So in fact, Lincoln agrees that the main theme of the Dec of Ind is the right to secede/government by consent, and explicitly denies that blacks should have political equality. I think I'll just delete the whole paragraph. It's off-topic and apparently written by some Lincoln cheerleader. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The two sentences in the lede that is in dispute by a single editor in fact has four separate sources -- all of which agree with Lincoln's significance regarding the DOI. It is inaccurate to claim that this is the opinion of one historian. It is also inappropriate for Phil to use a Lincoln quote out of context and put his own spin on it without any reliable secondary source to back him up. It should also be noted that the article is about the DOI, not Lincoln. The Lincoln material was added specifically because of his importance in the Legacy of the DOI. If Phil has some reliable secondary source relating to THE LEGACY OF THE DOI, then he should add it in the appropriate section of the article rather than trying to insert a discussion of a minority view in the lede. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant that McPherson's opinion is contradicted by Lincoln's own words. The Lincoln quote is in context. OTOH there is no McPherson quote at all, just one editor's take on an unavailable book. If McPherson can't read the plain English in the Lincoln address he cites himself, he's not much of a historian. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The McPherson book may be unavailable to you right this second, but it is readily available in libraries and Amazon. The neo-confederate arguments about Lincoln that you want to add are (1) a minority view and (2) as I said above unrelated to the LEGACY OF THE DOI. You are offering only your opion of the significance of the Lincoln quote. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Even at the time of the Gettysburg address, Lincoln was not proposing total equality for blacks - he did not propose voting equality until 1865 or so - which, as I understand it, is what was then meant by "political equality". He did hold much earlier to some degree of "basic" legal equality --JimWae (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly pointless arguing with JimWae and Tom (North Shoreman) about Mr. Lincoln. They have their POV's which they are running around and trying to insert in various wiki articles on southern topics. I was first alerted to this quite awhile back with an out-of-the-blue edit to my Winchester in the American Civil War page. Lincoln and Lincoln's supposed views became the topic of discussion. Then much later I happen to put in a secession date for the Arizona territory on the CSA page, and again, POV-natured deletions of that, interjections of discussion on Lincoln, new text added about Lincoln's actions. Left alone, many articles of American History might slowly turn into Lincoln discussions. Perhaps its time to get some adminstrator help, as I've been researching the nature of the edit trails on these two. Its quite disturbing. And proposal that Lincoln was the most notable publicizer of the DoI is simply an out of place POV in a major way.Grayghost01 (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI on sensitive issues and articles for the American Civil War Tedickey (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is "secede" a dirty word?

Merriam-Webster online: secede - to withdraw from an organization

Why do people go bonkers about such a simple word? Sure, we can substitute "become independent of the existing government" or "withdraw from the existing government," but why not use a simple straightforward word? Does it mean something obscene in some dialects? PhilLiberty (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That depends on how it is being used, doesn't it? Isn't it a bit disingenuous to call 'secede' "a simple word" in the context of US history? You are familiar with the term 'dog whistle' in politics? I am not saying that's what is going on here but we should be cautious with our language - do you agree? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "secede" applies to colonies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree there - the colonial governments were explicitly subordinate to the British government. Without distorting the meaning of secede (withdraw from association implies more/less equals), it's misleading to apply it in this case Tedickey (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, that inequality (taxation without representation) was one of the cornerstones of the American Revolution. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The British government was in London and there were no official colonial representatives in that government to "withdraw". With respect to the 13 individual royal colonial governments that did exist, these were totally replaced by the revolutionary state governments and the Continental Congress. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right. In the American Revolution, revolutionaries found it necessary to seize control of their government in order to become independent of the British Empire. The rebels set up new assemblies, provincial congresses and governing committees, arrested governors (e.g. John Penn and William Franklin) or drove them away by force of arms (e.g. Lord Dunmore), and wrote new constitutions. This is the definition of a revolution. Had the provincial governors (Penn, Franklin, Dunmore, etc.) and their councils declared independence from the British, I suppose that would have been secession. —Kevin Myers 19:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In contrast to the southern states seceding from the union (or trying to). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the contrast. In the American War for Independence, and the Southern War for Independence, and the secessions of Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, the secessions of the Baltic States from the Soviet Union, the secession of Somaliland from Somalia, people "seize control of their government in order to become independent," set up their own governing committees, etc. Clearly the American colonies were withdrawing from an organization - the British Empire. There's nothing in the definition of secede about equality (as if the Soviet provinces or former Yugoslav entities were equal.) But I think DMorpheus is onto something - some people are hearing a dog whistle when they see the word "secede," some kind of parochial nationalism that I don't hear at all. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of 3rd paragraph

"Although celebrated upon publication, the Declaration was initially neglected following the American Revolution. However, its ..."

But it wasn't neglected. In fact, it was copied and unrolled so often that its condition was deteriorating. - The Declaration of Independence: A History

Also, the previous version falsely attributed the new equality of man emphasis to "Lincoln and supporters." I noted that it was a decades old abolitionist notion, and proved it with a quote from William Lloyd Garrison. Even the Lincoln-worshipping McPherson admits that Lincoln did not originate the idea (p51 Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution).

BTW someone should fix the fratured citations of Myer and Wills - they are missing the authors' first names and book titles. PhilLiberty (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You continue to add your unsourced and POV original research to the article with no attempt at all to reach consensus. The reason Lincoln s even mentioned in tis article is because of his effects on the legacy of the DOI. It is no secret that abolitionists made references to this earlier, but, as the sources provided indicate, it was not until Lincoln made the argument that it became the subject of public debate. It was this public debate in the late 1850s and during the war that created the enduring legacy. If you have reliable secondary sources that say otherwise, then provide them.

As far as the Wills and Maier footnotes, they refer to the works cited in the reference section -- a perfectly acceptable practice.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not OR at all. Are you reading the same paragraph? Furthermore, the claim that "Abraham Lincoln ... provided a reinterpretation of the Declaration" is both false and unsupported by the citation given. As already noted, McPherson does not say that Lincoln provided the reinterpretation; he says that Lincoln challenged the dogma (that rights apply only to white people) which the abolitionists had long challenged. At most, you can say that Lincoln popularized the idea. BTW standard practice is to note the full author name and book title in the first occurrence, and only then abbreviate. PhilLiberty (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

When you started attacking this sentence weeks ago it read, "Its symbolic stature grew over the years, most notably through the influence of Abraham Lincoln...". Now you in effect admit that the original setence is true when you write, "At most, you can say that Lincoln popularized the idea." Perhaps you should have left well enough alone. The sentence as it now exists is sourced by three different sources and "reinterpretation' is an accurate description of what Lincoln provided. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Lincoln didn't "provide" the reinterpretation, he borrowed the reinterpretation from the abolitionists. None of the sources say otherwise, and McPherson explicitly states "He was not the only American to challenge this dogma, of course. From the beginning of their movement, abolitionists had insisted that black people were equal to whites in the sight of God and equally entitled to liberty in this world." P. 51. PhilLiberty (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You reverted yet AGAIN the following language (and the appropriate footnote), “beginning in 1854 as he spoke out against slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act” and added again your claim about the aboltionists.

In trying to shift the significance from Lincoln to the abolitionists, you are forgetting that it was YOUR EDIT at [[1]] that first contained the sentence “Almost a century later, a reinterpretation of the Declaration was espoused by Abraham Lincoln ... .” As you said in the discussion page on July 14, “The Myer [sic] quote says that Lincoln had a new interpretation of the Dec of Ind.”

in fact, you were right. Here is the quote from Maier that squarely places the reinterpretation with Lincoln:

"Lincoln and those who shared his convictions did not therefore give the nation a new past or revolutionize the Revolution. But as descendants of the revolutionaries and their English ancestors, they felt the need for a document that stated those values in a way that could guide the nation, a document the founding fathers had failed to supply. And so they made one, pouring old wine into an old vessel manufactured for another purpose, creating a testament whose continuing usefulness depended not on the faithfulness with which it described the intention of the signers but on its capacity to convince and inspire living Americans."

You current claim, unsupported by any documentation, is that Lincoln “borrow[ed] an abolitionist theme.” McPherson, of course, says no such thing -- he merely states that others had similar ideas. Lincoln was not an abolitionist, and his ideas on the DOI did not come from his study of abolitionists. It was the reinterpretation that Lincoln provided (as Wills, Maier, and McPherson all attest to) that was significant. If you have a source for your “borrowed” theory, please provide it.

In restoring your revert, I have added the exact phrase used by Maier (i.e. "Lincoln and those who shared his convictions"). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom> "You current claim, unsupported by any documentation, is that Lincoln “borrow[ed] an abolitionist theme.” McPherson, of course, says no such thing -- he merely states that others had similar ideas."

McPherson does not say or imply that Lincoln came up with ("provided") the reinterpretation. On the contrary, he acknowledges that abolitionists had the same notion. Now you and I and McPherson know that the American abolitionist movement predates Lincoln by decades. I provided a quote from William Lloyd Garrison proving that the idea predates Lincoln's promotion of the notion. Why do you want to make it sound like the idea was Lincoln's (and supporters') original idea? That is totally misleading. (And trivia about the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Lincoln is irrelevant to an article on the Declaration; it also promotes the mistaken notion that the "all men are created equal" emphasis was original to Lincoln.) Why give Lincoln credit for the notion when we know for a fact that abolitionists had been using it in speeches and writings for decades? Such disinformation smacks of irrational Lincoln-worship to me. PhilLiberty (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution

"Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution," written by James McPherson, is a collection of seven lectures by the unabashed Lincoln worshipper. The lectures are extremely one-sided, omitting most events and speeches not flattering to Lincoln's memory. For example, his support for war crimes is overlooked, being recast as necessary unlimited war with no counterpoints considered. McPherson doesn't mention that Lincoln's aids warned him that reinforcing a tax-collection "fort" would start a war, and that Lincoln did it anyway to do just that. McPherson also doesn't mention that everyplace else in the world (except Haiti) ended slavery without resorting to war. Lincoln's arrest of over fifteen thousand people is briefly mentioned, with the unsupported assurance that virtually all of them were terrorists. He doesn't mention Lincoln closing down hundreds of newspapers. Much of the book is defensive, as if McPherson realizes that Lincoln's actions were evil. Thus, much of the book sounds like a clever lawyer defending a war criminal.

The two main conceptual errors I noticed were 1) Lincoln's alleged single-minded "hedgehog" goal for the war, and 2) McPherson's total misunderstanding of positive and negative liberty. The "hedgehog" goal was "that this nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal shall not perish from the earth." But by McPherson's own admission, Lincoln was perfectly willing (until the Emancipation Proclamation) to allow slavery if it "preserved the Union." McPherson never explains why having two republics would destroy democracy, or why Lincoln thought it would. It becomes clear that Lincoln's single-minded purpose was to maintain the current US territorial borders. Of course, it wouldn't have. One gets the impression that McPherson thinks his readers are stupid. Otherwise, why would he think he could get away with his flowery-worded "hedgehog" goal, when anyone with a modicum of critical thinking can see that Lincoln's only consistent goal was to hold territory by any means necessary, however brutal. The other error is McPherson's claim that slavery is consonent with negative liberty. What is he thinking? Slavery is the quintessential example of violation of negative liberty. Slaves are prevented by others from doing actions they are entitled to do. Yet, McPherson misconstrues abolitionism as support for positive liberty, turning Isaiah Berlin's notion on its head.

The main historical error that McPherson falls into is blindly accepting the "victor's history" position that the Civil War was about, and only about, slavery. You'll look in vain for anything about tariffs. It's not even in the index, and the word is used just once in passing in the whole book. Also, you'll look in vain for the secessionist appeal to government by consent. It is never mentioned that the South was doing the same thing that American colonists did in the previous War for Independence. McPherson doesn't even make an attempt to present the other side - he resorts to childish trivializing, e.g. saying the southerners only wanted the liberty to own slaves. This is only to be expected from a conniving politician like Lincoln, but very bad form for a modern historian.

On the whole, the book is sickeningly politically correct, essentially an ultra-biased heroification of Lincoln, a despot that makes G. W. Bush seem like a paragon of liberty in comparison. Those interested in Lincoln would do much better reading "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. PhilLiberty (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the shortcomings of James McPherson may be, you go too far when you resurrect the specious rhetoric of the secessionists of 1861. As a native of South Carolina and a descendant of several Confederate veterans, I can hardly be considered anti-Southern, but even I don't buy the "Lincoln as despot" nonsense best synthesized in John Wilkes Booth's shouted "sic semper tyrannis."

Likening "our glorious cause" to the American Revolution never achieved general credibility, even at the time of the War between the States, because the argument just doesn't hold water. If, say, Yorkshire and Lancashire had seceded from Britain, you could reasonably say that "the South was doing the same thing." A group of colonies, not part of the mother country, declaring independence is most certainly NOT the same thing as the Southern states seceding from the Union.

The more common Southern argument of the time was based on the idea, discussed elsewhere in this talk page, that the Union was essentially an alliance of sovereign states, from which a state could withdraw as easily as it had joined. Laying aside the intrinsic merits or lack thereof of this position, more than half of the Confederate States of America were not among the original thirteen colonies, but were created by the federal government on land purchased from France and Spain. Altgeld (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Altgeld> even I don't buy the "Lincoln as despot" nonsense best synthesized in John Wilkes Booth's shouted "sic semper tyrannis."

Then you need to educate yourself on the topic. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, had opponents imprisoned, and shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers. Please read "The Real Lincoln" for details. Lincoln was definitely a tyrant, America's Stalin.

Altgeld> Likening "our glorious cause" to the American Revolution never achieved general credibility, even at the time of the War between the States, because the argument just doesn't hold water.

Both were examples of applied government by consent, aka secession, the right of revolution as expounded in the Declaration of Independence. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. Lincoln's unnecessary war was a war for forced unification - destroying the voluntary union and shreading the Declaration.

Altgeld> A group of colonies, not part of the mother country, declaring independence is most certainly NOT the same thing as the Southern states seceding from the Union.

Whether they were ruled as colonies or provinces is irrelevent. What is important is that they were ruled. Throwing off the rule of a State and becoming independent is secession. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All men are created equal

I've read somewhere that the "Americans" were criticized in England very early for not outlawing slavery earlier. I recall readin even George III criticed the Americans for disparity while claiming otherwise. There must be sources for this. This view did not "originate" with abolitionists --JimWae (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

British always try to blame slavery on american, while slavery was practice by British for centuries. No other nation brought more black to slavery then England. The phrase All men are created equal allways meant a denonciation of the British hereditary class system NOTHING else. The British allways tried to reframe the phrase to talak about slavery which was NEVER the intent of the phrase. By this the British could hide their hereditary class system while making slur on american. British continued slavery in Jamaïca until 1865, even after the american had allready ban slavery, the British were hanging Paul Boggle in jamaïca. The British also finance and sold war ship to slavery advocate in the US in 1863. Georges III is a pathetic loser. (Etienne2007 (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

Now we're making progress. We agree that neither Lincoln, possibility not even the abolitionists, originated the reinterpretation of the Declaration emphasizing the "all men are created equal" phrase. Note that neither the article nor I have claimed that the "created equal" emphasis originated with the abolitionists. Probably Jefferson himself, or John Adams or Ben Franklin on the writers committee, noticed the inconsistency of "all men are created equal" with slavery. The abolitionists certainly "ran with" the concept. At any rate, it seems we agree that Lincoln should not be credited with originating the notion. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No real progress. Whatever may have been believed in the late 18th Century and early 19th Century, the point is that by the mid 1850s this was not a dominant view. It was Lincoln's reinterpretation that provided the momentum and made the difference -- that's why the sources provided say what they do.

As far as the abolitionists, one statement from Garrison does not justify a conclusion about what "abolitionists commonly appealed to." In fact, Garrison had a dual emphasis -- the DOI and the Bible. This is not my interpretation -- this is what Henry Mayer wrote in hs biography of Garrison (All on Fire -- pages 55, 115, 445 for example). Mayer refers to the "twin pillars" of Garrison's creed -- "the Bible and the Declaration of Independence". Indeed, it is common knowledge that abolitionism had its basis not in political doctrine but in the Christian Awakenings of the era.

Lincoln's reinterpretation, as the sources cited indicate, is based entirely on the DOI. In a February 22, 1861 speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia Lincoln said, "I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. … It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln is not a germane topic of discussion for this article. Folks contributing to this article need to watch out for those who are proposing to take this article off-topic, causing endless discussion, and wasting your time. If you see any other US history articles getting these strange edits, or obsession of Lincoln material, please let me know on my talk page, I'd appreciate it.Grayghost01 (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

British change of approach

One thing that is not brought out to any a great degree but seems to me an important aspect of history ...

The reality is that, despite the American attitude that the colonists invented their form of government, the British had inadvertently invented it for them and then, without realizing it tried to change it. In order to allow the colonies to thrive (bearing in mind that originally the British had trouble even getting any colonies to take hold) the Crown essentially gave the colonies mostly full control of their destinies and asked next to nothing in return. The British essentially provided a military which protected the colonies and a high-level but very limited legal framework that guaranteed certain basic rights. Other than that, though, the individual colonies were given freedom to regulate their own affairs and Britain was, for a long time, simply grateful that they could claim a colonial empire and, later, that it was prospering to the point of giving them a powerful trade network. This de facto formula of governance that the British never intentionally tried to formulate was what the colonists tried to follow when they set up their government and separated powers between the States and the central government (at first out of paranoia they made the central government extremely weak but soon realized they had to create a central authority with at least a little bit of power). The Revolutionary War essentially came about as a result of the fact that many British began to resent the free ride the colonists were getting and began to demand that they pay their fair share (this, of course, was not a correct perception in Britain but still ...). The colonists, in a sense, had developed a gross misperception (largely enabled by Britain's never doing anything to challenge that perception) that the British regarded the colonies as separate states from England with their own rights, legislatures, etc. When reality came down the colonists simply refused to accept it.

This whole idea explains a lot of how the early U.S. developed and why a lot of things happened (not to mention clarifying how the British and the colonists got on such completely different pages in their thinking). Seems worth bringing out in understanding the thinking that led up to the Declaration.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln and abolitionists

Once again, editor PhilLiberty has inserted unsourced material into the lede. The issue is not whether Garrison cited the DOI for his views since he certainly did. The issue is whether Lincoln paid any attention at all to Garrison or the abolitionists in forming his own views. No source has been been provided to show that he did. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't Charles Thomson listed as a signer of the Declaration of Independence?

In my opinion, it seems Charles Thomson does not receive due (any) credit since he signed the DoI as the secretary and not a delegate. He certainly put his life on the line along with John Hancock when he was the second one to put his signature on the document. He also kept the records of the meetings, which I understand he later burned to help allow a romantic mythologogy of the founding fathers to develop, rather than the less than perfect truth. In addition he kept the original DoI document safe until it was given to the government, or so I am told. I would like to see his name added under John Hancock's in the list of signers. Thanks :) Lindemannmd (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No question that Thomson is an underrated American hero, but he's not traditionally considered a "signer" because he did not sign the famous engrossed copy of the Declaration, from which all lists of signers are drawn. He's currently mentioned four or five times in our article, which I think is pretty good. More work needs to be done on his own article, and on the Continental Congress articles. —Kevin Myers 02:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Unalienable vs. Inalienable

One of my World History teachers said that the word "unalienable" was changed from "inalienable" by John Adams, and it is the only misspelled word in the entire United States Declaration of Independence... Any other opinions? Andy pyro 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy pyro (talk • contribs)

Remove Commentary - Request for Edit

Considering the original document. In the section labeled "Text" which should contain the content as written, it has been divided into categories and contains briefs or commentary bits which precede original content.

May I advise that we please maintain the document's original flow and integrity by removing these briefs of division so users can read it through without "disclaimers," if you will, or maybe a better word "notifications," which precede the actual text.

I believe this action is American.

Please Fix the Dating

Could someone please edit this puzzling dating? The article says:

a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776

but then later:

it was created after July 19 and was signed by most Congressional delegates on August 2.

so that makes no sense now does it? How can the Continental Congress adopt a declaration 2 weeks before it has been created? Gschadow (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing the engrossed copy of the Declaration with the Declaration as a statement adopted by the Congress. This is a very common error. If you read the complete article, you should understand that the "Declaration of Independence" can refer to the text approved by Congress on July 4, the broadside issued by Congress shortly thereafter, or the famous signed version created later and signed on August 2. Generations of imprecise writing about the Declaration has blurred these distinctions, but I believe that our article has them sorted out properly. —Kevin Myers 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(Non)-Signers

The article [formerly & erroneously --Kevin] states:

Three delegates never signed. Robert R. Livingston, a member of the original drafting committee, was present for the vote on July 2 but returned to New York before the August 2 signing. John Dickinson, a member of the Continental Congress from Pennsylvania, was against separation from Great Britain and labored to change the language of the Declaration of Independence to leave open the possibility of a reconciliation with Great Britain. Thomas Lynch voted for the Declaration but could not sign it because of illness.

However, the biography of Thomas Johnson (Governors of Maryland: From the Revolution to the Year 1908) says that:

"Mr. Johnson voted for the Declaration of Independence, on July 4, 1776, but on the second of August—when the document was to be signed—there was illness in his family and he remained at home. Having helped to make the Declaration a fact, he permitted himself to be deprived of the honor that came to those who placed to it their signatures, in order that he might respond to a call from home for the comfort of his presence. As a consequence the name of Thomas Johnson is not among those of the signers."

Shouldn't his name be included among non-signers? Qblik talk 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That old, unreferenced biography appears to be in error. Congress did not take attendance, so historians can only piece together who was present on certain days from letters and other documents. Friedenwald doesn't list Johnson as present on July 4, and Hazelton seems to indicate that Johnson returned to Maryland in June and thus was not present for the debate or voting on the Declaration. —Kevin Myers 03:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hancock, typeset, printed, publication

Regarding material removed from lede - some may be too detailed for lede, but not all. Some still needs to find its way into body.

1. "Over their printed names" is needlessly weak. The typeset broadside does actually say "signed by ... John Hancock" with an ATTEST (witness) by Thomson -- the ATTEST makes it extremely likely Hancock did actually sign the document sent to the printer.
2. Rather than write some "original research" about common misconceptions, we can simply write what evidence there is that ANYONE at all signed it on July 4.
3. "Typeset" is clearer than "printed" as for at least many decades now, handwritten documents and even pictures can be reproduced in a process that is not incorrectly called "printing".
4. Thus "First published as a printed broadside, the famous handwritten version..." is confusing in its reference - it could easily be mistaken to refer to a single dcument
5. The Dunlop broadside was published within a few days - apparently into the "minutes" the very next day --JimWae (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
6. "While "engrossed" may be clear to those who have the jargon down, one of its ordinary meanings ( To write or print the final draft of an official document) does not necessarily entail handwritten - so at least the first reference should say "engrossed, handwritten document" to clarify. --JimWae (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Handwritten drafts by Jefferson survive - with deletions and additions in the hand of TJ, but also apparently in the hand of others (such as Franklin & Adams) --JimWae (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jim. Yes, I think the stuff you added to the lede didn't belong there. To make responses easier, I've taken the liberty of numbering your points above so we can better refer to them.

I agree with 3, 4, and 6, and will adjust the wording to make things clearer. I'm not sure what 5 means, although you may be confusing "printed" with "published", perhaps. The draft you mention in 7 is discussed at some length in the article, with more to come later. Your assertion in 1 that it was "extremely likely Hancock did actually sign the document sent to the printer" is original analysis that is contradicted by a leading expert on the matter, Julian Boyd, who thought it "doubtful" that Hancock and Thomson signed anything on July 4. Whether Hancock signed anything on the 4th is ultimately just a speculative piece of trivia anyway: what's important, as reported in the article, is that his name appeared on the published broadside, and that his famous signature appeared later on the engrossed version. Regarding 2: certainly the myth about Congress signing the Declaration on the 4th is one of the most famous misconceptions about the Declaration, a misconception that historians have written about and tried to correct for more than 100 years (only to be thwarted by the popular musical and film 1776). A relatively recent History News Network article lists it as the #2 myth about the Fourth of July. —Kevin Myers 08:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think the article is presently too slanted against the DoI being signed by anyone on July 4. It states "Contrary to a once-common misconception, Congress did not sign the Declaration of Independence on 1776 July 4." While it is undoubtable that not all of Congress signed that day, some COULD have - we just do not know since the document has been lost. Further, it is worth remarking that Hancock's name is not simply BELOW the DoI on the broadside - the broadside specifically presents JH name as a signature on the document - and attested (witnessed) by Thomson. It is certainly NOT WP:OR to report that fact, no matter what Boyd "thought was doubtful". To suggest that Thomson attested anything -- without being present at any event to attest to -- is a most extraordinary claim against the integrity of the process.
• When I mentioned Wp:OR with respect to "most famous misconception" there was no ref for it.--JimWae (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Article lacks information about where DoI was signed

The current article fails to mention where the Declaration of Independence was signed--in Philadelphia, in the building now known as Independence Hall, which in 1776 was known as the Pennsylvania State House. And it fails to explain why the delegates met in Philadelphia and why this location--Philadelphia and its culture (then the world's largest English speaking city after London and a major international center of commerce)--mattered in crafting this document. The article also fails to explain how Philadelphia's charter and the thinking of its founder, William Penn, influenced the thinking behind the DoI as well as the thinking behind the later-crafted US Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdkelly1969 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia and the State House are mentioned. I'm not aware of any scholarly source that mentions any influence of William Penn on the Declaration. —Kevin Myers 03:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AoC quotation

I see we seem to have an edit war over a quote from the Articles of Confederation. Several users are concerned that the quote seems to be inaccurate (looking at both Wikisource and the source provided, it does indeed appear to be a bit off), but I'm not even sure what the immediate relevance is. Discussion, if you please? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote is not literally from the given source; it is combining parts of sentences from the introduction and Article II. Aside from the "quote", the paragraph adds some fragmentary POV (unsourced). Tedickey (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

While people today may have difficulty remebering any other event from 1776 related to independence, in 1777 many would remember that on July 2 the Congress declared, by majority vote, the US independent from the UK. On July 4 the majority approved the wording of the document that would be published asserting their July 2 declaration, and John Hancock likely signed it. On July 5 the distribution of the document began. On or about July 19, the declaration was made unanimous and a new publication in script form was ordered. On August 2 that unanimous document was signed by the delegates still in Philadelphia, followed soon by others who were not available on that date. When the AoC says that 1777 is the "Second year of the Independene of the United States", while WE may think of July 4 first, we cannot be sure which of these dates (if indeed any SINGLE one is intended) was in the mind of the drafters of the AoC. Neither independence nor the DoI happened in one day. The AoC does not support any single day. The text does not establish the relevance of the AoC to the DoI article. --JimWae (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please restore this article to pre- July 3, 2008 Version

I urge established users to compare the July 2, 2008 version of this article to the last July 3, 2008 version.

In my opinion the wholesale editing of the article by Kevin Myers did NOT improve the article.

I particularly like the Side-By-Side "Annotated Text" of the Declaration (in the earlier article). It allows easy separation of the commentary from the Declaration of Independence text itself.

Elsewhere Myers has judged much of the article to be inferior and deleted it.

I'd suggest that such a dramatic gutting of the article deserved discussion in the forum here, before a single individual should embark on such a process.

No doubt, errors have crept in, and omissions exist, it's understood that those edits are appropriate. This article has constant vandalismm problems, so I understand the need for protection. NateOceanside (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

factual questions...

Does this have implications for the legal system? Do people use it in the way that legal code, precedent, and the constitution are utilized within the legal system? Or do we just celebrate it once a year and feel good about having collectively said it? Emesee (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That sort of explains things - Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness#Pursuit of happiness Emesee (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of both. The Declaration is not a "law", if that's what your asking; it's a guiding principle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading of the Declaration of Independence

It seems to be omitted that the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence happened in 3 cities on July 8th. The three cities were Philadelphia (PA), Trenton (NJ), and Easton (PA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.94.226 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Kind of a low-tech simulcast. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia on the 8th is mentioned, the others not yet. I'm working on an expansion of the "publication" section which will outline the dissemination of the Declaration, including of course the famous pulling down of the statue of George III in New York City on the 9th. Lots of good stuff to come. —Kevin Myers 01:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln most notable publicizer???

One (old) version claims, "Its symbolic stature grew over the years, most notably through the influence of Abraham Lincoln." There is no evidence that Lincoln used this founding document any more than any other politician. The one citation offered only shows that Lincoln (like many others) wrapped himself in the Declaration; it does not show that he was particularly influential in publicizing it. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The support is provided in the source cited that you deleted. Historian Pauline Maier, who specializes on the Revolutionary era, demonstrates how Lincoln changed the significance of the DOI from simply a statement of the reasons for the war against Great Britain into "a living document for an established society, a set of goalsto be realized over time." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's one solitary historian's opinion. Hardly the last word on the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this particular "solitary historian" is a recognized authority of the era who has been widely reviewed in journals and cited in works by other historians, her opinions have significance. In fact, Lincoln and his reinterpretation of the DOI is a very common theme among Lincoln and Civil War scholars. Phil's claim that "there is no evidence that Lincoln used this founding document any more than any other politician" is simply not true, but if you have some reliable, published, secondary source that says otherwise, please share. Whether or not Neo-Confederate types care to recognize the lasting significance of Lincoln or the influence of the DOI on his political thoughts and publc policy, serious profesional historians do. You might want to check out Alan Guelzo, Harry Jaffa, or Doglas Wilson as a representative sample of historians who have addressed this issue. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm from the Land of Lincoln, so don't you dare call me "Neo-Confederate". All I'm saying is that we have to take one author's word that somehow nobody thought much about the Declaration between 1776 and 1863. That seems rather incredible to me. We also have to take your word that this guy is as wonderful as you say he is and that hence his editorial comment, unsupported by any specifics, is valid. But I'm not a professional historian, I'm just some country bumpkin from Illinois. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call you a Neo-Confederate -- I identified the attempt to minimize the positive and continuing influence of Lincoln with shoddy scholarship as Neo-Confederate. This particular debate that you have joined extends over four different articles. You don't have to take my word for anything about the qualifications of Professor Maier -- you can use JSTOR, Amazon, Google, or your local library to verify her credentials or check out the other historians I mentioned. In fact, since you apparently have no knowledge at all about either the author, the work cited, or the subject matter I'm not sure why you are even commenting on this subject -- although you certainly have every right to do so. Your attempted paraphrase "that somehow nobody thought much about the Declaration between 1776 and 1863" is a very poor effort. The issue raised is the novel interpretation placed on the DOI by Lincoln -- an interpretation that continues to this day. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, as Garry Wills put it, "For most people now, the Declaration means what Lincoln told us it means...." He won a Pulitzer for saying that. ;-)

For anyone uncertain about Lincoln's role in the legacy of the Declaration, this will be dealt with at length when I update the article soon. Tom is right (as he usually is). Lincoln popularized a new way of looking at the Declaration: he saw it as THE founding document of the United States, rather than the Constitution. Lincoln thought the principles of the preamble of the Declaration applied to blacks; his opponents (not just Southerners) did not. The traditional states' rights and conservative criticism of Lincoln is that he violated the Constitution by reading "all men are created equal" into it. This will all show up in the article soon, I hope. —Kevin Myers 15:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I found and added the Wills quote and made a small start in filling in the Legacy section. I will add a little more, primarily from Maier and the McPherson source that I added, but will gladly leave the majority of it to you and others. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The claim is the lede is: "Its symbolic stature grew over the years, most notably through the influence of Abraham Lincoln,[2]" But the Myer quote does not support that claim. The Myer quote says that Lincoln had a new interpretation of the Dec of Ind. It does not support "most notably" at all; it does not mention relative notability vis a vis other people. (And the burden of proof is on the person who wants to include this claim, contra Tom who says the burden of proof is on those who doubt it.) The fact (I do not dispute) that Lincoln had a new take on the Dec is interesting, but it certainly does not belong in the lede. The "most notable" part should be deleted until/unless there is some pertinent citation to this effect. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The new lede is still factually dubious. It is claimed that, "Abraham Lincoln, beginning in 1854 as he spoke out against slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act[2], provided a reinterpretation of the Declaration that stressed that the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” were not limited to the white race.[3]" Yet here is what Lincoln himself said in Peoria in 1954:

Judge Douglas frequently, with bitter irony and sarcasm, paraphrases our argument by saying “The white people of Nebraska are good enough to govern themselves, but they are not good enough to govern a few miserable negroes!!”

Well I doubt not that the people of Nebraska are, and will continue to be as good as the average of people elsewhere. I do not say the contrary. What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without the other's consent. I say this is the leading principle--the sheet anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.”

. . . Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary. - Abraham Lincoln , October 16, 1854, http://www.assumption.edu/ahc/Kansas/LincolnKansas-Nebraska.html

So in fact, Lincoln agrees that the main theme of the Dec of Ind is the right to secede/government by consent, and explicitly denies that blacks should have political equality. I think I'll just delete the whole paragraph. It's off-topic and apparently written by some Lincoln cheerleader. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The two sentences in the lede that is in dispute by a single editor in fact has four separate sources -- all of which agree with Lincoln's significance regarding the DOI. It is inaccurate to claim that this is the opinion of one historian. It is also inappropriate for Phil to use a Lincoln quote out of context and put his own spin on it without any reliable secondary source to back him up. It should also be noted that the article is about the DOI, not Lincoln. The Lincoln material was added specifically because of his importance in the Legacy of the DOI. If Phil has some reliable secondary source relating to THE LEGACY OF THE DOI, then he should add it in the appropriate section of the article rather than trying to insert a discussion of a minority view in the lede. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant that McPherson's opinion is contradicted by Lincoln's own words. The Lincoln quote is in context. OTOH there is no McPherson quote at all, just one editor's take on an unavailable book. If McPherson can't read the plain English in the Lincoln address he cites himself, he's not much of a historian. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The McPherson book may be unavailable to you right this second, but it is readily available in libraries and Amazon. The neo-confederate arguments about Lincoln that you want to add are (1) a minority view and (2) as I said above unrelated to the LEGACY OF THE DOI. You are offering only your opion of the significance of the Lincoln quote. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Even at the time of the Gettysburg address, Lincoln was not proposing total equality for blacks - he did not propose voting equality until 1865 or so - which, as I understand it, is what was then meant by "political equality". He did hold much earlier to some degree of "basic" legal equality --JimWae (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly pointless arguing with JimWae and Tom (North Shoreman) about Mr. Lincoln. They have their POV's which they are running around and trying to insert in various wiki articles on southern topics. I was first alerted to this quite awhile back with an out-of-the-blue edit to my Winchester in the American Civil War page. Lincoln and Lincoln's supposed views became the topic of discussion. Then much later I happen to put in a secession date for the Arizona territory on the CSA page, and again, POV-natured deletions of that, interjections of discussion on Lincoln, new text added about Lincoln's actions. Left alone, many articles of American History might slowly turn into Lincoln discussions. Perhaps its time to get some adminstrator help, as I've been researching the nature of the edit trails on these two. Its quite disturbing. And proposal that Lincoln was the most notable publicizer of the DoI is simply an out of place POV in a major way.Grayghost01 (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI on sensitive issues and articles for the American Civil War Tedickey (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is "secede" a dirty word?

Merriam-Webster online: secede - to withdraw from an organization

Why do people go bonkers about such a simple word? Sure, we can substitute "become independent of the existing government" or "withdraw from the existing government," but why not use a simple straightforward word? Does it mean something obscene in some dialects? PhilLiberty (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That depends on how it is being used, doesn't it? Isn't it a bit disingenuous to call 'secede' "a simple word" in the context of US history? You are familiar with the term 'dog whistle' in politics? I am not saying that's what is going on here but we should be cautious with our language - do you agree? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "secede" applies to colonies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree there - the colonial governments were explicitly subordinate to the British government. Without distorting the meaning of secede (withdraw from association implies more/less equals), it's misleading to apply it in this case Tedickey (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, that inequality (taxation without representation) was one of the cornerstones of the American Revolution. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The British government was in London and there were no official colonial representatives in that government to "withdraw". With respect to the 13 individual royal colonial governments that did exist, these were totally replaced by the revolutionary state governments and the Continental Congress. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right. In the American Revolution, revolutionaries found it necessary to seize control of their government in order to become independent of the British Empire. The rebels set up new assemblies, provincial congresses and governing committees, arrested governors (e.g. John Penn and William Franklin) or drove them away by force of arms (e.g. Lord Dunmore), and wrote new constitutions. This is the definition of a revolution. Had the provincial governors (Penn, Franklin, Dunmore, etc.) and their councils declared independence from the British, I suppose that would have been secession. —Kevin Myers 19:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In contrast to the southern states seceding from the union (or trying to). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the contrast. In the American War for Independence, and the Southern War for Independence, and the secessions of Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, the secessions of the Baltic States from the Soviet Union, the secession of Somaliland from Somalia, people "seize control of their government in order to become independent," set up their own governing committees, etc. Clearly the American colonies were withdrawing from an organization - the British Empire. There's nothing in the definition of secede about equality (as if the Soviet provinces or former Yugoslav entities were equal.) But I think DMorpheus is onto something - some people are hearing a dog whistle when they see the word "secede," some kind of parochial nationalism that I don't hear at all. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of 3rd paragraph

"Although celebrated upon publication, the Declaration was initially neglected following the American Revolution. However, its ..."

But it wasn't neglected. In fact, it was copied and unrolled so often that its condition was deteriorating. - The Declaration of Independence: A History

Also, the previous version falsely attributed the new equality of man emphasis to "Lincoln and supporters." I noted that it was a decades old abolitionist notion, and proved it with a quote from William Lloyd Garrison. Even the Lincoln-worshipping McPherson admits that Lincoln did not originate the idea (p51 Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution).

BTW someone should fix the fratured citations of Myer and Wills - they are missing the authors' first names and book titles. PhilLiberty (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You continue to add your unsourced and POV original research to the article with no attempt at all to reach consensus. The reason Lincoln s even mentioned in tis article is because of his effects on the legacy of the DOI. It is no secret that abolitionists made references to this earlier, but, as the sources provided indicate, it was not until Lincoln made the argument that it became the subject of public debate. It was this public debate in the late 1850s and during the war that created the enduring legacy. If you have reliable secondary sources that say otherwise, then provide them.

As far as the Wills and Maier footnotes, they refer to the works cited in the reference section -- a perfectly acceptable practice.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not OR at all. Are you reading the same paragraph? Furthermore, the claim that "Abraham Lincoln ... provided a reinterpretation of the Declaration" is both false and unsupported by the citation given. As already noted, McPherson does not say that Lincoln provided the reinterpretation; he says that Lincoln challenged the dogma (that rights apply only to white people) which the abolitionists had long challenged. At most, you can say that Lincoln popularized the idea. BTW standard practice is to note the full author name and book title in the first occurrence, and only then abbreviate. PhilLiberty (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

When you started attacking this sentence weeks ago it read, "Its symbolic stature grew over the years, most notably through the influence of Abraham Lincoln...". Now you in effect admit that the original setence is true when you write, "At most, you can say that Lincoln popularized the idea." Perhaps you should have left well enough alone. The sentence as it now exists is sourced by three different sources and "reinterpretation' is an accurate description of what Lincoln provided. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Lincoln didn't "provide" the reinterpretation, he borrowed the reinterpretation from the abolitionists. None of the sources say otherwise, and McPherson explicitly states "He was not the only American to challenge this dogma, of course. From the beginning of their movement, abolitionists had insisted that black people were equal to whites in the sight of God and equally entitled to liberty in this world." P. 51. PhilLiberty (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You reverted yet AGAIN the following language (and the appropriate footnote), “beginning in 1854 as he spoke out against slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act” and added again your claim about the aboltionists.

In trying to shift the significance from Lincoln to the abolitionists, you are forgetting that it was YOUR EDIT at [[2]] that first contained the sentence “Almost a century later, a reinterpretation of the Declaration was espoused by Abraham Lincoln ... .” As you said in the discussion page on July 14, “The Myer [sic] quote says that Lincoln had a new interpretation of the Dec of Ind.”

in fact, you were right. Here is the quote from Maier that squarely places the reinterpretation with Lincoln:

"Lincoln and those who shared his convictions did not therefore give the nation a new past or revolutionize the Revolution. But as descendants of the revolutionaries and their English ancestors, they felt the need for a document that stated those values in a way that could guide the nation, a document the founding fathers had failed to supply. And so they made one, pouring old wine into an old vessel manufactured for another purpose, creating a testament whose continuing usefulness depended not on the faithfulness with which it described the intention of the signers but on its capacity to convince and inspire living Americans."

You current claim, unsupported by any documentation, is that Lincoln “borrow[ed] an abolitionist theme.” McPherson, of course, says no such thing -- he merely states that others had similar ideas. Lincoln was not an abolitionist, and his ideas on the DOI did not come from his study of abolitionists. It was the reinterpretation that Lincoln provided (as Wills, Maier, and McPherson all attest to) that was significant. If you have a source for your “borrowed” theory, please provide it.

In restoring your revert, I have added the exact phrase used by Maier (i.e. "Lincoln and those who shared his convictions"). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom> "You current claim, unsupported by any documentation, is that Lincoln “borrow[ed] an abolitionist theme.” McPherson, of course, says no such thing -- he merely states that others had similar ideas."

McPherson does not say or imply that Lincoln came up with ("provided") the reinterpretation. On the contrary, he acknowledges that abolitionists had the same notion. Now you and I and McPherson know that the American abolitionist movement predates Lincoln by decades. I provided a quote from William Lloyd Garrison proving that the idea predates Lincoln's promotion of the notion. Why do you want to make it sound like the idea was Lincoln's (and supporters') original idea? That is totally misleading. (And trivia about the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Lincoln is irrelevant to an article on the Declaration; it also promotes the mistaken notion that the "all men are created equal" emphasis was original to Lincoln.) Why give Lincoln credit for the notion when we know for a fact that abolitionists had been using it in speeches and writings for decades? Such disinformation smacks of irrational Lincoln-worship to me. PhilLiberty (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution

"Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution," written by James McPherson, is a collection of seven lectures by the unabashed Lincoln worshipper. The lectures are extremely one-sided, omitting most events and speeches not flattering to Lincoln's memory. For example, his support for war crimes is overlooked, being recast as necessary unlimited war with no counterpoints considered. McPherson doesn't mention that Lincoln's aids warned him that reinforcing a tax-collection "fort" would start a war, and that Lincoln did it anyway to do just that. McPherson also doesn't mention that everyplace else in the world (except Haiti) ended slavery without resorting to war. Lincoln's arrest of over fifteen thousand people is briefly mentioned, with the unsupported assurance that virtually all of them were terrorists. He doesn't mention Lincoln closing down hundreds of newspapers. Much of the book is defensive, as if McPherson realizes that Lincoln's actions were evil. Thus, much of the book sounds like a clever lawyer defending a war criminal.

The two main conceptual errors I noticed were 1) Lincoln's alleged single-minded "hedgehog" goal for the war, and 2) McPherson's total misunderstanding of positive and negative liberty. The "hedgehog" goal was "that this nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal shall not perish from the earth." But by McPherson's own admission, Lincoln was perfectly willing (until the Emancipation Proclamation) to allow slavery if it "preserved the Union." McPherson never explains why having two republics would destroy democracy, or why Lincoln thought it would. It becomes clear that Lincoln's single-minded purpose was to maintain the current US territorial borders. Of course, it wouldn't have. One gets the impression that McPherson thinks his readers are stupid. Otherwise, why would he think he could get away with his flowery-worded "hedgehog" goal, when anyone with a modicum of critical thinking can see that Lincoln's only consistent goal was to hold territory by any means necessary, however brutal. The other error is McPherson's claim that slavery is consonent with negative liberty. What is he thinking? Slavery is the quintessential example of violation of negative liberty. Slaves are prevented by others from doing actions they are entitled to do. Yet, McPherson misconstrues abolitionism as support for positive liberty, turning Isaiah Berlin's notion on its head.

The main historical error that McPherson falls into is blindly accepting the "victor's history" position that the Civil War was about, and only about, slavery. You'll look in vain for anything about tariffs. It's not even in the index, and the word is used just once in passing in the whole book. Also, you'll look in vain for the secessionist appeal to government by consent. It is never mentioned that the South was doing the same thing that American colonists did in the previous War for Independence. McPherson doesn't even make an attempt to present the other side - he resorts to childish trivializing, e.g. saying the southerners only wanted the liberty to own slaves. This is only to be expected from a conniving politician like Lincoln, but very bad form for a modern historian.

On the whole, the book is sickeningly politically correct, essentially an ultra-biased heroification of Lincoln, a despot that makes G. W. Bush seem like a paragon of liberty in comparison. Those interested in Lincoln would do much better reading "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. PhilLiberty (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the shortcomings of James McPherson may be, you go too far when you resurrect the specious rhetoric of the secessionists of 1861. As a native of South Carolina and a descendant of several Confederate veterans, I can hardly be considered anti-Southern, but even I don't buy the "Lincoln as despot" nonsense best synthesized in John Wilkes Booth's shouted "sic semper tyrannis."

Likening "our glorious cause" to the American Revolution never achieved general credibility, even at the time of the War between the States, because the argument just doesn't hold water. If, say, Yorkshire and Lancashire had seceded from Britain, you could reasonably say that "the South was doing the same thing." A group of colonies, not part of the mother country, declaring independence is most certainly NOT the same thing as the Southern states seceding from the Union.

The more common Southern argument of the time was based on the idea, discussed elsewhere in this talk page, that the Union was essentially an alliance of sovereign states, from which a state could withdraw as easily as it had joined. Laying aside the intrinsic merits or lack thereof of this position, more than half of the Confederate States of America were not among the original thirteen colonies, but were created by the federal government on land purchased from France and Spain. Altgeld (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Altgeld> even I don't buy the "Lincoln as despot" nonsense best synthesized in John Wilkes Booth's shouted "sic semper tyrannis."

Then you need to educate yourself on the topic. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, had opponents imprisoned, and shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers. Please read "The Real Lincoln" for details. Lincoln was definitely a tyrant, America's Stalin.

Altgeld> Likening "our glorious cause" to the American Revolution never achieved general credibility, even at the time of the War between the States, because the argument just doesn't hold water.

Both were examples of applied government by consent, aka secession, the right of revolution as expounded in the Declaration of Independence. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. Lincoln's unnecessary war was a war for forced unification - destroying the voluntary union and shreading the Declaration.

Altgeld> A group of colonies, not part of the mother country, declaring independence is most certainly NOT the same thing as the Southern states seceding from the Union.

Whether they were ruled as colonies or provinces is irrelevent. What is important is that they were ruled. Throwing off the rule of a State and becoming independent is secession. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All men are created equal

I've read somewhere that the "Americans" were criticized in England very early for not outlawing slavery earlier. I recall readin even George III criticed the Americans for disparity while claiming otherwise. There must be sources for this. This view did not "originate" with abolitionists --JimWae (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

British always try to blame slavery on american, while slavery was practice by British for centuries. No other nation brought more black to slavery then England. The phrase All men are created equal allways meant a denonciation of the British hereditary class system NOTHING else. The British allways tried to reframe the phrase to talak about slavery which was NEVER the intent of the phrase. By this the British could hide their hereditary class system while making slur on american. British continued slavery in Jamaïca until 1865, even after the american had allready ban slavery, the British were hanging Paul Boggle in jamaïca. The British also finance and sold war ship to slavery advocate in the US in 1863. Georges III is a pathetic loser. (Etienne2007 (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

Now we're making progress. We agree that neither Lincoln, possibility not even the abolitionists, originated the reinterpretation of the Declaration emphasizing the "all men are created equal" phrase. Note that neither the article nor I have claimed that the "created equal" emphasis originated with the abolitionists. Probably Jefferson himself, or John Adams or Ben Franklin on the writers committee, noticed the inconsistency of "all men are created equal" with slavery. The abolitionists certainly "ran with" the concept. At any rate, it seems we agree that Lincoln should not be credited with originating the notion. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No real progress. Whatever may have been believed in the late 18th Century and early 19th Century, the point is that by the mid 1850s this was not a dominant view. It was Lincoln's reinterpretation that provided the momentum and made the difference -- that's why the sources provided say what they do.

As far as the abolitionists, one statement from Garrison does not justify a conclusion about what "abolitionists commonly appealed to." In fact, Garrison had a dual emphasis -- the DOI and the Bible. This is not my interpretation -- this is what Henry Mayer wrote in hs biography of Garrison (All on Fire -- pages 55, 115, 445 for example). Mayer refers to the "twin pillars" of Garrison's creed -- "the Bible and the Declaration of Independence". Indeed, it is common knowledge that abolitionism had its basis not in political doctrine but in the Christian Awakenings of the era.

Lincoln's reinterpretation, as the sources cited indicate, is based entirely on the DOI. In a February 22, 1861 speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia Lincoln said, "I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. … It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln is not a germane topic of discussion for this article. Folks contributing to this article need to watch out for those who are proposing to take this article off-topic, causing endless discussion, and wasting your time. If you see any other US history articles getting these strange edits, or obsession of Lincoln material, please let me know on my talk page, I'd appreciate it.Grayghost01 (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

British change of approach

One thing that is not brought out to any a great degree but seems to me an important aspect of history ...

The reality is that, despite the American attitude that the colonists invented their form of government, the British had inadvertently invented it for them and then, without realizing it tried to change it. In order to allow the colonies to thrive (bearing in mind that originally the British had trouble even getting any colonies to take hold) the Crown essentially gave the colonies mostly full control of their destinies and asked next to nothing in return. The British essentially provided a military which protected the colonies and a high-level but very limited legal framework that guaranteed certain basic rights. Other than that, though, the individual colonies were given freedom to regulate their own affairs and Britain was, for a long time, simply grateful that they could claim a colonial empire and, later, that it was prospering to the point of giving them a powerful trade network. This de facto formula of governance that the British never intentionally tried to formulate was what the colonists tried to follow when they set up their government and separated powers between the States and the central government (at first out of paranoia they made the central government extremely weak but soon realized they had to create a central authority with at least a little bit of power). The Revolutionary War essentially came about as a result of the fact that many British began to resent the free ride the colonists were getting and began to demand that they pay their fair share (this, of course, was not a correct perception in Britain but still ...). The colonists, in a sense, had developed a gross misperception (largely enabled by Britain's never doing anything to challenge that perception) that the British regarded the colonies as separate states from England with their own rights, legislatures, etc. When reality came down the colonists simply refused to accept it.

This whole idea explains a lot of how the early U.S. developed and why a lot of things happened (not to mention clarifying how the British and the colonists got on such completely different pages in their thinking). Seems worth bringing out in understanding the thinking that led up to the Declaration.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln and abolitionists

Once again, editor PhilLiberty has inserted unsourced material into the lede. The issue is not whether Garrison cited the DOI for his views since he certainly did. The issue is whether Lincoln paid any attention at all to Garrison or the abolitionists in forming his own views. No source has been been provided to show that he did. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't Charles Thomson listed as a signer of the Declaration of Independence?

In my opinion, it seems Charles Thomson does not receive due (any) credit since he signed the DoI as the secretary and not a delegate. He certainly put his life on the line along with John Hancock when he was the second one to put his signature on the document. He also kept the records of the meetings, which I understand he later burned to help allow a romantic mythologogy of the founding fathers to develop, rather than the less than perfect truth. In addition he kept the original DoI document safe until it was given to the government, or so I am told. I would like to see his name added under John Hancock's in the list of signers. Thanks :) Lindemannmd (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No question that Thomson is an underrated American hero, but he's not traditionally considered a "signer" because he did not sign the famous engrossed copy of the Declaration, from which all lists of signers are drawn. He's currently mentioned four or five times in our article, which I think is pretty good. More work needs to be done on his own article, and on the Continental Congress articles. —Kevin Myers 02:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Unalienable vs. Inalienable

One of my World History teachers said that the word "unalienable" was changed from "inalienable" by John Adams, and it is the only misspelled word in the entire United States Declaration of Independence... Any other opinions? Andy pyro 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy pyro (talk • contribs)

Remove Commentary - Request for Edit

Considering the original document. In the section labeled "Text" which should contain the content as written, it has been divided into categories and contains briefs or commentary bits which precede original content.

May I advise that we please maintain the document's original flow and integrity by removing these briefs of division so users can read it through without "disclaimers," if you will, or maybe a better word "notifications," which precede the actual text.

I believe this action is American.