Talk:United States Declaration of Independence

united States vs. United States

2009-02-08

Please note: the Declaration of Independence uses a lower case "u" for "united States" vs. an uppercase "U" as in "United States". This is not insignificant. The declaration was made by thirteen [sovereign] states (former colonies) on the continent of America. Each of the thirteen original colonies were declaring together their distinct sovereignty as states, united together in cause.

As would follow, the title of the page should be "united States Declaration of Independence".

Chris Streeter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.2.64 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this has been discussed at some length, awhile back. Capital U is correct usage here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, here's the reason: in 1776, writers did not use capitalization the way we do today to signify the difference between proper nouns and regular nouns. Official versions of the Declaration released by the Continental Congress used "United States", "united States", and united states. (The last official release, the Goddard Broadside, used "United States".) None of these variations had any significance whatsoever for people at the time; no scholar of the Declaration that I know of has commented on any meaning in the varied capitalization. Only amateur historians, reading history backwards as amateur historians are apt to do, will read meaning into the capitalization that happens to be used on the engrossed version of the Declaration. —Kevin Myers 10:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In those days also, it was customary to capitalize nouns, as German still does. If that were not the case, the document probably would have read "united states". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In his notes, Jefferson sometimes even went with "United states", though he was a bit of a oddball when it came to capitalization—usually he didn't even capitalize the first word of a sentence.

By the way, the weakest part of the anachronistic idea that "united States" is somehow significant in the handwritten version of the Declaration is this: almost nobody actually saw the document at the time. It was signed, filed away, and not seen by the general public for decades. In the Revolutionary era, the only versions of the Declaration released to the public were the broadsides, which did not use the "united States" capitalization. So, if "united States" was significant, it was an official secret. :-) The theory, then, springs not just from ignorance about capitalization in 1776, but also from ignorance about the history of the documents themselves. I suggest reading our article all the way through: I believe you'll find no better history of the documents on the Internet. —Kevin Myers 15:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

These kinds of misinterpretations, of "reading tea leaves" as it were, is how rumors and legends and conspiracy theories get their start. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In general, people weren't so pedantic about English orthographic rules in those days. Consider the U.S. Constitution, where the word "chuse" appears instead of "choose", among other oddities. Also, it's important to keep in mind that the term "united states", as of 7/4/1776, was intended as more of a concept than as the name of a nation, as such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

commas in opening sentence

Is this not the correct way? :-)

The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies, then at war with Great Britain, were now independent states and thus no longer a part of the British Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThornEth (talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question, but the answer is "no". If there were only thirteen American colonies, then the commas would be correct, since the enclosed phrase would then simply be a parenthetical statement about the thirteen colonies. However, there were more than thirteen American colonies in British America, so the phrase is not parenthetical, but rather an essential part of the description, identifying which thirteen we're talking about. If you followed that, award yourself 10 points. —Kevin Myers 20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. (Some people)
v.
People, who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones. (All people)
--Kjb (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No Citation

came to represent an ideal for which the nation should strive, notably through the influence of Abraham Lincoln, who popularized the now-standard view that the Declaration's preamble is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.

Seems like an assumption to me

I expect to add more on this point soon, including the opposing (non-standard) view. Stay tuned. —Kevin Myers 23:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now expanded the topic in question. Next I'll work on tweaking the intro to make it better reflect the "legacy" section.

while revising, I removed a couple of interesting paragraphs that didn't quite fit--the second one may stray a bit from the topic of the Declaration of Independence--but I'll put them here in case someone thinks they might be useful, perhaps in Confederate States of America, Origins of the American Civil War, or right of revolution.

As the Civil War approached, some Southerners did frequently invoke the right of revolution to justify secession, comparing their grievances to those suffered by the colonists under British rule. Northerners rejected this line of thought. The New York Times wrote that while the Declaration of Independence was based on “Natural Rights against Established Institutions”, the Confederate cause was a counterrevolution “reversing the wheels of progress ... to hurl everything backward into deepest darkness ... despotism and oppression.” Southern leaders such as Confederate President Jefferson Davis and the leading publisher James B. D. DeBow likewise denied that they were revolutionaries. Davis called it “an abuse of language” to equate secession and revolution; the South had left the Union in order “to save ourselves from a revolution. The Republicans and abolitionists were seen as the real revolutionaries because of their intent to attack the institution of slavery.

—Kevin Myers 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

While I am still reading Pauline Maier's book American Scripture, I skipped ahead to the chapter on Lincoln. I find her comments about Lincoln remarkable and one wonders what she she was thinking when she wrote what she wrote. Leaving her aside, you comment above does seem to place the meaning of the DOI during the civil war in its own context where it belongs. Abigailquincy (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)AbigailquincyAbigailquincy (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Length and comprehensiveness

This article is getting very long, but for me the end is in sight. Soon I'll revise the "Text" section, incorporating the views of important scholars that haven't been mentioned yet, including Ronald Hamowy and John Phillip Reid. This will bring me to the end of the revisions I began in July 2008. If you think I've overlooked anything that should be in the article, let me know.

Do you think the article is too long? Should it be split into sub-articles? If so, which section(s) are best suited for splitting? Do tell! —Kevin Myers 18:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think more research regarding the critique of Garry Wills book Inventing America by Ronald Hamowy needs to be done before his inclusion in the text. An article in the Virginia Quarterly, "Garry Wills and the new debate over the DOI" by Ralph Luker, Spring 1980 needs to be read. Luker's article certainly puts an entirely different cast on Hamowy's rather harsh review of Wills book and given the concerns regarding Maier's book I think a full review in needed. The text on the DOI might benefit by a relook and review in the weeks ahead. Abigailquincy (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that article to my attention; I will make use of it. It is online for anyone interested. —Kevin Myers 21:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Maier and early celebrations of the Declaration

Maier's assertions need verification:

IN regards to Maier's statement page 162 quoted in the text above (she asserts ) "But seldom if ever, to judge by newspaper accounts and histories of the celebrations, was the Declaration of Independence read publicly in the late 1780s 1790s."

She goes on to state (see page 168-69) "During the first fifteen years following its adoption, then, the Declaration of Independence, seems to have been all but forgotten, particularly within the Unitedd States......"

A quick google will tell the reader a different story. The DOI was indeed read; and July 4 and the DOI was celebrated in the 13 former colonies during these years. I will read McDonalds book to see what he has to say, but easily available documents may proof more accurate.

Maier should have quantified her assertions because as they stand they seem to be easily be contradicted.

Accuracy in these facts is important and trained historians have more than google they have access to the finest libraries in the US.

I will keep checking to verify other assertions that seem incorrect. It might be helpful to you. Abigailquincy (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Abigailquincy Abigailquincy (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Maier's assertions cannot be contradicted in the article by Wikipedia editors; we don't do that on Wikipedia, not even if we find primary evidence that seems to disagree with her. All we do in the articles is report what the scholars have written; see Wikipedia:No original research.

However, we certainly want to be aware of historians who disagree with any statement that we put in the article. If other historians think Maier is wrong, we can cite them. On this point, I think Maier is supported by McDonald, and she was influenced by the work of Philip Detweiler. Detweiler wrote, for example: "During the decade of the eighties the anniversary celebrations of the Fourth became more widespread, but in neither the orations nor the toasts was the Declaration substantially more than the act of independence." In other words, as Detweiler and Maier argue, people were celebrating Independence, and the fact that Congress had declared it in 1776, but they were not celebrating Jefferson's words, which had not yet become American scripture. —Kevin Myers 18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. Did Pauline Maier write this article on the DOI? I thought you did. Second the DOI was celebrated from 1776 forward and actually it was read in a number of places. I am sure some historian has already done the research on it.

Perhaps I don't understand how wiki works. Is it possible that an author can just post what they want on WIKI regardless of the truthfulness or accuracy of the statement? I am sure you don't mean that.

The reason is that there are a number of other more glaring inaccuracies in Maier's work that really need correction. I am sure you will agree that any article on WIKI about the DOI should be completely accurate. thanks Abigailquincy (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)AbigailquincyAbigailquincy (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, understanding how Wikipedia works can be confusing, and almost everyone is at first a bit unclear about what we can and cannot do on Wikipedia (some people in fact never completely figure it out). Maier didn't have anything to do with this article; we've just reported what she has written. If there are any inaccuracies in Maier's book, Wikipedia cannot be the first place where corrections are published. The only way we can dispute Maier—or any other scholar—is to cite works of other scholars who disagree with her. Worrying about whether she's made mistakes is not our job here; we have to leave that to the professional historians. —Kevin Myers 21:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

August 2, 1776?

shouldn't it be, Most Historians think that Congress signed it on 'July' 2nd, not on July 4th

where did August 2nd come from? --J miester25 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the "Signing" section of the article and you'll find the answer to your question. Nothing was signed on July 2; a few or many delegates signed on August 2. —Kevin Myers 23:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Signers

Due to the growing size of this article I would like to split out the list of signers into a seperate list article. If anyone has a problem with that please let me know. I will not be doing it for at least a couple weeks and will continue to monitor this page. --Kumioko (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Several months ago, I raised the possibility of splitting out sections ("Length and comprehensiveness" section above), but no one responded, so I'm guessing that the lack of interest has not changed. My intention was to eventually split out the entire signing section, rather than just the list of signers, because that section goes into more detail than what's really needed here, but the details are worth having in Wikipedia. In the new daughter article, which I'd call something like Signing the United States Declaration of Independence, we could also cover various other things, like the famous, bogus story about the horrible things that happened to the men who signed the Declaration, among other legends. If you don't mind, I'd like to do the splitting myself, since I wrote the "Signing" section and am familiar with the material. If you think that calling the split-out article List of signers of the United States Declaration of Independence is the better way to go, do tell. —Kevin Myers 00:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

inalienable rights not unalienable rights —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.15.194 (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson wrote "inalienable" in his Rough Draft, but all official copies used "unalienable", for reasons unknown. —Kevin Myers 04:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Text

The following quote is wrong: "We hold this truth to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among this are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure this right governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power form the consent of the governed;"

It should read: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed," --Szkott (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First publication outside America

Mr Myers, if you have objections to my edit, please feel free to discuss them here, rather than create a revert war. I think your allegation that the BBC, a museum and the newspaper in question are "unreliable sources" to be highly dubious. --Setanta 23:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RS:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

An offhand, unreferenced comment on a BBC website ("Incidently, the first newspaper to publish the declaration, outside America, was the Belfast News Letter.") is not a reliable source for making an extraordinary historical claim, since the BBC is not an authority of the Declaration of Independence. Nor are the other unsigned websites you cited. The European publication history of the Declaration has been written about extensively by British historian David Armitage of Harvard. His findings, which have appeared in peer-reviewed publications and are already cited in the article, do not support these web claims. Your additions do not meet the present standards of citation for this article, which is referenced using peer-reviewed works of professional historians who are (or were) the leading scholars of the Declaration. —Kevin Myers 23:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What you view as being an "off-hand" comment, is something written by a company which has had a reputation of credibility and reliability for some eighty years or so.

The other two sources I found for these facts are from a museum which has been in existence since 1996, I think. It specifically studies connections between the United States of America and the province of Ulster. I would assume this would meet the guideline of "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand".

The other source I found was the newspaper in question - possibly a rival publication in relation to your day job? I wonder if there might be a conflict of interest here. Of course, I appreciate that similar could be argued with regard to citing the News Letter as a source itself. I added that as a source for completeleness.

Assuming you are a specific journalist, as opposed to merely a namesake, perhaps you could put your talents and connections to good use, and verify the sources, instead of merely dismissing these facts.

Unless you come up with a more convincing argument against the inclusion of the facts I have added, I hereby give you notice of my intent to revert your deletion of relevent information. --Setanta 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you have reverted a valid edit I have made to enrich this article. I have demonstrated that I have used secondary and tertiary sources, as well as the primary source.

While a cursory inspection suggests you have added to and improved the article, I must remind you that you are not the owner of the article and due to your adamant reverting of my particular edits and lack of further discussion, I am starting to waver with my suspicion that you have some kind of irrational dislike of the information.

I have tried to assume good faith, but as you are being highly intransigent here, I have no recourse other than to consider seeking assistance in order to entice you into discussion about what exactly your problem is with the addition of this material.. lest you create an edit war. I would prefer, however, that you enter into dialogue with me in order that we may discover how we may solve this problem.

At this point, I would like to invite other editors to contribute to this discussion with suggestions or opinions. --Setanta 03:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Same response as before: the information in this article comes from peer-reviewed sources written by professional historians, most of whom are (or were) scholars of the Declaration. The section you want to add does not come from such sources. If the Belfast News Letter was indeed the first to publish the Declaration outside the US, we should be able to find and cite the work of an expert historian who has said as much. Armitage's book makes no mention of it, and in fact cites a London publication date before The News Letter published the Declaration; Irish Opinion and the American Revolution by Vincent Morley mentions the publication but makes no claim that it was the first. In fact, ironically, the Wikipedia article on the The News Letter says that The News Letter's claim to have been the first to publish the Declaration is false, although Wikipedia is not a reliable source, of course. :-)

And even if the story about The News Letter were true, it would not merit its own section in this article. It's an interesting story, but if true it's a minor point that should get a one sentence mention, maybe in a footnote, and a link to The News Letter for more details. —Kevin Myers 04:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Kevin. You repeated, but you also expanded. Let's go back to basics: The newspaper and other sources claim that the Newsletter got hold of the Declaration before it went on to London. There is also the suggestion that that particular copy of the Declaration didn't make it to London, and that another copy had made its way to the King etc. I had read that The News Letter had broken news of the Declaration before any other European newspaper, but that it printed the full text of it in another, later, issue. The website of the Prime Minister, reports the story that Gordon Brown had sent congratulates to the News Letter on its 270th anniversary, and states that the paper "was the first to tell Europe that America had declared independence". The end of the sentence though, might suggest that the paper had printed the full text on the same day it broke the story.

Historian Francis M. Carroll though, states in his book The American presence in Ulster: a diplomatic history, 1796-1996, "the text of the Declaration of Independence was first published in these islands in the [Belfast] News Letter on August 23, 1776. I'm going to be bold and re-add the text with this source. Assuming you're happy with that, feel free, of course, to edit the text I've added to better suit the style of the article as a whole.

I would however, suggest to you that the connection between the region Ulster, and Ireland as a whole, to the USA and in particular the article in question, was (and is) an important one to both places. The Declaration was a major influence on politics in Ulster - especially amongst Presbyterians. So be perhaps be cautious as to how much you feel it's a minor point or that it should get one sentence or be consigned to a footnote only. There is plenty of material available in regard to the influence of the Declaration and the history of the USA on Ulster and the USA is not without its influence from people from Ulster. Many books have been written on the subject of the connection, whilst of course that is probably best served in the articles about the Scots-Irish and the History of the USA. --Setanta 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Armitage work at [1] (page 70) says that the text of the DOI “first appeared in London newspapers in the second week of August 1776.” He then says that it was printed in Edinburgh so that David Hume could have read it on August 20. You source (Carroll) places the publication in Belfast as August 23, 1776 (one of the web sites says August 27). Assuming good faith on behalf of all the sources, the best interpretation to put on this is that the Belfast claimants are simply unaware of the sources relied on by Armitage. I have removed your paragraph although I would suggest you look at the "Legacy" section and add there the influence of the DOI in Ireland. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Misquote under the section "Text"

In the section "Text". It says "To secure this right governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power form the constant of the governed;"

It should say "To secure this right governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed;"

Done. JNW (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Recommended Edit

{{Editsemiprotected}}

I recommend the removal of revision 01:55, 4 September 2009 174.18.159.147

The paragraph added is highly redundant, out of place, and adds nothing to the entry.

Thank you.

 Done Agreed. It's out of place and the same thing exists in the lead. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

compleat==>complete

in the declaration of independence, it says compleat instead of complete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.0.102 (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. And that's the way we have it here. —Kevin Myers 02:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

First International Recognition

The page Declaration of independence notes that France was the first to recognize the newly independent USA, but neither that article nor this one include a date. As far as i can tell, this page has no mention of international recognition of the declaration. I checked thru some other wikipages and found no info. I think it would be worthile to post that information on this page, it could be expressed in a single sentence. Such information could lead to a new page, International Reaction to the US Declaration of Independence, which would be worthwhile because the declaration was unprecedented. Alex.garofolo (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The main page for the United States lists the first recognition as being from Britain, the 1883 Treaty of Paris. That contradicts the information on the Declaration of independence info. I found on another website, http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/declaration_of_independence_1.html#Examples of UDIs that the French recognition was promulgated in the Treaty of Alliance (1778). Alex.garofolo 02:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, those are instances of international recognition of American independence, not recognition of the Declaration of Independence. Britain took no official notice of the Declaration of Independence, as stated in the article. —Kevin Myers 02:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of signing?

Incorrect: Although the wording of the Declaration was approved on July 4, the date of its actual signing is disputed by historians, most accepting a theory that it was signed nearly a month after its adoption, on August 2, 1776, and not on July 4 as is commonly believed.

Correct: Although the wording of the Declaration was approved on July 4, the date of its actual signing is disputed by historians, most accepting a theory that it was signed nearly a month after its adoption, on JULY 2, 1776, and not on July 4 as is commonly believed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darison (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the sentence. It is saying that the declaration was signed on August 2, a date which was a month after its adoption.Khajidha (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Art and Culture

Although the article mentions popular culture references of more recent years, it should also mention: painting by Robert Edge Pine Congress Voting Independence Edward Savage, an American goldsmith, engraver, and artist, obtained and completed Pine’s “Congress Voting Independence,” which now hangs in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall. AND "The Declaration of Independence" painting by John Trumbull in 1817, which is currenlty in the rotundra, and was based on a much smaller version of the same scene, presently held by the Yale University Art Gallery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.75.220.5 (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Title

Doesn't it make more sense for the title to be "American Declaration of Independence"? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the current title was chosen to avoid the ambiguities of the word "American"; see American (word). I like Jefferson's title, used on his tombstone: Declaration of American Independence. But "United States Declaration of Independence" is perfectly serviceable. —Kevin Myers 12:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wording in lead section

The wording of this statement is not clear (although I would understand if it is the exact text cited):

The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized groups, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for which the United States should strive. This view was greatly influenced by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy....

The promotion of rights to marginalized groups diminishes the applicable range of ideals to specific groups, not encompassing a holistic view of all individuals. The following statement about Abraham Lincoln is also unclear, implying that Lincoln influence the writing of the Declaration.

the structuring that I have proposed is simplified as follows:

The passage is used to promote the rights of all individuals, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for the United States. Abraham Lincoln considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy.

Reesedylan2010 (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The purpose of a lead section in a Wikipedia article is to briefly summarize the main body of the article. These two sentences are a concise summary of about eight paragraphs (or 2+ sections) of the article, where it is explained how the Declaration has been used to promote the rights of marginalized people, particularly slaves, and the influence that Lincoln had on this use of the Declaration. Your rewrite is not bad, but it doesn't really summarize the article, which is what we're going for. —Kevin Myers 05:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.255.194.72, 23 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I don't care to contest your view of the reference in the Articles of Confederation to what is obviously the the year in which the Declaration of Independence is signed. I do think it's a short sighted and limited view to delete the reference -- it's patently obvious as to what it is, easily as obvious as Lincoln's reference in the Gettysburg Address when he said "Four score and seven years ago" -- both refer to the Declaration of Independence, or at least the year 1776. There is no reasonable alternative interpretation for the inclusion of that language in the Articles, and by writers who cared about the use of the English language.

I think the reference informs and helps us understand how the drafters of the Articles, men who were very close in time to the drafting of the Declaration, obviously far closer than President Lincoln, viewed the document. The text from the document I inserted there speaks for itself: In 1778, "in the third year of the independence of America" of course means 1776.

I believe that language is an interesting and little known fact about how those who wrote our great documents (a number who signed both in question) viewed the Declaration. Since the Declaration is the very first item in the U.S. Code as the "organic laws" of our nation, and the Articles follow soon after, it seems entirely relevant as to how they interrelate.

I decline to make an issue of it, I do think the readers of Wikipedia are the poorer for the deletion. I thought it might be helpful to point out a hard fact and let the reader decide, rather than rely on the opinion of others (including yours or mine). Evidently you disagree.

Regards.

96.255.194.72 (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you requesting? If you're talking about the reference to the Declaration of Independence in the Articles of Confederation, I'm not quite sure how that's relevant to the article besides being an interesting trivia point. By asking for a reliable source, no one is really questioning that those statements are in the Articles of Confederation, but rather is asking if any reputable scholar finds it relevant to this article. --CapitalR (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well said. For future reference, the text the editor wanted to add, but which I removed, is as follows:

The Articles of Confederation in its concluding paragraph, included the following: "In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America." The third year of independence being 1778, three years after the signing of the Declaration.

This quote from the Articles simply tells us that in 1778, Congress mentioned that America had been independent since 1776. Nothing surprising, controversial, or revealing there. As CapitalR says, it's just trivia. Lincoln's reference in the Gettysburg Address is different because it comes after the ratification of the Constitution. His argument, controversial then and later, was that the Declaration's principles were still in effect, even though they were not mentioned in the Constitution. The two references are apples and oranges. —Kevin Myers 03:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture

Perhaps the fact that its been effectively banned from public schools should be mentioned along with the fact its in Russ Kick's 100 things you arent supposed to know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.214.253 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

...it is their duty...

The Declaration of Independence is often described as a libertarian document. But I notice it says that under some conditions, it is not just the people's right but their duty to throw off a government. Does anyone know, From what principle would such a duty of revolution arise? Is duty of revolution part of one's duty to pursue self-interest, which is outside the purview of libertarian theory, since libertarianism deals with one's moral responsibilities with regards to others? Tisane ^talk/_stalk 03:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The principle is summed up in a statement that Jefferson and Franklin were fond of quoting: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." Check out this article by Dave Kopel, which cites John of Salisbury as the source of the idea that overthrowing tyrants is a duty. —Kevin Myers 03:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In western natural law tradition, the duty to throw off oppressive government is a complement of the natural obligation to behave justly and benevolently toward one's fellow humans, as well as complementing the duty of self-preservation. (Tyrants imperil the lives and well-being of their subjects.) Similarly, "unalienable rights," as the term is used by its originator Francis Hutcheson, correspond to the fundamental duties of piety and benevolence, which were at the heart of natural law going back to Cicero. Edward Corwin points to Cicero as the foundation of John of Salisbury's enunciation of the duty of revolution. See Edward S. Corwin, The “Higher Law” Background of American Constitutional Law (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1955; orig. 1928), pp. 17-19.--Other Choices (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I am reminded of Civil Disobedience, which states that there is a duty to refuse to obey the state when one's obedience helps the government impose injustice upon others. Most libertarians would say that we have a right to commit libertarian civil disobedience because of government's lack of legitimacy (or at any rate, the lack of legitimacy of immoral/unconstitutional laws), but that we also have a right to obey the state, since the state basically blackmails us into doing so under pain of fine/imprisonment/etc. The Market for Liberty states that we have a duty to ourselves to resist aggression, but only when we can do so safely; our situation in reference to the state is not one in which we can "safely" resist, i.e. resist without being either arrested or shot. If "the people" could act as one, yes, government could be successfully resisted, because the oppressed far outnumber the oppressors; but the individual cannot very easily resist; what does one do when one is merely an individual? Perhaps the question is left unanswered because it wasn't the situation they were facing.

The Declaration in general seems to use a kind of bait-and-switch in that it is always talking about "the people," but who exactly comprises this mysterious entity? Any group that chooses to call itself a people (which could be a group as small as one person), or is it more like the definition of a nation, i.e., "a grouping of people who share real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, often possessing or seeking its own government." Is there any legitimate way, under their way of thinking, to secede from "the people" and form your own people, or are you stuck with what the majority wants to do, just because you happen to be part of the same history/culture/language/ethnicity and live near them? The wording of it is so ambiguous and vague that it's hard to say whether its implications are for individual sovereignty or popular sovereignty or somewhere in between, and if so, where. What constitutes consent of the governed — unanimous consent or majority vote? It all raises more questions than answers. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 04:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

how did it affect the war and popular support and all that?

The article is super heavy on the dating and publishing info, but very sparse on how the declaration was recieved by Americans and British (both populations and officials). Surely it had some significant effect in formalizing and promotion the separation that occurred? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.23 (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing the lede?...

I was reading the article recently and thought that maybe the first paragraph lede should maybe be re-written. At present the implied timeline is somewhat confusing, especially to readers who are unfamiliar with the developments preceding the Declaration's adoption and what actually happened in June and July of 1776 at the Second Continental Congress. If interested editors would post any Feedback here, that would be helpful.

The United States Declaration of Independence is a document formalizing the Thirteen American Colonies' separation from Great Britain. On June 7, 1776 (more than a year after the outbreak of war), Richard Henry Lee presented his resolution of independence to the Second Continental Congress. Support for independence from Britain was gathered within Congress while the Committee of Five (most prominently Thomas Jefferson) spent three weeks drafting the full Declaration. On July 2, Congress voted for the Lee Resolution, paving the way for the assembly's formal adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The current version is much better in my opinion. Yours has too many parenthetical statements (which can be a distraction when you're trying to introduce a subject), and gets bogged down with too many procedural details for our introductory remarks. Plus, several unanswered questions are raised by your wording. What war? Whose support? What is a "full Declaration" and why was it needed? And there are several factually questionable statements in your intro. Is the Declaration really a "document"? Was support for independence really gathered "within Congress"? Did the Committee of Five really spend three weeks drafting the Declaration? —Kevin Myers 23:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Echoing to a great extent what Kevin Myers has written. The purpose of an introductory paragraph is to do what? Right, introduce the topic. Shearonink's introduction dives right into detail before that detail has been properly introduced in its proper time. I don't think the paragraph should be used.Trappist the monk (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is what Wikipedia is all about, reaching consensus - thanks to everyone for posting your thoughts. I do think the present lede could be improved by making the implied and the explicit timeline of events clearer, perhaps the example I posted above is not the best way to do that. I suppose the more relevant consideration is if interested editors think that the article's lede (as it stands now) is satisfactory. Shearonink (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about just the first paragraph, I think it's fine as it is now. If you're talking about the lede as a whole, perhaps you should look at an older version of the lede. A few months back, someone changed the order of the paragraphs and some sentences in the lede. To my mind, this reordering makes the information in the lede feel a bit random. (For example, it now talks about the legacy of the Declaration before its publication.) Perhaps the new, jumbled lede is what makes you feel that something is not quite right. Is the older wording clearer? —Kevin Myers 05:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought that replying separately to the two main areas of concern that User:Kevin Myers raised in his first response-post above might be useful. He stated that "there are several factually questionable statements" in the proposed intro I posted. (I'd just like to mention that I don't necessarily want the particular intro I wrote and only that...moreso that I think a better intro/lede is possible.) Regardless of whether or not this part of the article is changed, I wanted to address his concerns.

• Is the Declaration really a "document"?

Yes, the Declaration is a document. Dictionary.com (Random House Dictionary) defines a 'document' as:

1. a written or printed paper furnishing information or evidence, as a passport, deed, bill of sale, or bill of lading; a legal or official

paper.

2. any written item, as a book, article, or letter, esp. of a factual or informative nature.

3. Archaic - evidence; proof.

The Declaration is all three of the above...it's an official paper that furnishes evidence, it is a written item of a factual and informative nature and it is proof or evidence (of an intent to be legally independent) - the Archaic meaning should be part of our understanding of any terms used, since the Declaration was written in the 18th Century.

• Was support for independence really gathered within Congress?

Yes, from the time Richard Henry Lee introduced his 'Lee Resolution' on June 7 until that bill was approved on July 2 was a total of 25 days. According to a section of the article that we are discussing (here), "Lee's resolution met with resistance in the ensuing debate.", Congress voted on June 10 to postpone discussion for three weeks and (in referring to the political machinations of the assembled men) "Support for a Congressional declaration of independence was consolidated in the final weeks of June 1776."

• Did the Committee of Five really spend three weeks drafting the Declaration?

The Committee of Five did actually spend less time than the three weeks that I stated in my possible-lede. The drafts of the Declaration used by the Committee were created between June 11 (when the Committee was appointed) and June 28 when their final Committee-drafted document was presented to Congress as "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled"...that actually adds up to 17 days. Thomas Jefferson is acknowledged as the principal writer of the document with especially John Adams and Benjamin Franklin providing suggestions. Congress tabled this document and then turned its attention to the Lee Resolution on July 1. The 'three weeks' figure is actually from the timeline of the Lee Resolution as Congress had voted on June 10 to table the Resolution for three weeks until July 1.

Declaration of Independence Drafting the Documents-Library of Congress (Virtual Exhibit)

Declaration of Independence Chronology-Library of Congress (Virtual Exhibit)

I'd also like to point out that the Lee Resolution is already mentioned within the present lede/first paragraph but is rendered as declare independence. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to my questions. I probably should have made my point more directly, rather than asking these questions. I had hoped that you would realize that the answer to all three questions is "not exactly", and that your proposed wording therefore lacked precision. Is the Declaration really a document? Not exactly: as discussed in the "History of the documents" section, if the Declaration is a document, then it's arguably a series of documents. (There are also semantic quibbles here, as some scholars have pointed out: is the Declaration the document, or the words on the document?) Was support for independence really gathered within Congress? Not exactly: the most important struggle for support took place outside of Congress, as delegates worked to get instructions altered. Did the Committee of Five really spend three weeks drafting the Declaration? Not exactly: we don't really know what all five members did during those weeks, and they worked on many other things in the meantime. These are all fine points, to be sure, but any lede must be carefully worded so that it does not say things that are not exactly true. —Kevin Myers 14:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we're talking about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" here. If there's no clear consensus to change the lede/first paragraphs and editors are satisfied with the way it reads now, then that is that. Shearonink (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1992 Copy?

I just read, in 1992 a shopper at a Phili flea market found a copy folded in the frame of a picture back where it was used as padding. (Bill Bryson: Made in America: an Informal History of the English Language in the United States, Black Swan, 1998, ISBN 0-552-99805-2, p.57.) Is this true?--Max Dax (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

united States vs. United States

2009-02-08

Please note: the Declaration of Independence uses a lower case "u" for "united States" vs. an uppercase "U" as in "United States". This is not insignificant. The declaration was made by thirteen [sovereign] states (former colonies) on the continent of America. Each of the thirteen original colonies were declaring together their distinct sovereignty as states, united together in cause.

As would follow, the title of the page should be "united States Declaration of Independence".

Chris Streeter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.2.64 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this has been discussed at some length, awhile back. Capital U is correct usage here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, here's the reason: in 1776, writers did not use capitalization the way we do today to signify the difference between proper nouns and regular nouns. Official versions of the Declaration released by the Continental Congress used "United States", "united States", and united states. (The last official release, the Goddard Broadside, used "United States".) None of these variations had any significance whatsoever for people at the time; no scholar of the Declaration that I know of has commented on any meaning in the varied capitalization. Only amateur historians, reading history backwards as amateur historians are apt to do, will read meaning into the capitalization that happens to be used on the engrossed version of the Declaration. —Kevin Myers 10:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In those days also, it was customary to capitalize nouns, as German still does. If that were not the case, the document probably would have read "united states". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In his notes, Jefferson sometimes even went with "United states", though he was a bit of a oddball when it came to capitalization—usually he didn't even capitalize the first word of a sentence.

By the way, the weakest part of the anachronistic idea that "united States" is somehow significant in the handwritten version of the Declaration is this: almost nobody actually saw the document at the time. It was signed, filed away, and not seen by the general public for decades. In the Revolutionary era, the only versions of the Declaration released to the public were the broadsides, which did not use the "united States" capitalization. So, if "united States" was significant, it was an official secret. :-) The theory, then, springs not just from ignorance about capitalization in 1776, but also from ignorance about the history of the documents themselves. I suggest reading our article all the way through: I believe you'll find no better history of the documents on the Internet. —Kevin Myers 15:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

These kinds of misinterpretations, of "reading tea leaves" as it were, is how rumors and legends and conspiracy theories get their start. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In general, people weren't so pedantic about English orthographic rules in those days. Consider the U.S. Constitution, where the word "chuse" appears instead of "choose", among other oddities. Also, it's important to keep in mind that the term "united states", as of 7/4/1776, was intended as more of a concept than as the name of a nation, as such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

commas in opening sentence

Is this not the correct way? :-)

The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies, then at war with Great Britain, were now independent states and thus no longer a part of the British Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThornEth (talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question, but the answer is "no". If there were only thirteen American colonies, then the commas would be correct, since the enclosed phrase would then simply be a parenthetical statement about the thirteen colonies. However, there were more than thirteen American colonies in British America, so the phrase is not parenthetical, but rather an essential part of the description, identifying which thirteen we're talking about. If you followed that, award yourself 10 points. —Kevin Myers 20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. (Some people)
v.
People, who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones. (All people)
--Kjb (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No Citation

came to represent an ideal for which the nation should strive, notably through the influence of Abraham Lincoln, who popularized the now-standard view that the Declaration's preamble is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.

Seems like an assumption to me

I expect to add more on this point soon, including the opposing (non-standard) view. Stay tuned. —Kevin Myers 23:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now expanded the topic in question. Next I'll work on tweaking the intro to make it better reflect the "legacy" section.

while revising, I removed a couple of interesting paragraphs that didn't quite fit--the second one may stray a bit from the topic of the Declaration of Independence--but I'll put them here in case someone thinks they might be useful, perhaps in Confederate States of America, Origins of the American Civil War, or right of revolution.

As the Civil War approached, some Southerners did frequently invoke the right of revolution to justify secession, comparing their grievances to those suffered by the colonists under British rule. Northerners rejected this line of thought. The New York Times wrote that while the Declaration of Independence was based on “Natural Rights against Established Institutions”, the Confederate cause was a counterrevolution “reversing the wheels of progress ... to hurl everything backward into deepest darkness ... despotism and oppression.” Southern leaders such as Confederate President Jefferson Davis and the leading publisher James B. D. DeBow likewise denied that they were revolutionaries. Davis called it “an abuse of language” to equate secession and revolution; the South had left the Union in order “to save ourselves from a revolution. The Republicans and abolitionists were seen as the real revolutionaries because of their intent to attack the institution of slavery.

—Kevin Myers 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

While I am still reading Pauline Maier's book American Scripture, I skipped ahead to the chapter on Lincoln. I find her comments about Lincoln remarkable and one wonders what she she was thinking when she wrote what she wrote. Leaving her aside, you comment above does seem to place the meaning of the DOI during the civil war in its own context where it belongs. Abigailquincy (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)AbigailquincyAbigailquincy (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Length and comprehensiveness

This article is getting very long, but for me the end is in sight. Soon I'll revise the "Text" section, incorporating the views of important scholars that haven't been mentioned yet, including Ronald Hamowy and John Phillip Reid. This will bring me to the end of the revisions I began in July 2008. If you think I've overlooked anything that should be in the article, let me know.

Do you think the article is too long? Should it be split into sub-articles? If so, which section(s) are best suited for splitting? Do tell! —Kevin Myers 18:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think more research regarding the critique of Garry Wills book Inventing America by Ronald Hamowy needs to be done before his inclusion in the text. An article in the Virginia Quarterly, "Garry Wills and the new debate over the DOI" by Ralph Luker, Spring 1980 needs to be read. Luker's article certainly puts an entirely different cast on Hamowy's rather harsh review of Wills book and given the concerns regarding Maier's book I think a full review in needed. The text on the DOI might benefit by a relook and review in the weeks ahead. Abigailquincy (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that article to my attention; I will make use of it. It is online for anyone interested. —Kevin Myers 21:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Maier and early celebrations of the Declaration

Maier's assertions need verification:

IN regards to Maier's statement page 162 quoted in the text above (she asserts ) "But seldom if ever, to judge by newspaper accounts and histories of the celebrations, was the Declaration of Independence read publicly in the late 1780s 1790s."

She goes on to state (see page 168-69) "During the first fifteen years following its adoption, then, the Declaration of Independence, seems to have been all but forgotten, particularly within the Unitedd States......"

A quick google will tell the reader a different story. The DOI was indeed read; and July 4 and the DOI was celebrated in the 13 former colonies during these years. I will read McDonalds book to see what he has to say, but easily available documents may proof more accurate.

Maier should have quantified her assertions because as they stand they seem to be easily be contradicted.

Accuracy in these facts is important and trained historians have more than google they have access to the finest libraries in the US.

I will keep checking to verify other assertions that seem incorrect. It might be helpful to you. Abigailquincy (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Abigailquincy Abigailquincy (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Maier's assertions cannot be contradicted in the article by Wikipedia editors; we don't do that on Wikipedia, not even if we find primary evidence that seems to disagree with her. All we do in the articles is report what the scholars have written; see Wikipedia:No original research.

However, we certainly want to be aware of historians who disagree with any statement that we put in the article. If other historians think Maier is wrong, we can cite them. On this point, I think Maier is supported by McDonald, and she was influenced by the work of Philip Detweiler. Detweiler wrote, for example: "During the decade of the eighties the anniversary celebrations of the Fourth became more widespread, but in neither the orations nor the toasts was the Declaration substantially more than the act of independence." In other words, as Detweiler and Maier argue, people were celebrating Independence, and the fact that Congress had declared it in 1776, but they were not celebrating Jefferson's words, which had not yet become American scripture. —Kevin Myers 18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. Did Pauline Maier write this article on the DOI? I thought you did. Second the DOI was celebrated from 1776 forward and actually it was read in a number of places. I am sure some historian has already done the research on it.

Perhaps I don't understand how wiki works. Is it possible that an author can just post what they want on WIKI regardless of the truthfulness or accuracy of the statement? I am sure you don't mean that.

The reason is that there are a number of other more glaring inaccuracies in Maier's work that really need correction. I am sure you will agree that any article on WIKI about the DOI should be completely accurate. thanks Abigailquincy (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)AbigailquincyAbigailquincy (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, understanding how Wikipedia works can be confusing, and almost everyone is at first a bit unclear about what we can and cannot do on Wikipedia (some people in fact never completely figure it out). Maier didn't have anything to do with this article; we've just reported what she has written. If there are any inaccuracies in Maier's book, Wikipedia cannot be the first place where corrections are published. The only way we can dispute Maier—or any other scholar—is to cite works of other scholars who disagree with her. Worrying about whether she's made mistakes is not our job here; we have to leave that to the professional historians. —Kevin Myers 21:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

August 2, 1776?

shouldn't it be, Most Historians think that Congress signed it on 'July' 2nd, not on July 4th

where did August 2nd come from? --J miester25 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the "Signing" section of the article and you'll find the answer to your question. Nothing was signed on July 2; a few or many delegates signed on August 2. —Kevin Myers 23:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Signers

Due to the growing size of this article I would like to split out the list of signers into a seperate list article. If anyone has a problem with that please let me know. I will not be doing it for at least a couple weeks and will continue to monitor this page. --Kumioko (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Several months ago, I raised the possibility of splitting out sections ("Length and comprehensiveness" section above), but no one responded, so I'm guessing that the lack of interest has not changed. My intention was to eventually split out the entire signing section, rather than just the list of signers, because that section goes into more detail than what's really needed here, but the details are worth having in Wikipedia. In the new daughter article, which I'd call something like Signing the United States Declaration of Independence, we could also cover various other things, like the famous, bogus story about the horrible things that happened to the men who signed the Declaration, among other legends. If you don't mind, I'd like to do the splitting myself, since I wrote the "Signing" section and am familiar with the material. If you think that calling the split-out article List of signers of the United States Declaration of Independence is the better way to go, do tell. —Kevin Myers 00:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

inalienable rights not unalienable rights —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.15.194 (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson wrote "inalienable" in his Rough Draft, but all official copies used "unalienable", for reasons unknown. —Kevin Myers 04:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Text

The following quote is wrong: "We hold this truth to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among this are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure this right governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power form the consent of the governed;"

It should read: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed," --Szkott (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First publication outside America

Mr Myers, if you have objections to my edit, please feel free to discuss them here, rather than create a revert war. I think your allegation that the BBC, a museum and the newspaper in question are "unreliable sources" to be highly dubious. --Setanta 23:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RS:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

An offhand, unreferenced comment on a BBC website ("Incidently, the first newspaper to publish the declaration, outside America, was the Belfast News Letter.") is not a reliable source for making an extraordinary historical claim, since the BBC is not an authority of the Declaration of Independence. Nor are the other unsigned websites you cited. The European publication history of the Declaration has been written about extensively by British historian David Armitage of Harvard. His findings, which have appeared in peer-reviewed publications and are already cited in the article, do not support these web claims. Your additions do not meet the present standards of citation for this article, which is referenced using peer-reviewed works of professional historians who are (or were) the leading scholars of the Declaration. —Kevin Myers 23:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What you view as being an "off-hand" comment, is something written by a company which has had a reputation of credibility and reliability for some eighty years or so.

The other two sources I found for these facts are from a museum which has been in existence since 1996, I think. It specifically studies connections between the United States of America and the province of Ulster. I would assume this would meet the guideline of "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand".

The other source I found was the newspaper in question - possibly a rival publication in relation to your day job? I wonder if there might be a conflict of interest here. Of course, I appreciate that similar could be argued with regard to citing the News Letter as a source itself. I added that as a source for completeleness.

Assuming you are a specific journalist, as opposed to merely a namesake, perhaps you could put your talents and connections to good use, and verify the sources, instead of merely dismissing these facts.

Unless you come up with a more convincing argument against the inclusion of the facts I have added, I hereby give you notice of my intent to revert your deletion of relevent information. --Setanta 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you have reverted a valid edit I have made to enrich this article. I have demonstrated that I have used secondary and tertiary sources, as well as the primary source.

While a cursory inspection suggests you have added to and improved the article, I must remind you that you are not the owner of the article and due to your adamant reverting of my particular edits and lack of further discussion, I am starting to waver with my suspicion that you have some kind of irrational dislike of the information.

I have tried to assume good faith, but as you are being highly intransigent here, I have no recourse other than to consider seeking assistance in order to entice you into discussion about what exactly your problem is with the addition of this material.. lest you create an edit war. I would prefer, however, that you enter into dialogue with me in order that we may discover how we may solve this problem.

At this point, I would like to invite other editors to contribute to this discussion with suggestions or opinions. --Setanta 03:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Same response as before: the information in this article comes from peer-reviewed sources written by professional historians, most of whom are (or were) scholars of the Declaration. The section you want to add does not come from such sources. If the Belfast News Letter was indeed the first to publish the Declaration outside the US, we should be able to find and cite the work of an expert historian who has said as much. Armitage's book makes no mention of it, and in fact cites a London publication date before The News Letter published the Declaration; Irish Opinion and the American Revolution by Vincent Morley mentions the publication but makes no claim that it was the first. In fact, ironically, the Wikipedia article on the The News Letter says that The News Letter's claim to have been the first to publish the Declaration is false, although Wikipedia is not a reliable source, of course. :-)

And even if the story about The News Letter were true, it would not merit its own section in this article. It's an interesting story, but if true it's a minor point that should get a one sentence mention, maybe in a footnote, and a link to The News Letter for more details. —Kevin Myers 04:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Kevin. You repeated, but you also expanded. Let's go back to basics: The newspaper and other sources claim that the Newsletter got hold of the Declaration before it went on to London. There is also the suggestion that that particular copy of the Declaration didn't make it to London, and that another copy had made its way to the King etc. I had read that The News Letter had broken news of the Declaration before any other European newspaper, but that it printed the full text of it in another, later, issue. The website of the Prime Minister, reports the story that Gordon Brown had sent congratulates to the News Letter on its 270th anniversary, and states that the paper "was the first to tell Europe that America had declared independence". The end of the sentence though, might suggest that the paper had printed the full text on the same day it broke the story.

Historian Francis M. Carroll though, states in his book The American presence in Ulster: a diplomatic history, 1796-1996, "the text of the Declaration of Independence was first published in these islands in the [Belfast] News Letter on August 23, 1776. I'm going to be bold and re-add the text with this source. Assuming you're happy with that, feel free, of course, to edit the text I've added to better suit the style of the article as a whole.

I would however, suggest to you that the connection between the region Ulster, and Ireland as a whole, to the USA and in particular the article in question, was (and is) an important one to both places. The Declaration was a major influence on politics in Ulster - especially amongst Presbyterians. So be perhaps be cautious as to how much you feel it's a minor point or that it should get one sentence or be consigned to a footnote only. There is plenty of material available in regard to the influence of the Declaration and the history of the USA on Ulster and the USA is not without its influence from people from Ulster. Many books have been written on the subject of the connection, whilst of course that is probably best served in the articles about the Scots-Irish and the History of the USA. --Setanta 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Armitage work at [2] (page 70) says that the text of the DOI “first appeared in London newspapers in the second week of August 1776.” He then says that it was printed in Edinburgh so that David Hume could have read it on August 20. You source (Carroll) places the publication in Belfast as August 23, 1776 (one of the web sites says August 27). Assuming good faith on behalf of all the sources, the best interpretation to put on this is that the Belfast claimants are simply unaware of the sources relied on by Armitage. I have removed your paragraph although I would suggest you look at the "Legacy" section and add there the influence of the DOI in Ireland. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Misquote under the section "Text"

In the section "Text". It says "To secure this right governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power form the constant of the governed;"

It should say "To secure this right governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed;"

Done. JNW (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Recommended Edit

{{Editsemiprotected}}

I recommend the removal of revision 01:55, 4 September 2009 174.18.159.147

The paragraph added is highly redundant, out of place, and adds nothing to the entry.

Thank you.

 Done Agreed. It's out of place and the same thing exists in the lead. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

compleat==>complete

in the declaration of independence, it says compleat instead of complete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.0.102 (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. And that's the way we have it here. —Kevin Myers 02:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

First International Recognition

The page Declaration of independence notes that France was the first to recognize the newly independent USA, but neither that article nor this one include a date. As far as i can tell, this page has no mention of international recognition of the declaration. I checked thru some other wikipages and found no info. I think it would be worthile to post that information on this page, it could be expressed in a single sentence. Such information could lead to a new page, International Reaction to the US Declaration of Independence, which would be worthwhile because the declaration was unprecedented. Alex.garofolo (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The main page for the United States lists the first recognition as being from Britain, the 1883 Treaty of Paris. That contradicts the information on the Declaration of independence info. I found on another website, http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/declaration_of_independence_1.html#Examples of UDIs that the French recognition was promulgated in the Treaty of Alliance (1778). Alex.garofolo 02:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, those are instances of international recognition of American independence, not recognition of the Declaration of Independence. Britain took no official notice of the Declaration of Independence, as stated in the article. —Kevin Myers 02:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of signing?

Incorrect: Although the wording of the Declaration was approved on July 4, the date of its actual signing is disputed by historians, most accepting a theory that it was signed nearly a month after its adoption, on August 2, 1776, and not on July 4 as is commonly believed.

Correct: Although the wording of the Declaration was approved on July 4, the date of its actual signing is disputed by historians, most accepting a theory that it was signed nearly a month after its adoption, on JULY 2, 1776, and not on July 4 as is commonly believed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darison (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the sentence. It is saying that the declaration was signed on August 2, a date which was a month after its adoption.Khajidha (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Art and Culture

Although the article mentions popular culture references of more recent years, it should also mention: painting by Robert Edge Pine Congress Voting Independence Edward Savage, an American goldsmith, engraver, and artist, obtained and completed Pine’s “Congress Voting Independence,” which now hangs in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall. AND "The Declaration of Independence" painting by John Trumbull in 1817, which is currenlty in the rotundra, and was based on a much smaller version of the same scene, presently held by the Yale University Art Gallery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.75.220.5 (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Title

Doesn't it make more sense for the title to be "American Declaration of Independence"? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the current title was chosen to avoid the ambiguities of the word "American"; see American (word). I like Jefferson's title, used on his tombstone: Declaration of American Independence. But "United States Declaration of Independence" is perfectly serviceable. —Kevin Myers 12:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wording in lead section

The wording of this statement is not clear (although I would understand if it is the exact text cited):

The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized groups, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for which the United States should strive. This view was greatly influenced by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy....

The promotion of rights to marginalized groups diminishes the applicable range of ideals to specific groups, not encompassing a holistic view of all individuals. The following statement about Abraham Lincoln is also unclear, implying that Lincoln influence the writing of the Declaration.

the structuring that I have proposed is simplified as follows:

The passage is used to promote the rights of all individuals, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for the United States. Abraham Lincoln considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy.

Reesedylan2010 (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The purpose of a lead section in a Wikipedia article is to briefly summarize the main body of the article. These two sentences are a concise summary of about eight paragraphs (or 2+ sections) of the article, where it is explained how the Declaration has been used to promote the rights of marginalized people, particularly slaves, and the influence that Lincoln had on this use of the Declaration. Your rewrite is not bad, but it doesn't really summarize the article, which is what we're going for. —Kevin Myers 05:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.255.194.72, 23 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I don't care to contest your view of the reference in the Articles of Confederation to what is obviously the the year in which the Declaration of Independence is signed. I do think it's a short sighted and limited view to delete the reference -- it's patently obvious as to what it is, easily as obvious as Lincoln's reference in the Gettysburg Address when he said "Four score and seven years ago" -- both refer to the Declaration of Independence, or at least the year 1776. There is no reasonable alternative interpretation for the inclusion of that language in the Articles, and by writers who cared about the use of the English language.

I think the reference informs and helps us understand how the drafters of the Articles, men who were very close in time to the drafting of the Declaration, obviously far closer than President Lincoln, viewed the document. The text from the document I inserted there speaks for itself: In 1778, "in the third year of the independence of America" of course means 1776.

I believe that language is an interesting and little known fact about how those who wrote our great documents (a number who signed both in question) viewed the Declaration. Since the Declaration is the very first item in the U.S. Code as the "organic laws" of our nation, and the Articles follow soon after, it seems entirely relevant as to how they interrelate.

I decline to make an issue of it, I do think the readers of Wikipedia are the poorer for the deletion. I thought it might be helpful to point out a hard fact and let the reader decide, rather than rely on the opinion of others (including yours or mine). Evidently you disagree.

Regards.

96.255.194.72 (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you requesting? If you're talking about the reference to the Declaration of Independence in the Articles of Confederation, I'm not quite sure how that's relevant to the article besides being an interesting trivia point. By asking for a reliable source, no one is really questioning that those statements are in the Articles of Confederation, but rather is asking if any reputable scholar finds it relevant to this article. --CapitalR (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well said. For future reference, the text the editor wanted to add, but which I removed, is as follows:

The Articles of Confederation in its concluding paragraph, included the following: "In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America." The third year of independence being 1778, three years after the signing of the Declaration.

This quote from the Articles simply tells us that in 1778, Congress mentioned that America had been independent since 1776. Nothing surprising, controversial, or revealing there. As CapitalR says, it's just trivia. Lincoln's reference in the Gettysburg Address is different because it comes after the ratification of the Constitution. His argument, controversial then and later, was that the Declaration's principles were still in effect, even though they were not mentioned in the Constitution. The two references are apples and oranges. —Kevin Myers 03:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture

Perhaps the fact that its been effectively banned from public schools should be mentioned along with the fact its in Russ Kick's 100 things you arent supposed to know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.214.253 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

...it is their duty...

The Declaration of Independence is often described as a libertarian document. But I notice it says that under some conditions, it is not just the people's right but their duty to throw off a government. Does anyone know, From what principle would such a duty of revolution arise? Is duty of revolution part of one's duty to pursue self-interest, which is outside the purview of libertarian theory, since libertarianism deals with one's moral responsibilities with regards to others? Tisane ^talk/_stalk 03:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The principle is summed up in a statement that Jefferson and Franklin were fond of quoting: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." Check out this article by Dave Kopel, which cites John of Salisbury as the source of the idea that overthrowing tyrants is a duty. —Kevin Myers 03:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In western natural law tradition, the duty to throw off oppressive government is a complement of the natural obligation to behave justly and benevolently toward one's fellow humans, as well as complementing the duty of self-preservation. (Tyrants imperil the lives and well-being of their subjects.) Similarly, "unalienable rights," as the term is used by its originator Francis Hutcheson, correspond to the fundamental duties of piety and benevolence, which were at the heart of natural law going back to Cicero. Edward Corwin points to Cicero as the foundation of John of Salisbury's enunciation of the duty of revolution. See Edward S. Corwin, The “Higher Law” Background of American Constitutional Law (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1955; orig. 1928), pp. 17-19.--Other Choices (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I am reminded of Civil Disobedience, which states that there is a duty to refuse to obey the state when one's obedience helps the government impose injustice upon others. Most libertarians would say that we have a right to commit libertarian civil disobedience because of government's lack of legitimacy (or at any rate, the lack of legitimacy of immoral/unconstitutional laws), but that we also have a right to obey the state, since the state basically blackmails us into doing so under pain of fine/imprisonment/etc. The Market for Liberty states that we have a duty to ourselves to resist aggression, but only when we can do so safely; our situation in reference to the state is not one in which we can "safely" resist, i.e. resist without being either arrested or shot. If "the people" could act as one, yes, government could be successfully resisted, because the oppressed far outnumber the oppressors; but the individual cannot very easily resist; what does one do when one is merely an individual? Perhaps the question is left unanswered because it wasn't the situation they were facing.

The Declaration in general seems to use a kind of bait-and-switch in that it is always talking about "the people," but who exactly comprises this mysterious entity? Any group that chooses to call itself a people (which could be a group as small as one person), or is it more like the definition of a nation, i.e., "a grouping of people who share real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, often possessing or seeking its own government." Is there any legitimate way, under their way of thinking, to secede from "the people" and form your own people, or are you stuck with what the majority wants to do, just because you happen to be part of the same history/culture/language/ethnicity and live near them? The wording of it is so ambiguous and vague that it's hard to say whether its implications are for individual sovereignty or popular sovereignty or somewhere in between, and if so, where. What constitutes consent of the governed — unanimous consent or majority vote? It all raises more questions than answers. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 04:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

how did it affect the war and popular support and all that?

The article is super heavy on the dating and publishing info, but very sparse on how the declaration was recieved by Americans and British (both populations and officials). Surely it had some significant effect in formalizing and promotion the separation that occurred? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.23 (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing the lede?...

I was reading the article recently and thought that maybe the first paragraph lede should maybe be re-written. At present the implied timeline is somewhat confusing, especially to readers who are unfamiliar with the developments preceding the Declaration's adoption and what actually happened in June and July of 1776 at the Second Continental Congress. If interested editors would post any Feedback here, that would be helpful.

The United States Declaration of Independence is a document formalizing the Thirteen American Colonies' separation from Great Britain. On June 7, 1776 (more than a year after the outbreak of war), Richard Henry Lee presented his resolution of independence to the Second Continental Congress. Support for independence from Britain was gathered within Congress while the Committee of Five (most prominently Thomas Jefferson) spent three weeks drafting the full Declaration. On July 2, Congress voted for the Lee Resolution, paving the way for the assembly's formal adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The current version is much better in my opinion. Yours has too many parenthetical statements (which can be a distraction when you're trying to introduce a subject), and gets bogged down with too many procedural details for our introductory remarks. Plus, several unanswered questions are raised by your wording. What war? Whose support? What is a "full Declaration" and why was it needed? And there are several factually questionable statements in your intro. Is the Declaration really a "document"? Was support for independence really gathered "within Congress"? Did the Committee of Five really spend three weeks drafting the Declaration? —Kevin Myers 23:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Echoing to a great extent what Kevin Myers has written. The purpose of an introductory paragraph is to do what? Right, introduce the topic. Shearonink's introduction dives right into detail before that detail has been properly introduced in its proper time. I don't think the paragraph should be used.Trappist the monk (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is what Wikipedia is all about, reaching consensus - thanks to everyone for posting your thoughts. I do think the present lede could be improved by making the implied and the explicit timeline of events clearer, perhaps the example I posted above is not the best way to do that. I suppose the more relevant consideration is if interested editors think that the article's lede (as it stands now) is satisfactory. Shearonink (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about just the first paragraph, I think it's fine as it is now. If you're talking about the lede as a whole, perhaps you should look at an older version of the lede. A few months back, someone changed the order of the paragraphs and some sentences in the lede. To my mind, this reordering makes the information in the lede feel a bit random. (For example, it now talks about the legacy of the Declaration before its publication.) Perhaps the new, jumbled lede is what makes you feel that something is not quite right. Is the older wording clearer? —Kevin Myers 05:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought that replying separately to the two main areas of concern that User:Kevin Myers raised in his first response-post above might be useful. He stated that "there are several factually questionable statements" in the proposed intro I posted. (I'd just like to mention that I don't necessarily want the particular intro I wrote and only that...moreso that I think a better intro/lede is possible.) Regardless of whether or not this part of the article is changed, I wanted to address his concerns.

• Is the Declaration really a "document"?

Yes, the Declaration is a document. Dictionary.com (Random House Dictionary) defines a 'document' as:

1. a written or printed paper furnishing information or evidence, as a passport, deed, bill of sale, or bill of lading; a legal or official

paper.

2. any written item, as a book, article, or letter, esp. of a factual or informative nature.

3. Archaic - evidence; proof.

The Declaration is all three of the above...it's an official paper that furnishes evidence, it is a written item of a factual and informative nature and it is proof or evidence (of an intent to be legally independent) - the Archaic meaning should be part of our understanding of any terms used, since the Declaration was written in the 18th Century.

• Was support for independence really gathered within Congress?

Yes, from the time Richard Henry Lee introduced his 'Lee Resolution' on June 7 until that bill was approved on July 2 was a total of 25 days. According to a section of the article that we are discussing (here), "Lee's resolution met with resistance in the ensuing debate.", Congress voted on June 10 to postpone discussion for three weeks and (in referring to the political machinations of the assembled men) "Support for a Congressional declaration of independence was consolidated in the final weeks of June 1776."

• Did the Committee of Five really spend three weeks drafting the Declaration?

The Committee of Five did actually spend less time than the three weeks that I stated in my possible-lede. The drafts of the Declaration used by the Committee were created between June 11 (when the Committee was appointed) and June 28 when their final Committee-drafted document was presented to Congress as "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled"...that actually adds up to 17 days. Thomas Jefferson is acknowledged as the principal writer of the document with especially John Adams and Benjamin Franklin providing suggestions. Congress tabled this document and then turned its attention to the Lee Resolution on July 1. The 'three weeks' figure is actually from the timeline of the Lee Resolution as Congress had voted on June 10 to table the Resolution for three weeks until July 1.

Declaration of Independence Drafting the Documents-Library of Congress (Virtual Exhibit)

Declaration of Independence Chronology-Library of Congress (Virtual Exhibit)

I'd also like to point out that the Lee Resolution is already mentioned within the present lede/first paragraph but is rendered as declare independence. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to my questions. I probably should have made my point more directly, rather than asking these questions. I had hoped that you would realize that the answer to all three questions is "not exactly", and that your proposed wording therefore lacked precision. Is the Declaration really a document? Not exactly: as discussed in the "History of the documents" section, if the Declaration is a document, then it's arguably a series of documents. (There are also semantic quibbles here, as some scholars have pointed out: is the Declaration the document, or the words on the document?) Was support for independence really gathered within Congress? Not exactly: the most important struggle for support took place outside of Congress, as delegates worked to get instructions altered. Did the Committee of Five really spend three weeks drafting the Declaration? Not exactly: we don't really know what all five members did during those weeks, and they worked on many other things in the meantime. These are all fine points, to be sure, but any lede must be carefully worded so that it does not say things that are not exactly true. —Kevin Myers 14:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we're talking about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" here. If there's no clear consensus to change the lede/first paragraphs and editors are satisfied with the way it reads now, then that is that. Shearonink (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1992 Copy?

I just read, in 1992 a shopper at a Phili flea market found a copy folded in the frame of a picture back where it was used as padding. (Bill Bryson: Made in America: an Informal History of the English Language in the United States, Black Swan, 1998, ISBN 0-552-99805-2, p.57.) Is this true?--Max Dax (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)