Talk:United States Declaration of Independence

"Free and Indpendent States"

The article doesn't address the meaning of the Declaration's assertion that the 13 united colonies, were to be 13 "free and independent states--" despite that the Declaration plainly describes them in the plural as having the power to "they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do", which obviously describes each of them to be a sovereign nation. Likewise, the later documents of the Articles of Confederation and Paris Peace Treay retain and recognize this separate sovereignty, freedom and independence of each state. Finally, Jefferson always maintained the separate national sovereignty of each state-- and he was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. Rather, by being wholly silent on this issue, the Wikipedia article tacitly affirms the current regime's counter-obvious post-bellum claim that the colonies somehow declared themselves to be a single sovereign state-- and that despite its express statements, including that "they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved," that instead these new "states" somehow simply transferred their national dependence from Great Britain to a certain mystical abstract and nameless "Union," which not only changed names, but existed in two places at the same time under the same name; for this is the claim by which the Lincoln Administration claimed national authority over the indivdiual states, to authorize military suppression against the individual states which claimed that they had separate sovereignty. And ever since, the current federal regime has validated this claim by simple brute force, and totalitian suppression of the truth via any means necessary and expedient (ranging from direct suppression of imprisonment, torture and terror, to more subtle "Emperor's Robe" methods such as discreditation and blacklisting of critics). Since this issue is a proverbial "elephant in the room" that isn't being mentionedmy question is therefore what can Wikipedia-readers expect from Wikipedia-- i.e. is Wikipedia afraid to tell the truth in order to avoid controversy, insteadremaining silent on the obvious absence of "the Emperor's Robe?" Because there's never been a more fitting example of this metaphor-- since if the states were declared individually sovereign then United States is an empire by definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BradAnderson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Slavery

The section on slavery doesn't address the problems in 1776 concerning slaves; 19th century info is largely irrelevant. There is no discussion of the term "merciless Indian savages", a racist statement. Jefferson opposed arming the slaves & indigenous peoples to fight against the colonies on the side of the British - he said it in the Declaration. Why not cover it?Ebanony (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The section on slavery is in the "Legacy" section, where 19th century info is completely relevant. But you're right that the "merciless Indian savages" and "excited domestic insurrections" line could use with some discussion. That belongs in the "Text" section, which is the only underdeveloped section of the article. Jefferson's comments directed against the British attempt to foment a race war were completely conventional, of course, and was a point made earlier by Paine's Common Sense, which said that the British "stirred up the Indians and the Negroes to destroy us". Less conventional was Jefferson's mention of "Scotch mercenaries", which is why Congress deleted that line. All of this should be discussed in an improved "Text" section. —Kevin Myers 13:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, I should have said "interesting" but not "relevant". However, I concede they've got some merit, but they're just not as important as the Dunmore, which had a direct impact on this. If anything I'd recommend condensing it, but ok with me either way. As to Paine, very true. The "Scotch" part - any particular references or writers you'd suggest using? Also, did I miss it or is there not much on the deletion from the fisrt draft with the slave trade? Any suggestions would be appreciated.Ebanony (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article perpetuate the myth that the the existance of slavery was a contradiction despite "all men are created equal?" I've done some reading on this and found out that by "all men are created equal," they were referring to men in a state of nature before God, not that all men were equal in talent and virtue. This allowed for slavery to exist since the many from that time period would argue that slaves were inferior in talent and virtue, therefore filled a certain niche. Emperor001 (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's good that you've "done some reading". Do some more, and you'll soon find competing interpretations, and not just one definitive explanation of what "they were referring to". Our job is to summarize the various interpretations, rather than picking the winners. —Kevin Myers 09:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Article Lead

I have reverted a number of unexplained and unsourced changes to the article lead. Among the POV changes were the attempt to reintroduce secession in the article (dismissed by consensus when raised by same editor -- see Archive 4 "Is "secede" a dirty word?") and to renew attacks on Abraham Lincoln that also date back to that time period. Consensus can change, but the place to demonstrate that change is here on the discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A few people were against using the more accurate "secede," but I'm hoping cooler, more rational, heads will prevail now. There is no doubt that Lincoln violated "consent of the governed" and the right of revolution of the south. Even northern newspapers said that the southern states should be allowed to secede.

In 1860 the right of states to nullify laws or seceed from the union was taught at West Point and standard constitutional theory. So though it has always been surrounded by controversy, being the resort of the politically less powerful, it's legal foundation was pretty much undisputed. The case against any given secession was based on practicality, not the right itself.

Even after seven states seceeded, northern newspapers were writing things like: "We believe that the right of any member of this confederacy to dissolve it's political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute." - Cincinatti Daily Press 11/21/1860. "The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is ... that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed ... They have a right to do so [secede]." - New York Tribune 2/5/1861. "Public opinion in the North seems to be gradually settling down in favor of recognition of the New Confederacy by the Federal Government." - Hartford Daily Courant 4/12/1861.

Hopefully, the pro-authoritarian clique that earlier controlled this article has dissipated by now. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Referring to the subject of the article, if the founding fathers had wanted to call the Declaration of Independence the "Declaration of Secession" I think they were learned enough to have chosen that word if they had wanted to. I'm not sure that "secede" is more accurate. In my understanding "independence" carries the meaning of standing apart with the meaning being explicit, secede carries the meaning of standing apart but the meaning is implicit. Shearonink (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

PhilLiberty is mistaken about how Wikipedia articles are written. All we do here is summarize the writings of the leading scholars on the Declaration. What each of us thinks about the meaning of the word "secession", or how each of us interprets newspaper articles or other period documents, etc., is completely irrelevant to our job here. Wikipedia readers don't care about our interpretations; they just want an overview of the reliable sources. If you want to write a piece that uses the Declaration to justify the legitimacy of the Confederate States, that's fine, but Wikipedia isn't the forum for that. —Kevin Myers 05:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If there were sufficient reliable sources that stated a particular synthesis of the facts, then it is possible that that synthesis itself could be notable enough for inclusion on these pages, but on the whole I agree with your assessment. Shearonink (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted today yet another effort to add "secession" to this article. Source added (DiLorenzo) is, at best, a fringe source and his book on Lincoln has no relevance to this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet again. Look Phil, you're just wrong when you say 'There is no doubt that Lincoln violated "consent of the governed" and the right of revolution of the south.' The signers of the Declaration understood that when you invoke the 'right of revolution' you take your chances — and that the stakes were "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor". King George was under no obligation to accept the colonists' bid for independence, and neither was Lincoln.

—WWoods (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Secession and Consent of the Governed

Secession says more than simply repeating "declaration of independence." Also, we should not hide the fact that presidents ignored the 'consent of the governed' principle. North Shoreman seems to favor a victor's history whitewashing of what the Dec of Ind says and its later shredding by Lincoln. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

From the article itself: "This article is about the United States historical document.'" If an editor wants to write up a separate article about "Differing views of the United States Declaration of Independence" or "How Presidents used the United States Declaration of Independence" or something similar then maybe that's a viable option. Shearonink (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Secession & Lede

Could we please discuss this issue and not just have an ongoing series of edits and reversions? Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is basically a one person crusade to advance a POV that has been repeatedly rejected in the past. The issue is the same one that caused the crusader to be blocked three times in the past. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Philip Mazzei

{{edit semi-protected}} Phillipe Mazzei's contribution is not listed in this entry.

70.160.154.46 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see what your question is. Shearonink (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably talking about Jefferson's friend Philip Mazzei and the claim (apparently modern) that Mazzei coined the phrase, "All men are created equal". The idea is often promoted in books celebrating immigration and Italian-American contributions, and was once mentioned by JFK, but I'm not aware of any scholars who endorse it. The Wikipedia article on the phrase currently reports it as true, but it cites no scholars. —Kevin Myers 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, that makes sense now (mostly).

Dealing with attribution of the phrase... The Virginia Gazette reference in All men are created equal does not cite the page, the edition or the date so that isn't useful at all and should probably be archive on Talk:All men are created equal until attribution can be cleared up (Reliable sources and all that). And actually, the phrase should more properly be ascribed to the ancient Roman maxim of "omnes homines natura aequales sunt" (I am assuming assume that Jefferson was familiar with Latin and ancient Roman sayings) which (roughly translated) is rendered as "all men by nature are equal or "all men are naturally equal" Government or human evolution by Edmond Kelly and The life and times of Niccolò Machiavelli, Volume 2 By Pasquale Villari etc. Not disregarding Mazzei's possible contributions, but I think is is safe to say that Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia and one of the most learned man of his age, was already familiar with Latin and ancient Roman sayings before he even met or knew Mazzei. -- Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicely put. Sounds like you are just the editor to fix up the All men are created equal article! Jefferson always said that the ideas in the Declaration were widely held at the time. I imagine a modern writer noticed that Mazzei expressed the sentiment in 1774 and, not realizing that the idea was a commonplace among educated Virginians, thought that Mazzei must have coined the expression and passed it along to Jefferson. I know historian Pauline Maier has pointed out other phrases, like pursuit of happiness, that have produced similar speculation, but she points out that these ideas and phrases could be found in many places before 1776. —Kevin Myers 16:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Whose grievances?

The text incorrectly says "the Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances". "Colonial" is the wrong word because it includes the Loyalists -- only Patriots wrote up the grievances in July 1776. Rjensen (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good point to me. —Kevin Myers 13:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is common usage to refer to the governments of nations (or colonies, in this case) as if they represent the collective voice of the nation that they respresent. The grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence reflected the views of the various colonial governments, as the congressional delegates were appointed by these governments and in many cases consulted closely with them. I agree that only Patriots (or "whigs", as Jefferson would say) wrote up grievances in July 1776, but by this point revolutionary leaders controlled the governments of every one of the thirteen colonies. I won't lose any sleep over this point, but "colonial" seems to reflect official views, while "Patriot" suggests a faction that didn't have political power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How about if the sentence went something like... "the Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing various colonial Patriot grievances" ? That way the particular colonial group is clearly delineated, after all, the Tory/Loyalist faction were colonials but they didn't have the grievances against the King's government that their Whig/Patriot brethren did. Shearonink (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that many loyalists shared the grievances, but they didn't think they were worth fighting for. Many colonial leaders who as late as 1774 raised their voices against British policies ultimately stayed loyal to the crown. So for that reason as well, "colonial grievances" seems to be a fitting phrase, but it might not be the best.--Other Choices (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Loyalists did share some grievances but we're talking about the list in the Declaration, which are intensely anti-king. This is the most famous single document of the Patriots and they deserve full credit for it. There is no reason to use the word "colonial" here unless we mean to include the Loyalists and neutrals, and we do not. Rjensen (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that is overstated, Rjensen. I gave a reason for using "colonial" which you simply ignored. The list of grievances in the Declaration was very similar to the list of grievances endorsed by the First Continental Congress in 1774, before independence was widely advocated: see [1774 Declaration of Rights and Grievances] The difference, as you mentioned, was that the focus in 1776 was on the king, not Parliament. However, the grievances were the same.--Other Choices (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

the Loyalists did NOT support the Declaration but the ambiguity in the text allows that possibility. that is a flaw. How about "grievances of the American Patriots." Rjensen (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The simplest approach is to just remove the adjective: "The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing grievances against King George III...." This works fine, unless people think we should link Patriot (American Revolution) in the lede. —Kevin Myers 16:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll go along with Rjensen's suggestion; I like the idea of linking to Patriot in the lede. However, I'm concerned about the simple statement that the grievances justified independence. The grievances were examples given in conjunction with the philosophy of legitimate government and revolution expounded in the Declaration's second paragraph. Maybe we can revisit that one later.--Other Choices (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

how about "The Declaration proclaimed the grievances of the Patriots against the king." Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that "proclaim" and "grievances" don't go well together. Maybe, as Kevin Myers suggests, it's simply best to delete "colonial."--Other Choices (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Free and Indpendent States"

The article doesn't address the meaning of the Declaration's assertion that the 13 united colonies, were to be 13 "free and independent states--" despite that the Declaration plainly describes them in the plural as having the power to "they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do", which obviously describes each of them to be a sovereign nation. Likewise, the later documents of the Articles of Confederation and Paris Peace Treay retain and recognize this separate sovereignty, freedom and independence of each state. Finally, Jefferson always maintained the separate national sovereignty of each state-- and he was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. Rather, by being wholly silent on this issue, the Wikipedia article tacitly affirms the current regime's counter-obvious post-bellum claim that the colonies somehow declared themselves to be a single sovereign state-- and that despite its express statements, including that "they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved," that instead these new "states" somehow simply transferred their national dependence from Great Britain to a certain mystical abstract and nameless "Union," which not only changed names, but existed in two places at the same time under the same name; for this is the claim by which the Lincoln Administration claimed national authority over the indivdiual states, to authorize military suppression against the individual states which claimed that they had separate sovereignty. And ever since, the current federal regime has validated this claim by simple brute force, and totalitian suppression of the truth via any means necessary and expedient (ranging from direct suppression of imprisonment, torture and terror, to more subtle "Emperor's Robe" methods such as discreditation and blacklisting of critics). Since this issue is a proverbial "elephant in the room" that isn't being mentionedmy question is therefore what can Wikipedia-readers expect from Wikipedia-- i.e. is Wikipedia afraid to tell the truth in order to avoid controversy, insteadremaining silent on the obvious absence of "the Emperor's Robe?" Because there's never been a more fitting example of this metaphor-- since if the states were declared individually sovereign then United States is an empire by definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BradAnderson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Slavery

The section on slavery doesn't address the problems in 1776 concerning slaves; 19th century info is largely irrelevant. There is no discussion of the term "merciless Indian savages", a racist statement. Jefferson opposed arming the slaves & indigenous peoples to fight against the colonies on the side of the British - he said it in the Declaration. Why not cover it?Ebanony (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The section on slavery is in the "Legacy" section, where 19th century info is completely relevant. But you're right that the "merciless Indian savages" and "excited domestic insurrections" line could use with some discussion. That belongs in the "Text" section, which is the only underdeveloped section of the article. Jefferson's comments directed against the British attempt to foment a race war were completely conventional, of course, and was a point made earlier by Paine's Common Sense, which said that the British "stirred up the Indians and the Negroes to destroy us". Less conventional was Jefferson's mention of "Scotch mercenaries", which is why Congress deleted that line. All of this should be discussed in an improved "Text" section. —Kevin Myers 13:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, I should have said "interesting" but not "relevant". However, I concede they've got some merit, but they're just not as important as the Dunmore, which had a direct impact on this. If anything I'd recommend condensing it, but ok with me either way. As to Paine, very true. The "Scotch" part - any particular references or writers you'd suggest using? Also, did I miss it or is there not much on the deletion from the fisrt draft with the slave trade? Any suggestions would be appreciated.Ebanony (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article perpetuate the myth that the the existance of slavery was a contradiction despite "all men are created equal?" I've done some reading on this and found out that by "all men are created equal," they were referring to men in a state of nature before God, not that all men were equal in talent and virtue. This allowed for slavery to exist since the many from that time period would argue that slaves were inferior in talent and virtue, therefore filled a certain niche. Emperor001 (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's good that you've "done some reading". Do some more, and you'll soon find competing interpretations, and not just one definitive explanation of what "they were referring to". Our job is to summarize the various interpretations, rather than picking the winners. —Kevin Myers 09:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Article Lead

I have reverted a number of unexplained and unsourced changes to the article lead. Among the POV changes were the attempt to reintroduce secession in the article (dismissed by consensus when raised by same editor -- see Archive 4 "Is "secede" a dirty word?") and to renew attacks on Abraham Lincoln that also date back to that time period. Consensus can change, but the place to demonstrate that change is here on the discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A few people were against using the more accurate "secede," but I'm hoping cooler, more rational, heads will prevail now. There is no doubt that Lincoln violated "consent of the governed" and the right of revolution of the south. Even northern newspapers said that the southern states should be allowed to secede.

In 1860 the right of states to nullify laws or seceed from the union was taught at West Point and standard constitutional theory. So though it has always been surrounded by controversy, being the resort of the politically less powerful, it's legal foundation was pretty much undisputed. The case against any given secession was based on practicality, not the right itself.

Even after seven states seceeded, northern newspapers were writing things like: "We believe that the right of any member of this confederacy to dissolve it's political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute." - Cincinatti Daily Press 11/21/1860. "The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is ... that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed ... They have a right to do so [secede]." - New York Tribune 2/5/1861. "Public opinion in the North seems to be gradually settling down in favor of recognition of the New Confederacy by the Federal Government." - Hartford Daily Courant 4/12/1861.

Hopefully, the pro-authoritarian clique that earlier controlled this article has dissipated by now. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Referring to the subject of the article, if the founding fathers had wanted to call the Declaration of Independence the "Declaration of Secession" I think they were learned enough to have chosen that word if they had wanted to. I'm not sure that "secede" is more accurate. In my understanding "independence" carries the meaning of standing apart with the meaning being explicit, secede carries the meaning of standing apart but the meaning is implicit. Shearonink (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

PhilLiberty is mistaken about how Wikipedia articles are written. All we do here is summarize the writings of the leading scholars on the Declaration. What each of us thinks about the meaning of the word "secession", or how each of us interprets newspaper articles or other period documents, etc., is completely irrelevant to our job here. Wikipedia readers don't care about our interpretations; they just want an overview of the reliable sources. If you want to write a piece that uses the Declaration to justify the legitimacy of the Confederate States, that's fine, but Wikipedia isn't the forum for that. —Kevin Myers 05:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If there were sufficient reliable sources that stated a particular synthesis of the facts, then it is possible that that synthesis itself could be notable enough for inclusion on these pages, but on the whole I agree with your assessment. Shearonink (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted today yet another effort to add "secession" to this article. Source added (DiLorenzo) is, at best, a fringe source and his book on Lincoln has no relevance to this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet again. Look Phil, you're just wrong when you say 'There is no doubt that Lincoln violated "consent of the governed" and the right of revolution of the south.' The signers of the Declaration understood that when you invoke the 'right of revolution' you take your chances — and that the stakes were "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor". King George was under no obligation to accept the colonists' bid for independence, and neither was Lincoln.

—WWoods (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Secession and Consent of the Governed

Secession says more than simply repeating "declaration of independence." Also, we should not hide the fact that presidents ignored the 'consent of the governed' principle. North Shoreman seems to favor a victor's history whitewashing of what the Dec of Ind says and its later shredding by Lincoln. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

From the article itself: "This article is about the United States historical document.'" If an editor wants to write up a separate article about "Differing views of the United States Declaration of Independence" or "How Presidents used the United States Declaration of Independence" or something similar then maybe that's a viable option. Shearonink (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Secession & Lede

Could we please discuss this issue and not just have an ongoing series of edits and reversions? Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is basically a one person crusade to advance a POV that has been repeatedly rejected in the past. The issue is the same one that caused the crusader to be blocked three times in the past. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Philip Mazzei

{{edit semi-protected}} Phillipe Mazzei's contribution is not listed in this entry.

70.160.154.46 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see what your question is. Shearonink (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably talking about Jefferson's friend Philip Mazzei and the claim (apparently modern) that Mazzei coined the phrase, "All men are created equal". The idea is often promoted in books celebrating immigration and Italian-American contributions, and was once mentioned by JFK, but I'm not aware of any scholars who endorse it. The Wikipedia article on the phrase currently reports it as true, but it cites no scholars. —Kevin Myers 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, that makes sense now (mostly).

Dealing with attribution of the phrase... The Virginia Gazette reference in All men are created equal does not cite the page, the edition or the date so that isn't useful at all and should probably be archive on Talk:All men are created equal until attribution can be cleared up (Reliable sources and all that). And actually, the phrase should more properly be ascribed to the ancient Roman maxim of "omnes homines natura aequales sunt" (I am assuming assume that Jefferson was familiar with Latin and ancient Roman sayings) which (roughly translated) is rendered as "all men by nature are equal or "all men are naturally equal" Government or human evolution by Edmond Kelly and The life and times of Niccolò Machiavelli, Volume 2 By Pasquale Villari etc. Not disregarding Mazzei's possible contributions, but I think is is safe to say that Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia and one of the most learned man of his age, was already familiar with Latin and ancient Roman sayings before he even met or knew Mazzei. -- Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicely put. Sounds like you are just the editor to fix up the All men are created equal article! Jefferson always said that the ideas in the Declaration were widely held at the time. I imagine a modern writer noticed that Mazzei expressed the sentiment in 1774 and, not realizing that the idea was a commonplace among educated Virginians, thought that Mazzei must have coined the expression and passed it along to Jefferson. I know historian Pauline Maier has pointed out other phrases, like pursuit of happiness, that have produced similar speculation, but she points out that these ideas and phrases could be found in many places before 1776. —Kevin Myers 16:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Whose grievances?

The text incorrectly says "the Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances". "Colonial" is the wrong word because it includes the Loyalists -- only Patriots wrote up the grievances in July 1776. Rjensen (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good point to me. —Kevin Myers 13:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is common usage to refer to the governments of nations (or colonies, in this case) as if they represent the collective voice of the nation that they respresent. The grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence reflected the views of the various colonial governments, as the congressional delegates were appointed by these governments and in many cases consulted closely with them. I agree that only Patriots (or "whigs", as Jefferson would say) wrote up grievances in July 1776, but by this point revolutionary leaders controlled the governments of every one of the thirteen colonies. I won't lose any sleep over this point, but "colonial" seems to reflect official views, while "Patriot" suggests a faction that didn't have political power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How about if the sentence went something like... "the Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing various colonial Patriot grievances" ? That way the particular colonial group is clearly delineated, after all, the Tory/Loyalist faction were colonials but they didn't have the grievances against the King's government that their Whig/Patriot brethren did. Shearonink (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that many loyalists shared the grievances, but they didn't think they were worth fighting for. Many colonial leaders who as late as 1774 raised their voices against British policies ultimately stayed loyal to the crown. So for that reason as well, "colonial grievances" seems to be a fitting phrase, but it might not be the best.--Other Choices (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Loyalists did share some grievances but we're talking about the list in the Declaration, which are intensely anti-king. This is the most famous single document of the Patriots and they deserve full credit for it. There is no reason to use the word "colonial" here unless we mean to include the Loyalists and neutrals, and we do not. Rjensen (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that is overstated, Rjensen. I gave a reason for using "colonial" which you simply ignored. The list of grievances in the Declaration was very similar to the list of grievances endorsed by the First Continental Congress in 1774, before independence was widely advocated: see [1774 Declaration of Rights and Grievances] The difference, as you mentioned, was that the focus in 1776 was on the king, not Parliament. However, the grievances were the same.--Other Choices (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

the Loyalists did NOT support the Declaration but the ambiguity in the text allows that possibility. that is a flaw. How about "grievances of the American Patriots." Rjensen (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The simplest approach is to just remove the adjective: "The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing grievances against King George III...." This works fine, unless people think we should link Patriot (American Revolution) in the lede. —Kevin Myers 16:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll go along with Rjensen's suggestion; I like the idea of linking to Patriot in the lede. However, I'm concerned about the simple statement that the grievances justified independence. The grievances were examples given in conjunction with the philosophy of legitimate government and revolution expounded in the Declaration's second paragraph. Maybe we can revisit that one later.--Other Choices (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

how about "The Declaration proclaimed the grievances of the Patriots against the king." Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that "proclaim" and "grievances" don't go well together. Maybe, as Kevin Myers suggests, it's simply best to delete "colonial."--Other Choices (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)