Talk:Declaration of Independence (United States)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 25 Nov 2005 to 3 Nov 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Declaration of Independence (United States)/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Contents

Not a Secession Document Because

Revolutions seek to replace current governments or to seek independence from colonial rule, while secession movements seek to separate from current governments in which the party seeking separation already has a voice. The Colonies had no voice, hence the reason it is a revolution. --Kev62nesl 05:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Physical document

There should be a section on the history of the actual physical document (the signed version), the efforts at conservation, etc. --JW1805 17:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this, anyone got more information on it, please add to it. In my honest oppinion, it would be a great addition to this article. - Anyr (Not logged in & at school)

References

I have reverted the addition of template {{unreferenced}} by Piotrus. After visiting the external links I feel that adequate references are provided for this article. It is my opinion that a burden need be placed on those flagging articles as {{unreferenced}}, especially mature articles such as this. Specifically, they should be required to list the specific facts asserted by the article for which they feel there are not adequate references. Otherwise it is too easy to flag articles (which, by the way, would easily comprise the vast majority of all Wikipedia articles), and put the entire burden of proof on others. So in other words, providing a link to Wikipedia:Cite sources is hardly justification, in and of itself, as to why the article was flagged. If the submitter took to time to look closely at the article, and examine the Wikipedia articles it links to, as well as the external references, then they could take the minor additional effort to list the areas in which it was lacking. However, considering Piotrus flagged this article at most one minute after flagging Polish notation, they obviously only spent one minute looking at this article, which leads me to believe they did not actually examine the external references. --Dan East 04:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Update - after discussing the issue with Piotrus the reason he flagged the article is clear. While references were provided, they were not appropriately labeled as such - the article had no References section. The problem should now be remedied; I created a references section and moved the appropriate external links into it. --Dan East 20:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

King George

Royal assent

Question about this sentence: "Many historians maintain that some of the grievances are ... complete falsehoods (such as that King George had "refuted his Assent to Laws" and was "refusing his Assent to Laws," when in fact no British monarch has refused royal assent to a law since Queen Anne in 1708)." For purposes of the colonies, I assume that it would have been the Royal Governors who would have been the ones to refuse assent. Obviously, all the colonies weren't sending laws back to England for signing (or were they?). So, the question is, did any of the governors really refuse assent to any laws? Also, "refusing assent" could be referring to a governor dissolving a legislature that was about to pass laws he didn't like (which did, in fact, happen). --JW1805 (Talk) 22:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Once again, JW1805, as a constitutional Sovereign King George III was powerless to stop any of that, so "indicting" him personally as a tyrant for doing so is something that many historians maintain was more false propaganda in the "indictment" section of the Declaration. The important statement here is not that it is an absolute truth, or something that "JW1805 says," but rather the statement is something that many historians maintain. Again, see Professor Hibbert's 1996 biography (with cites) of George III. As such, this should rightly be included. 65.28.2.172 04:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A source ([1]) says that "absolute executive vetoes were still exercised by some royal governors within the American colonies." So the "he has refused his assent" is a valid complaint. I think, 65.28.2.172, that your argument is that it was unfair to personally blame George III for these things, since he really didn't have anything to do with it. But, in this context, "the King" means "the British Government, Parliament, Royal Governors, etc.", not George III as a person (obviously, the King didn't come over to the colonies to personally dissolve legislatures, etc.). Maybe some general statement can be included about this, to avoid confusion? --JW1805 (Talk) 20:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, JW1805, need I state that the inclusion was not that you or I think that the charges in question were "unfair," but that many historians do indeed maintain that they were propaganda, falsehoods, or what have you. That many historians so maintain is an accurate, factual statement, and should well be included. Given the facts that (1) the declaration's charges were intended to portray the King himself as a tyrant, and not merely His Majesty's Government, and many colonists viewed it as stating such, and (2) given the constitutional structure of the Westminster system - even in the 18th century - King George was powerless to prevent his Government from exercising such vetoes, that the historians who maintain as such believe what they do is a perfectly valid, rational belief. Pursuant to Wikipedia's neutrality principles, I strongly suggest that both the veto falsehood section and the slave trade section ought rightly to be included. Again, though, if you so heartily refuse to do so, it appears that (much like the King) I am powerless to prevent you from excluding them. 65.28.2.172 01:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Why single out just these two grievances? By your logic, every one of them is false. Are we to put, "Many historians maintain that King George III didn't personally dissolve the colonial legislatures, so this change is false propaganda". That just doesn't make sense. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No, JW1805, if you read what I had included, it was an example of the alleged falsehoods in the indictment, and I included that one particularly because it had an additional interesting fact linked elsewhere in Wikipedia that pertained to the particular falsehood. Again, it's not my logic per se, but rather something that "many historians maintain," as I had written. As such, they should properly be included. It seems to me, however, that you aren't following the neutrality principles of Wikipedia, and even though it is commonly-held assertion by historians, the statement about falsehoods offends your personal beliefs, so you're refusing to include it. That just doesn't seem right. I suggest, again, that you allow in the information in question. 65.28.2.172 07:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
As you, JW1805, a moderator, are unwilling to include a legitimate historical perspective held by numerous academics simply because you happen to disagree with that perspective, or personally think it to be wrong (yet an equally valid historical perspective held by numerous academics), I strongly dispute the neutrality of this article. A Wikipedia article about the American Declaration of Independence is not merely a forum for what JW1805 and historians sharing his perspective believe - its articles are to remain unbiased and neutral. 65.28.2.172 03:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm just an editor. Wikipedia works by trying to achieve consensus. I have already put in the statement "The grievances are directed personally at the King (as in "He has refused his Assent to Laws..."), although many of them refer to actions taken by the British Parliament or the Royal Governors" which is true, and should address the issues you seem to be concerned about. The sentence about some grivences being exaggerated was already included. So I don't quite know what you have a problem with. Including long sections about King George III and his personal opinions doesn't seem to be relevant to this article. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Under the "indictment" section of the article, the current paragraph only adresses the issue of "exaggerated propaganda" in the Declaration, whereas the sentence that I added there (and you removed) concerned blatant "falsehoods." Under the section of the article concerning changes between the draft and final copies, you removed my inclusion asserting that many historians maintain that to charge the King with promoting the slave trade would have been another example of a "falsehood" in the indictment section. Both of these statements are perfectly valid points of view about a very important part of the Declaration. They rightly deserve to be included, and are highly relevant to the subject matter. I have re-included both passages. 65.28.2.172 07:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
They are not "blatant falshoods". What is your source for that assertion? ("many historians" is not good enough). The problem here is that you read "the King" as George III as an individual person who has opinions, whereas "the King" in the Declaration of Independence refers to the monarch of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and all the ministers and officers who act in his name. Read this way, the "he has refused assent" is 100% true, and "he has allowed the slave trade" is 100% true. To take into account your views, I inserted the sentence clarifing this, which should settle the matter. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That "Blatant falsehoods" is so patently POV verbiage is beyond dispute. The same point can be made in an objective manner, and I believe the mod has made his case.--Buckboard 04:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

King George and the slave trade

I'm removing the paragraph by 65.28.2.172 (talk · contribs):

It should be noted, however, that many historians maintain that charging King George, himself, with promoting the slave trade would have also been another falsehood in the declaration's indictment section (see indictment, above). In actuality, the King himself was vehemently opposed to slavery and the slave trade, and he actively voiced support for its abolition throughout his 60-year reign (see George III by Christopher Hibbert).

Because I think it is basically irrelevant. It doesn't matter what King George's personal opinions were, the fact is the slave trade was legal. The indictment is directed to the King as the monarch of Great Britain, not as an individual person. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Also, the section about the slave trade wasn't included in the final version anyway. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The statement was not what YOU think, JW1805, the statement was of what "many historians maintain." See Professor Christopher Hibbert's very informative 1996 biography entitled "George III." To call King George a "tyrant" for personally upholding the slave trade would be erroneous, as he was very much against slavery and the slave trade and desired its abolition. As a constitutional monarch, he was, however, personally incapable of abolishing the slave trade. As such, this was yet another piece of false propaganda against the King, much like the "royal assent" section of the Declaration. This is something that many historians maintain, in the course of discussing the "indictment" of His Majesty as political propaganda. As such, the section ought rightly to be returned. Of course, if you so heartily refuse to do so, then much like King George I am powerless to make you do so. 65.28.2.172 04:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with JW1805. --Dan East 05:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the paragraph under the Differences between draft and final versions for two reasons: First, it does not matter what the King's personal stance was on the issue - he is being addressed as the head of the monarchy, as bearing ultimate responsibility for his government. Second, it states "another falsehood" which implies that the Declaration, in its final version, contains complete falsehoods. The current wording regarding that is that a portion of historians assert that it contains falsehoods, which is an opinion on the part of some historians. That does not mean it is fact. --Dan East 12:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I believe that the article, as it stood at at the time its neutrality was disputed, already conformed to a NPOV. I feel that it was flagged by the anonymous editor 65.28.2.172 because his agenda - to portrait the Declaration as a personal attack against the King, as well as make speculative comments about draft versions of the Declaration - was being denied by multiple Wikipedians (myself included). --Dan East 13:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I wholly disagree. As Wikipedia's own NPOV policy statement says, "Bias need not be conscious," and as also stated, "that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral. The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with." The article in its current form does not address the valid - albeit minority - revisionist point of view, held by many 18th Century English historians (including Christopher Hibbert - fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and biographer of King George III, J.C.D. Clark - University of Kansas, J.H. Plumb - Oxford University, Peter Thomas - University of Nottingham, and a great plethora of others) that the section of the declaration "indicting" King George made use of a great number of falsehoods, attributing certain actions of legislatures and elected/appointed governments, both in the Colonies and in Britain, to the King in a personal light, and by so doing falsely accuse King George of a tyrranical mindset that he did not have, especially in the light of real-life limitations placed on his power by virtue of his position as a constitutional and not absolute monarch. Wikipedia is replete with minority historical views of this sort; look at any article on a historical subject that says "some maintain that..." or "some say that..." or "some believe that...". These minority statements are necessary to maintain a neutral point of view on the subject. Even the article in its current state includes some statements in such a vein. So, the bottom line: the article in its current state may not be consciously biased, but removing the statements that I included (in good faith, mind you) hampered neutrality. If anything, the article in its current state displays a bias in favor of both the aims and historicity of claims in the Declaration. This is wholly contrary to Wikipedia's neutral point of view standard. It is a FACT that many historians believe that, in passing the Declaration worded as it is, the Continental Congress sought to direct the sentiments of the colonial public against their king by including false accusations (i.e. "royal assent," i.e. what the slavery clause would have been were it included, i.e. dissolution of legislatures, &c.) to making the King appear personally responsible (and therefore "a tyrant") for them. This is not some "agenda" that I am putting forth, but rather a perfectly legitimate, valid, historical point of view that the article in its current form neglected and neglects either to include or to even address. As such, I strongly dispute the neutrality of this article. The two sentences I wrote ought rightly to be included. 65.28.2.172 22:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Again, I put in "The grievances are directed personally at the King (as in "He has refused his Assent to Laws..."), although many of them refer to actions taken by the British Parliament or the Royal Governors. " Doesn't that address your concern? Again, as I stated above, the "royal assent" accusation is not false, since the representatives of the King did refuse assent to laws. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think 65.28.2.172 is right that the contents he proposes have a place in the article. But I think the two sentences were not as well written as they might have been, and he has provided the suggestion of sources, above, that were lacking when he edited the article. I would suggest that he re-draft the suggested inclusion, and provide full sources (authors, book titles, page numbers, etc.), preferably here on the talk page first, and then, after discussion, add it to the article. It might work best as a stand-alone section ("Criticisms of the D of I?", something like that). And yes, it might incorporate JW1805's suggestion that the document subsumed charges that could properly be leveled only against parliament under the King's name. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Will do, Mwanner. You'll see it within the next couple of days. 65.28.2.172 02:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The sentence I added takes care of what you are talking about. It you want to make it stronger (maybe say "...since the King was powerless to prevent certain acts by his representatives....") that may be OK (as long as it is well written). But providing an itemized list of things the King disagreed with his ministers about is unnecessary and absurd. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I will put up a section in the next few days conforming precisely with what Mwanner suggested. If you delete it, I will continue to contest the neutrality of the article, and will again put an NPOV notice at the top of the article. Your included sentence, JW1805, doesn't begin to address the point of view that I have been discussing. You can disagree with the historians I cite on a substantive level, but your persistent removal of their very valid point of view regarding the substance of the Declaration is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. That is the bottom line. 65.28.2.172 15:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, it seems to me that the sentence I included takes care of the NPOV requirement. Your argument seems to me to be this:

  • The Declaration of Independence accuses George III of a series of crimes. They are addressed directly at him (as in "He has refused his assent to laws...").
  • King George III, personally, did not agree with many of the policies of his government that the Declaration complains about.
  • As a constitutional monarch, King George was powerless to do anything about it.
  • Therefore, it is unfair for the Declaration to accuse him of these things and call him a tyrant.

Is this a correct statement of your view (or the view of "many historians")? If so, that's fine. The sentence I added addresses this viewpoint. In what way do you think it doesn't? Putting a long diatrab about the slave trade (when the slave trade reference wasn't actually in the Declaration anyway) is pointless. This isn't an article about King George III and his opinions. If you want to add something, please put it on the talk page first, and we'll discuss it.--JW1805 (Talk) 16:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Historical analysis

I find the article too descriptive and not very helpful in explaining the contents of the DOI. Some examples: - Why was the paragraph about the slave trade edited out? - What does "abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighboring Province" refer to, and "subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws"? - "raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands" - meaning that the American colonies wished to annect more Indian territory, which the Crown had forbidden in the Royal Declaration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.86.141.133 (talk • contribs) 17:13, December 9, 2005.

The part on slavery was cut out mainly because states such as Massachusetts earned alot of money on slave-trading. They went to Africa and traded rum for slaves - then they most commonly went to the British West Indies to trade slaves for money - and back again to Boston to buy more rum for a new trip. One of the most lucrative businesses of the Harbours was this trading of slaves. - that's why they wanting the paragraph to be excluded from the Declaration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.225.216.23 (talk • contribs) .

The Neighbouring Province is that of Province of Quebec (today's Canada). They abolished English law with French law which was more absolute in comparison to monarchy ( before French Revolution). But it understandable since most inhabitants in Quebec-area were French. For further info read the Quebec-Act of 1764 which is the reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.225.216.23 (talk • contribs) .

Disputes about Authorship

I have removed the following nicely written addition to the article (See here), because it is entirely unsupported by modern historical research. Even it's proponents call it merely "plausible". It's just not encyclopedic. --Mwanner | Talk 22:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed, not supported by history. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Treasure

Is there a treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence?

Yeah but someone already found it. Roydosan 09:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a myth from the movie "National Treasure". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.31.73 (talk • contribs) 00:58, November 4, 2006

What is at the National Archives?

I changed the wording from copy to draft. Anything before the signed version is just a draft, the signed version is how everyone thinks of the DoI, not the handwritten copies or Jeffersons notes also legally speaking anything not signed by all parties involved is just a draft. The signed copy is the important one, and when people read that the origianal was lost it give the impression that the signed copy was lost, which is not the case, so for clearity I changed the wording. --Kev62nesl 11:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice that Pascal666 seems to want to change how the article refers to the copy of the DoI at the National Archives. Originally, the article said "the original signed copy", which he didn't like, and made a statement in his edit summary that "the original was lost". Not sure what he was talking about there, I guess maybe Jefferson's draft? Then I tried to clarify the statement by saying "The handwritten copy signed by the delegates to the Congress", but he didn't like that either and changed it to "A handwritten copy signed by most of the delegates to the Congress". Now the "A" seems to suggest that there were other handwritten copies signed by the delagates, which I don't think is true. The "most of the delagates" is true, but it does create a cumbersome sentence. I still think "handwritten signed copy" conveys the necessary information.--JW1805 (Talk) 04:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The original handwritten document as ratified by the continental congress and signed by the President and the Secretary of the Congress on July 4th, 1776 was sent that night to the printing shop of John Dunlap ***and never seen again***, thus my edit summary note that "the original was lost". The oldest surviving copies are those copies Dunlap printed that night. The original wording of this article, "the original signed copy", makes it sound like the copy that was lost is the one on display.
I would simply like it to be clear to readers that it is not The "handwritten signed copy" that was ratified, but simply a ceremonial "handwritten signed copy" that is actually on display, thus my original edit to "A ceremonial signed copy". IMHO, "The handwritten copy", even with the trailing qualification "signed by the delegates to the Congress", still makes it sound too much like "The original handwritten copy" for the casual reader to discern. In this case the "A" in my edit was in reference to "handwritten copy" not "handwritten copy signed by the delegates to the Congress". I agree that the "signed by the delegates to the Congress" is a bit cumbersome, and that entire part of the sentence should probably be removed, which I guess you could say is really why the "A" was basically ignoring it.
Not sure what the objection was to my original edit to "A ceremonial signed copy". A copy of a document made weeks later and signed a month later is just about the definition of a ceremonial copy, and in fact the first hit on a Google search for "ceremonial copy" is to a page talking about the "ceremonial copy" of the DoI on display at the National Archives. --Pascal666 06:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that "original" is misleading. I'm just not sure about "ceremonial". This document was officially produced by the Congress, signed by (most of) the delegates, and has gone down in history as the official handwritten version. The problem I had with the "A" in "A signed copy", makes it sound like there were other copies floating around that were signed by the delagates, which isn't true. "The" makes it clearer that there exists only one handwritten copy signed by the delagates, and that is the one at the National Archives.--JW1805 (Talk) 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoever termed the lost copy a "draft" is correct. Signed by two people for authenticity--the President and Secretary of the Congress (Hancock and Thomson)--to the printer of the broadsides. It would have been a significant artifact--but it was not a document in the governmental sense. Only the engrossed copy signed by the delegates is that document--clearly with far more significance than the original draft read July 2 to the delegates, clearly more than the 25 broadsides still said to be surviving. The copy signed August 2 is the document upon which they staked their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor." Anything that obfuscates that meaning is detrimental to an understanding of the Declaration and the importance that the U.S. government and most if not all historians place on the document in the National Archives--and therefore detrimental to the encylcopedia article. This "ceremonial" document was handsigned and would have gotten its signers hanged. The word demeans the act.--Buckboard 04:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Where was the Declaration of Independence signed?

I couldn't find on the page where the Declaration of Independence was signed. If it's already there could someone make it a little more noticable for I presume it would be information of some nessecarity. In an encyclopedia "World Book" it says something about being assmebled at the State House in Philadelphia to take up a matter of vital importance.
--Diablo735 08:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I was also looking for the answer to this question and Wikipedia was the first place I came. After further research at other sites it looks like it was signed in Independence Hall but I'm not sure about that. As I understand from my research it was probably signed in many locations due to the fact that not everybody was there at the initial signing. The question I would like answered though is At what location was the Declaration of Independence FIRST signed?.
--JoshLMeyer 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Myth?

Were any of them really freemasons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.224.112 (talk • contribs) 00:40, March 1, 2006.

It has been confirmed that at least 9 of the 56 men who signed the Declaration were Freemasons, although some less credible evidence and claims do indicate that there may have been an additional 10-13 signer's who were Masons. Avador 00:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

AID

I'm nominating this for AID, it really should be a featured article.

Annotated test is not complete, and other issues

Shouldn't Annotated text of the Declaration contain the Declaration's full text? Including the grievances? Or the section renamed? The section is currently more like Annotated excerpts of the Declaration. The grievances are not historical trivia -- consider what a current Iraqi might think of them.

Perhaps the section might be restructured so the organization and annotation doesn't obscure the text so much? Currently, one really has to go to some other site to easily see and read the text.

The article should mention that the text shown has been modified (spelling, punctuation, whatever else).

The original variously uses Capitalization, a slightly larger font, and bold face, for emphasis. Mainly in the last paragraph. The text in the article uses leaves capitalization, converts larger font sometimes to capitalization (!, eg "publish and declare") and sometimes to ALL CAPS, and bold to ALL CAPS. Aside from the inconsistency, there are places where the choices don't match the image. Information is lost (UNITED STATES should be "united States"). And some changes are just odd (original is "Supreme Judge of the world", lowercase). It might be nice if the copy editing were improved. The Wikisource text has similar issues.

Regards layout, perhaps something like:

The text of the Declaration of Independence can be divided into five sections: the introduction, the preamble, the indictment of George III, the denunciation of the British people, and the conclusion. (Note that these five headings are not part of the text of the document.)

Introduction

In CONGRESS, July 4 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.

Preamble

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 Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

The preamble is presented as a logical demonstration, with one proposition leading to another proposition. From the first proposition (that all men are created equal), a chain of logic is produced that leads to the right and responsibility of revolution when a government becomes destructive of the people's rights.

Indictment

Such has been the patient Sufferance so these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid World.

The signers then list 27 grievances against the British Crown. The grievances are directed personally at the King (as in "He has refused his Assent to Laws..."), although many of them refer to actions taken by the British Parliament or the Royal Governors. Many of the grievances are examples of violations of fundamental English law, such as "imposing taxes on us without our Consent", and "depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury". Many historians maintain that some of the grievances are exaggerated propaganda (such as the "Swarms of Officers" in truth referring to about fifty men ordered to prevent smuggling).

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

End of grievances.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

Denunciation

Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

Conclusion

The signers assert that (since conditions exist under which people must change their government, and the British have produced such conditions) the colonies must necessarily throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States Of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; 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; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

—This unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.55 (talk • contribs) 05:23, April 2, 2006.

Resource

I hope this proves a valuable resource. —This unsigned comment was added by Allixpeeke (talk • contribs) 11:00, April 3, 2006 .

Secession document?

What the hell else could it be? Does the choice of words make some of you feel uncomfortable? That's too bad then. 69.118.97.26 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Get a dictionary and acquire an understanding of what "secession" is. The signers weren't dissolving a union agreed-upon previously. they were forcibly dissolving "bonds" between peoples, and in fact committing treason--if they lost.--Buckboard 04:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The act of secession is typically characterized as treason by those that a person or people are freeing themselves from. - MSTCrow 22:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Document Text is NOT Faithful

The section entitled Full text of the Declaration states that "The original spelling and capitalization has been retained." However, the text produced in that section does NOT have the same capitalization. It may seem a minor point, but maintaining such accuracy can reveal subtle nuances in the original document.

In the opening paragraphs you show only "God" and "Creator" as capitalized. Clearly "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" and "unalienable Rights" and "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" all are incorrectly reproduced.

Equally disturbing is the section entitled Annotated test is not complete, and other issues. In that section, the author has gone TOO far, inserting capitalization where none exists. Examples include:

" When, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation. "

This is not an exhaustive list; such errors are scattered throughout both versions of the test.

--70.162.189.41 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The Preamble is not "presented as a syllogism"

The text of the Preamble subsection states: "The preamble is presented as a syllogism, with one proposition leading to another proposition. The starting point are the three truths declared to be "self-evident", namely, that (1) all men are created equal, (2) God has given all men certain rights, and (3) included among which rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. From that first proposition, a chain of logic is produced that leads to the right and responsibility of revolution when a government becomes destructive of the people's rights."

It is not a syllogism. There are more than two terms. It is a sorities, however. Slartoff 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is neither; the middle terms are suppressed. "chain of logic", I suppose. Septentrionalis 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm, yes, you are right. This paragraph fails to mention the other premises, e.g. government being justified by the consent of the governed; that governments should not be lightly replaced; that "a long Train of Abuses and Usurptations" means replacement is not hasty.
I think the paragraph should be removed. As it stands, it is too vague and it is erroneous. However, the Preamble is an informal argument. To expand the commentary paragraph would end up making its length close to that of the Preamble, and, IMO not give any information that could not be easily obtained from the Preamble itself. Plus, expansion would almost turn it into an exercise from a logic course — which is probably not something wanted on this page. Slartoff 02:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Feel free; it's probably User:Zephraim Stark anyway. Septentrionalis 21:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Edits

1) Alliance is linked to the disambiguation page. I think in this context that makes sense. Otherwise, it should link to the Wiktionary entry. Anjin 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

2) Others?

John Hancock

Cut from Myths:

  • An unfounded legend states that John Hancock signed his name so large that King George III would be able to read it without his spectacles. In point of fact, other examples of his signature indicate that he typically signed his name in this way [2]. It might also be because since he was the first to sign it, he had all the room he wanted to sign.
  • Much like the previous, another myth states that John Hancock had bad eyesight himself and was therefore forced to sign his name large. This is, of course, not verified. [citation needed]

The first one seems partly mistaken. Hancock was under a death sentence for treason at the time, as it was well known to the British crown that he was a leader (if not the leader) of the "underground". His prominent signature - at the top and center of all the signers - would be seen as defiance of King.

The second one hardly needs mention. Who's ever heard of someone with poor eyesight that couldn't write small? (You don't need to see well, to do write.) --Uncle Ed 13:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • debunked by Snopes: Hancock typically signed his name in the fancy, large script so familiar to us, and the reason his name appears in the middle of the top row of the Declaration is because, as president of the Continental Congress, he was the only delegate to affix his signature to it on July 4, on behalf of Congress. [3]
  • example of treason: When John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and other founding fathers signed this statement, they did not sign some empty philosophical statement, they signed their death warrant. This action displayed their dedication to the cause of American independence and the ultimate disloyalty to King George the Third. [4]
  • Lead signer: elected president of the Continental Congress in 1775. As such, Hancock was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence in July of 1776. He wrote his name at the center of the page in extra-large script. Referring to a bounty the British had put on the heads of revolutionaries, he remarked, "The British ministry can read that name without spectacles; let them double their reward." [5]

Semiprotect temporarily?

Would semiprotecting this article be the way to deal with the temporary popularity of this among IPs due to The Onion mention? We have enough admins looking at this page to deal quickly with vandalism, but I wonder if a quick and temporary semiprotect would do the job better. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I think there's enough eyes on it and the vandalism was really only the first day. Perhaps some of these people will realize that editing is fun and easy and will get involved more seriously? -- cmh 18:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
True enough. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Onion

The Onion: Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence. :) /skagedal... 21:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

On these edits that I reverted:

  • " ... with formal recognition given at the Treaty of Paris (1783) " is unnecessary and confusing. Recognition by whom? France certainly recognized independence before this (and also Spain, I believe). Anyway, it has nothing to do with this article.
  • The stuff on Christian philosophy needs to be sourced. I don't think doctrine of the Incarnation really much influenced the Preamble.
  • "Many of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons; their meetings were usually where they concocted ideas behind the Declaration..." is poorly written, and unsourced. Jefferson wrote the Declaration, he wasn't meeting with Freemasons to "concoct" it.... --JW1805 (Talk) 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not US

This wasn't the United States declaring Independence from Great Britain, as the US didn't even exist by name and theory until 1789 when the USA replaced the Confederacy, which had existed under the Articles of Confederation. These were sovereign States with no particular system of unity, who had been colonies, declaring independence from Great Britain en mass. The title should be something along the lines of "British-American Colonies Declaration of Independence," or "Declaration of Independence of the British-American Colonies from Great Britain." - MSTCrow 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

    • The United States did exist both in name and theory before the Constitutions ratification. The Declaration's use of "United States" may simply have meant the rebel colonies, however the Articles of Confederation clearly bound the colonies into one nation, as weak as the central government may have been. So while after the Declaration's ratification they may have been sovereign states in a collective alliance, they were under a single government at the time of the Constitution's ratification. --YankeeDoodle14 00:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
As of July 4 1776 there were no more colonies--they were states amd they formed a country that called itself "The United States of America." Independence meant they were no longer colonies of Britain. and a new country had to have a name. Rjensen 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)