Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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)

Yes, it's true. People have found copies of the Declaration in flea market/thrift shops. (See Snopes.Com) has an article about the 1989 flea market find(a Dunlap printed broadside that sold for 2.42 million in 1991 and 8.14 million in 2000) and the 2006 thrift shop find of an 1820 official(John Quincy Adams) printed copy (which sold for $477,650 in 2007).

There is also the discovery (announced August 18, 2008) by a Tom Lingenfelter of an Anastatic Declaration in a 'lot sale' (See PhiloBiblios(Philadelphia Book news)) and (True Copy of Original Declaration Discovered(24-7 Press Release.Com)). This document is one of three true copies of the handwritten original now known to exist. (See Heritage Collectors Society Inc-Anastatic Facsimile of the Declaration of Independence) The Lingenfelter Anastatic Declaration when found was listed for sale as 'a memorabilia copy created for the Centennial'(1876) and had been coated in varnish sometime in its past. There is a slide-show of the conservation of this document at (See Heritage Muse Document Conservation). The Lingenfelter Declaration is also wrongly claimed by its owner and others (including Fraunces Tavern Museum, Independence Hall National Park archivists and Mr. Lingenfelter) to be one of only two known copies of this edition.(See 'Foundations of Freedom' at Fraunces Tavern Museum). Christie's Auction House sold an unvarnished Anastatic Declaration on June 20, 2009 for $25,000 that was in better shape than the two varnished copies. (See Declaration of Independence Auction). Very interesting stuff. Oh, and in the interest of full-disclosure?...Mr. Lingenfelter is identified as the President of the Heritage Collectors' Society in the Heritage Muse link above.Shearonink (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin wrote the draft

I'm writing a research paper Wiki as being a reliable resource for the educational system, and research as a whole. I've yet to convince my professor, and would like to make an edit. Benjamin Franklin had drafted the Constitution and I can provide a source for the edit as well. I would like to edit: Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, and drafted by Benjamin Franklin, ... Thanks in advanced in regards to this matter, ((kreid2084)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreid2084 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you've perhaps placed your comment in the wrong place. This Talkpage is for comments about the Declaration of Independence article not for the Wikipedia article about the Constitution. In any case, anyone is free to edit, just make sure that your edits are scrupulously refernced from reliable sources...the Declaration article has 292 'watchers' and the Constitution has 747...that means there are a lot of people who are interested in any changes to both these articles. Take a look at Help:Getting started and Wikipedia:Your first article for some great tips and tutorials on writing for WIkipedia before you start doing edits. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many men who could claim principal authorship of the Constitution, chief among them being James Madison. A few others could also be counted as one of the document's, many authors including Governeur Morris. Thorpe's Constitutional HIstory of the United States seems to be a fairly well-reasoned approach and quotes Morris on its Page 265 as claiming some credit for a certain provision, there's also James Wilson who is characterized as 'one of the principal authors on Page 21 Shearonink (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have a source that claims that Franklin drafted the Declaration or the Constitution, then either you've misunderstood the source, or it's not a good source. See WP:Identifying reliable sources to determine if your source is a good one. Although Franklin was an experienced writer, and provided editorial advice and insight on both occasions, he drafted neither document, in part because he was not in the best of health while they were being written. —Kevin Myers 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the posts. After looking up the resource once again I had realized that I did indeed misinterpret the content. It was the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. However, I had read that Franklin did not draft the document due to the belief of others that given his wit, he would have but a joke in it. kreid2084Kreid2084 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Details of adoption vote

The article is missing some details of the actual adopting vote on July 4, 1776. If these details are known please add them. For example, at what time of the day was the vote taken? What was the seating arrangement? Was the vote unanimous in favor not just in Congress as a whole, but within the several delegations in Congress as well? Were there non-members in the room, and if so, who and how many, and where were they located? Was there still discussion of the declaration on the day of the vote itself? Where there any other votes taken on the same day? In what order was the vote taken? Who presided on that day? How was the vote taken, by calling on the delegations one by one, or by "all in favor say aye"? If the former, who answered for each delegation? Are the minutes of that day preserved? If so, who wrote them, and where are they today? Are they accessible on-line? And other details that might seem minor, but would allow a reader to form a clearer picture in their mind of the actual events of that fateful day. -- 77.7.148.119 (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

These are all good questions but, surprisingly, the answers to most of them are unknown. We can't even be sure how many people were in the room, and if anything was signed on that day. No one thought to record the details at the time—they had too many other pressing concerns—and the secrecy rule prevented the creation of the kinds of minutes and notes you'd normally expect. It was only years later, when people became interested in the details, that signers provided some recollections. Even then, their memories sometimes conflicted with each other or with the scant historical records. Was the vote taken early in the morning or late in the day? Accounts disagree. All of this historical trivia is probably too much to include anyway—this is an encylopedia article and not a book, after all. But if there are omitted details that others think really should be included, let's hear about it. —Kevin Myers 14:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

the "List of Signers" should read "List (or Record) of Signatories" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.30.48.43 (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia practice and commonly-accepted American usage has been to call them 'Signers' as in List of signers of the United States Constitution and List of signers of the Dedham Covenant. Shearonink (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence as Object of Propaganda (New Section?)

Been doing research on human rights declarations in wiki. See Cyrus Cylinder. Perhaps we need to include a section on the US Declaration of Independence as instrument of propaganda, as found in other articles. Thoughts? GoetheFromm (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if you could be more specific it would be easier to understnad what you want. I'm not sure I understand what it is you want to do.Ebanony (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm also unclear about GoetheFromm's semi-proposed section on the possible propaganda uses of the Declaration of Independence. Not sure a new 'propaganda' section is necessary as the recent edits to Cyrus Cylinder are mostly regarding the Pahlavi government's use of it during the recent past of the 20th Century. Shearonink (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually Shearonink, the majority of the article is on the Cyrus Cylinder used as an object of propaganda, not the Pahlavi's government's use. Read the article.

Regarding propaganda and the Declaration of Independence (henceforth DOI)...on the Cyrus Cylinder page, the usage of the word propaganda is defended by:

1)"This is an encyclopedia, and there are many, many reliable sources discussing propaganda - which is not a dirty word. See [1]. This has nothing to do with nationality, and I think you misunderstand the term 'propaganda'. Every ruler (at almost every level) uses propaganda. Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)"

2) "Propaganda doesn't have to be negative, as our article says, "Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position." So a declaration promoting human rights is propaganda. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)"

3) ''"I think you greatly underestimate the scholarly sources discussing Persian propaganda and specifically this cylinder. [2] What we should be doing is broadening the discussion of the cylinder as propaganda, not trying to ignore or remove it. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)"

4) "Since there are multiple reliable sources using the word propaganda in connection with Cyrus, the Cyrus cylinder, etc, there can be no question about the validity of using the word. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)"

Now, given these points in relation to the Cyrus Cylinder in which the propaganda is mentioned at least 13 times, I am asking if the DOI article needs a section addressing it as an object of propaganda.

A) A very simple Google search of the "Declaration of Independence" together with "Propaganda" will yield 471,000 results. A google search of "Cyrus Cylinder" together with "Propaganda" will yield 15,900 results.

B) Are we to assume that, in the history United States, that no president, politician, or writer EVER used the DOI for propoganda?

So, I am proposing that we address this discrepancy. As mentioned before, propaganda is mentioned in Cyrus Cylinder at least 13 times, yet in the Declaration of Independence it is not mentioned once.

Hope this clears up my point. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you'd like to reach a consensus about possible changes in an article, I'd suggest that you try to take a more reasoned approach to other editors' comments, especially when you're the one who is asking for a response. I was simply offering my thoughts, not attacking yours. Shearonink (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I've given you the wrong impression, Shearonink...I'm not quite sure how you feel I'm not using a reasoned approach. I believe that I was offering you more background to what you felt was unclear, as per concerns. If you felt that my response was an attack, I'm sorry. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean so that I won't do it again to you or other editors. GoetheFromm (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for veering off-topic. I will post any further thoughts I have about this on your Talkpage GoetheFromm. (I think it is best to try to keep an article's talkpage reserved for discussion of the article itself.) Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Before we get too distracted with irrelevant comparisons with another Wikipedia article (which is not a reliable source by our own definition; it makes zero difference for this article if "propaganda" is mentioned in that article once or a thousand times), let's remember the one and only thing that matters in such cases is: what do the reliable sources say? Which scholars of the Declaration of Independence discuss the Declaration in terms of propaganda? I imagine there are some. Any further discussion on this point that does not mention a specific reliable source is just wasting everyone's time. —Kevin Myers 23:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Shearonink (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you KevinMyers, that the one and only thing that matters is: 1) to address what reliable sources say, 2) which scholars describe DOI as propoganda, 3) etc..

Let's also agree that my comparison with another Wikipedia article (ie, Cyrus Cylinder) was illustrative, and not to be taken as evidence, but rather to clarify the introduction of a new section.

That being said, will look for some sources re:propaganda and DOI and introduce them here in talk page to further discussion on this point. GoetheFromm (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a WP:POINT issue I believe. The fact is that many scholars discuss propaganda in various places and times in ancient history, and specifically they discuss the Cyrus cylinder as an example of propaganda. It has also had a use in modern history as propaganda. It would have been nice if I'd been notified about this discussion since I'm being quoted. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

DougWeller, you've personally asked me to inform you henceforth when quoting you. Will do so as courtesy should I ever decide to quote you again. Your poignant points were quoted because of their value and to demonstrate the existence of justifications on other pages, so as to assist a discussion of introducing a new section.

I think that the possibility of introducing a new section is clear already and that it is now necessary to provide sources and evidence regarding the Declaration of Independence and Propaganda. I could use your expertise...let me know if you can help.

GoetheFromm (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Declaration is document that argues for war. Highlighting "savages" and slaves and how the British were going to use them to destroy the elite run society & reestablish control is key. This is why they needed a Paine; most people simply didn't want to fight a rich man's war. Yes, propaganda helped change that. Even the first draft was designed to elicit support using scare tactics: slave owners criticised King George III for the slave trade when they all benefitied from it, and that he armed freed slaves & "savages" to fight against the American elite. The last version kept the "savages" and slaves being used, and that the British posed a major threat to slave owners & western expansion, but not the part on the slave trade. Is this what you mean? That's was propaganda. Ebanony (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk about propaganda! Few modern mainstream scholars would endorse some of your tendentious statements. The idea that the Declaration or Common Sense motivated reluctant commoners to fight a "rich man's war" has no historical basis. Thousands of ordinary colonists were prepared to (and many did) fight the British before then; they didn't need fancy words from Congress or Paine to mobilize them. And declaring independence actually allowed the former colonies to outlaw the Atlantic slave trade, something several colonies had tried to do, but had been overruled by King George's government. Some states outlawed the slave trade soon after independence; all states outlawed it by the 1790s, though South Carolina reopened the trade in 1803. Everyone knows the US outlawed the slave trade in 1808; few people realize that individual states were able to do so earlier. As historian Gordon S. Wood explains, the American Revolution was a major blow against slavery, but in the postwar period, Southern slaveowners worked hard to preserve the institution. —Kevin Myers 01:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Royalist sour grapes. Putting out that declaration may have had an element of "propaganda" in the marketing sense, but it also provided the King an autographed list of treasonous leaders in the colonies. As Ben Franklin supposedly said, "Gentlemen, we had best all 'hang together', or we assuredly will 'hang' separately!" Some of my own ancestors fought in the Revolution, and they were by no means wealthy. Although it might just be that they enjoyed shooting at those bright red coats. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You sure your ancestors didn't go to war to protect Sam Adams's wealth? I hope not, since he didn't have any money. Neither did Paine. But the Declaration was certainly propaganda by strict definition: the list of grievances was one-sided, and blamed King George personally more than was really fair. Even John Adams thought Jefferson laid it on rather thick at times. —Kevin Myers 03:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my ancestors were largely non-drinkers, so, no. I suppose if the Declaration had instead been addressed to Parliament it wouldn't have had quite the same "zing". But regardless of dictionary definitions, the term "propaganda" as used has primarily negative connotations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Yes some opposed the slave trade & that it was later outlawed. The point of that tangent? But to claim it "a major blow against slavery" is false. Banning the slave trade was done to strengthen slavery. They were afraid of slave rebellion, & they were happy to increase their own wealth by increasing the demand of slaves; the US could force enough slaves to reproduce, & didn't need the slave trade. Southerners voted to end the slave trade, not slavery which had 0 support. Now the Declaration never condemned slavery. Don't confuse the reference to the slave trade in the 1st draft to be anti-slavery. That same draft condemned the British for freeing slaves & arming them, as well as arming "savages". That's covered by mainstream historians in peer reviewed journals. Please continue to deny the facts.

You deny Paine helped convince many to fight? Where did you hear that? Who were those "thousands" ready to fight" before the war"? Probably slave owners afraid of the slave revolt (with good reason). There were many thousands of loyalists who were opposed to the idea of independence ie the city of Norfolk, among others. Most blacks & "Indians" also bitterly opposed the Americans, and many fought against them. Is your idea of "mainstream" historians Thomas West? Oh, please don't disparage my comments; they're not "propaganda". So sure about "no historical basis"? Ebanony (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think your passion for the topic has misled you on some points. Who were the thousands ready to fight before Common Sense and the Declaration? The 10,000 or so New Englanders who flocked to the seige of Boston in 1775, not to mention the hundreds who signed statements condemning the Coercive Acts. These guys were not all slave owners. You're half right about the slave trade. Many southerners opposed the slave trade for self-interested reasons, but many others opposed it for moral reasons; you've conflated the two groups. Again, I recommend the works of Gordon Wood on this topic. There's no need to discuss this further here, since we're getting off topic. —Kevin Myers 07:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As I recall from the mists of history class, the south was less comfortable with declaring independence than was the north, due to their coziness with England and its cotton mills; whereas the northern intellectuals were more aggressive in pushing for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Kevin your statement: "The idea that the Declaration or Common Sense motivated reluctant commoners to fight a "rich man's war" has no historical basis." Of course, Kevin, you're entitled to your opinion but:

"For decades American historians...relegated Paine to the sidelines" but "Paine's reputation rests chiefly upon his great political works, Common Sense, which did much to spark the American Revolution..." Thomas Paine: social and political thought Gregory Claeys, 1989, pg 2

"The immediate success of Common Sense was nothing short of astonishing. The pamphlet sold perhaps 150,000 copies and was credited with converting countless men and women to the cause of independence" (note* my emphasis). Many ideas weren't new, but he made a "coherent statement" in "a language aimed at extending political discussion beyond the narrow bounds of the eighteenth century's 'political nation'". As in he wrote to the masses in the vernaular "Addressing a mass audience unfamiliar with legal precedents, classical learning" etc. These things had been "voiced before", but the elite couldn't get their message out. Rights of man Thomas Paine, Penguin pg 10, 11 [[2]]

"The language of the Declaration of Independence...echoes the the rhetoric and ideas of Paine's pamphlet so closely that some historians have argued that Paine actually authored the Declaration" - of course he didn't, but the impact was immense. Common sense Thomas Paine, Edward Larkin, p 33 [[3]]

"Stimulated by Paine's soaring rhetoric, local gatherings throughout the colonies, ranging from town meeting to militia musters, passed resolutions favoring American independence." The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People: to 1877 Boyer, Clark, Hawley, Kett pg 115 [[4]]

"Common Sense went through twenty-five editions in 1776...It is probable that almost every literate colonist either read it or knew about its contents." And this was very much about class: "it caused tremors in aristocrats like John Adams, who...wanted to make sure it didn't go too far in the direction of democracy"by having a sinlge branch legislature without any "checks". Paine "lent himself perfectly to the myth of the Revolution - that it was on behalf of a united people". A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn pg 69, 70. What ordinary farmers stood to gain from men like Adams (who opposed free speech) and rich southern slave owners is not clear. Same people later rose up in Shay's Rebellion - a definite class struggle. But the population was divided in 1776, and a good portion were loyalist, like Norfolk. If I recall correctly Pained coined the phrase "Declaration of Independence". The last thing People like Adams & Jefferson & other "founders" wanted was a redistribution of the wealth, which is why they created a Senate. Mainstream & by respected historians.

What has "no historical basis"? Buy yourself a mirror & stop trying to change the subject. Shall we go on about your other errors in your attempt to say the slave trade was opposed & outlawed on "moral" grounds. That's false. You regurgitate Thomas West more than anyone else.Ebanony (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You demonstrate the pitfalls of fuzzy thinking and having more opinions than knowledge. Your comments on Common Sense are of course a straw man argument that will fool no one. The question is not whether Common Sense was greatly influential in getting people to support independence; that's a commonplace every school child knows. But your statement was that "most people simply didn't want to fight a rich man's war" and that Paine's role was to convince them of that. Included in that assertion is the unsupported statement that this was a "rich man's war" and that most people were unwilling to fight before Paine. Your quotes don't support those claims, because of course you can't support those claims using mainstream historians. And poor Howard Zinn is probably rolling in his grave with you calling him "mainstream"! It's pointless to say any more here, but I encourage you to actually read the mainstream historians. You'll be able to make stronger arguments once you get more familiar with the literature. —Kevin Myers 13:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Straw man? "Fuzzy thinking?" You like to insult people. People tend to do that when they've nothing else to say. I cited mainstream work, though Zinn is the only one you could accuse of that. However, that doesn't mean his work is faulty, nor have you presented any evidence to indicate it is; it's used in many universities, and he was a respected professor at Boston Uni. Nontheless, my comments do not come only from him. "Rich man's war"? You're putting too much emphasis on that statement. Most wars serve the interests of a small minority, even today. Strange how people like Sam Adams and other "founders" like Adams worked so hard to remove the right to freedom of speech & deny people the right to vote & then removed them from their land - despite having fought a war they never even got paid to fight in. Class conflict & agrarian reform were major issues of the day. You're mistaken if you think Zinn is unique in pointing that out. Another writer I cited took a similar position to Zinn, so it's evident you've not read the sources or simply dismissed them too. That says more about your own biases than anyone else's. And the men involved in govt mostly being rich lawyers? I didn't say the war was just some rich blokes looking to make a dollar, nor does Zinn (if I recall his writing correctly). But they pushed for war, and they gained the most. After 1787 the poor couldn't even vote in places like Mass. This wasn't a social revolution, it was a political one.

As to straw men & going off on tangets, what was your little lecture on the slave trade? An attempt to link opposition to the slave trade as evidence of those men showing opposition to slavery. That's why you keep changing the subject & nitpicking, because you were wrong then & thought that old argument had support. Deal with the facts: The Declaration did not oppose slavery; it criticised the British for freeing slaves, and the banning of the slave trade had nothing to do with "morals". The reasons I listed above have peer reviewed documentary support. Ebanony (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone (myself included)...

...who is participating in the current discussion regarding the 'Declaration of Independence as Object of Propaganda' about the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The How to use article talk pages section is helpful, we all need to remember to Communicate, Stay on topic, Be positive,

Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material ...,

Deal with facts, Share material, Discuss edits and Make proposals. Shearonink (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that timely reminder. —Kevin Myers 14:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the possible introduction of a propaganda section was meant to be on the topic and civil. GoetheFromm (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerning propaganda, what precisely would editors like to add to a section on that? I'm open to a variety of ideas. Has anyone found any references on this topic?Ebanony (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Speech of the Unknown

The Speech of the Unknown details an account of a speech delivered at the signing of the Declaration of Independence by an unknown, non-delegate, in attendance that day. The speech is often attributed to Saint Germain, a Rosicrucian.

The following is taken from Washington and His Generals: or, Legends of the Revolution by George Lippard, published in 1847. The signers of the Declaration of Independence sat in Independence Hall at Philadelphia, contemplating losing their heads or being hanged. Their courage wavered. The document sat there unsigned. An extraordinary catalyst was needed to move them to action. An unknown man rose and gave an electrifying speech. He disappeared soon after.

By signing the Declaration, all were guilty of high treason under British law. The penalty for high treason was to be hanged by the neck until unconscious, then cut down and revived, then disemboweled and cut into quarters. The head and quarters were at the disposal of the crown.

No wonder they wavered! No wonder they discussed back and forth for days on end before signing the document that carried so grave a penalty. An old legend dramatizes the story of the one who galvanized the delegates and gave them the courage to sign that document.

But still there is doubt–and that pale-faced man, shrinking in one corner, squeaks out something about axes, scaffolds, and a–gibbet!

"Gibbet!" echoes a fierce, bold voice, that startles men from their seats–and look yonder! A tall slender man rises, dressed–although it is summer time–in a dark robe. Look how his white hand undulates as it is stretched slowly out, how that dark eye burns, while his words ring through the hall. (We do not know his name, let us therefore call his appeal)

THE SPEECH OF THE UNKNOWN.

"Gibbet? They may stretch our necks on all the gibbets in the land–they may turn every rock into a scaffold–every tree into a gallows, every home into a grave, and yet the words on that Parchment can never die!

"They may pour our blood on a thousand scaffolds, and yet from every drop that dyes the axe, or drips on the sawdust of the block, a new martyr to Freedom will spring into birth!

"The British King may blot out the Stars of God from His sky, but he cannot blot out His words written on the Parchment there! The works of God may perish–His Word, never!

"These words will go forth to the world when our bones are dust. To the slave in the mines they will speak–hope–to the mechanic in his workshop–freedom–to the coward-kings these words will speak, but not in tones of flattery. No, no! They will speak like the flaming syllables on Belshazzar's wall–

THE DAYS OF YOUR PRIDE AND GLORY ARE NUMBERED!

THE DAYS OF JUDGMENT AND REVOLUTION DRAW NEAR!

"Yes, that Parchment will speak to the Kings in a language sad and terrible as the trump of the Archangel. You have trampled on mankind long enough. At last the voice of human woe has pierced the ear of God, and called His Judgment down! You have waded on to thrones over seas of blood–you have trampled on to power over the necks of millions–you have turned the poor man's sweat and blood into robes for your delicate forms, into crowns for your anointed brows. Now Kings–now purpled Hangmen of the world–for you come the days of axes and gibbets and scaffolds–for you the wrath of man–for you the lightnings of God!–

"Look! How the light of your palaces on fire flashes up into the midnight sky!

"Now Purpled Hangmen of the world–turn and beg for mercy!

"Where will you find it?

"Not from God, for you have blasphemed His laws!

"Not from the People, for you stand baptized in their blood!

"Here you turn, and lo! a gibbet!

"There–and a scaffold looks you in the face.

"All around you–death–and nowhere pity!

"Now executioners of the human race, kneel down, yes, kneel down upon the sawdust of the scaffold–lay your perfumed heads upon the block–bless the axe as it falls–the axe that you sharpened for the poor man's neck!

"Such is the message of that Declaration to Man, to the Kings of the world! And shall we falter now? And shall we start back appalled when our feet press the very threshold of Freedom? Do I see quailing faces around me, when our wives have been butchered–when the hearthstones of our land are red with the blood of little children?

"What are these shrinking hearts and faltering voices here, when the very Dead of our battlefields arise, and call upon us to sign that Parchment, or be accursed forever?

"Sign! if the next moment the gibbet's rope is round your neck! Sign! if the next moment this hall rings with the echo of the falling axe! Sign! By all your hopes in life or death, as husbands–as fathers–as men–sign your names to the Parchment or be accursed forever!

"Sign–and not only for yourselves, but for all ages. For that Parchment will be the Text-book of Freedom–the Bible of the Rights of Man forever!

"Sign–for that declaration will go forth to American hearts forever, and speak to those hearts like the voice of God! And its work will not be done, until throughout this wide Continent not a single inch of ground owns the sway of a British King!

"Nay, do not start and whisper with surprise! It is a truth, your own hearts witness it, God proclaims it.–This Continent is the property of a free people, and their property alone. [17-second applause] God, I say, proclaims it!

"Look at this strange history of a band of exiles and outcasts, suddenly transformed into a people–look at this wonderful Exodus of the oppressed of the Old World into the New, where they came, weak in arms but mighty in Godlike faith–nay, look at this history of your Bunker Hill–your Lexington–where a band of plain farmers mocked and trampled down the panoply of British arms, and then tell me, if you can, that God has not given America to the free?

[12-second applause]

"It is not given to our poor human intellect to climb the skies, to pierce the councils of the Almighty One. But methinks I stand among the awful clouds which veil the brightness of Jehovah's throne. Methinks I see the Recording Angel–pale as an angel is pale, weeping as an angel can weep–come trembling up to that Throne, and speak his dread message–

"`Father! the old world is baptized in blood! Father, it is drenched with the blood of millions, butchered in war, in persecution, in slow and grinding oppression! Father–look, with one glance of Thine Eternal eye, look over Europe, Asia, Africa, and behold evermore, that terrible sight, man trodden down beneath the oppressor's feet–nations lost in blood–Murder and Superstition walking hand in hand over the graves of their victims, and not a single voice to whisper, "Hope to Man!"'

"He stands there, the Angel, his hands trembling with the black record of human guilt. But hark! The voice of Jehovah speaks out from the awful cloud–`Let there be light again. Let there be a New World. Tell my people–the poor–the trodden down millions, to go out from the Old World. Tell them to go out from wrong, oppression and blood–tell them to go out from this Old World–to build my altar in the New!'

[11-second applause]

"As God lives, my friends, I believe that to be his voice! Yes, were my soul trembling on the wing for Eternity, were this hand freezing in death, were this voice choking with the last struggle, I would still, with the last impulse of that soul, with the last wave of that hand, with the last gasp of that voice, implore you to remember this truth–God has given America to the free!

[13-second applause]

"Yes, as I sank down into the gloomy shadows of the grave, with my last gasp, I would beg you to sign that Parchment, in the name of the God, who made the Saviour who redeemed you–in the name of the millions whose very breath is now hushed in intense expectation, as they look up to you for the awful words–`You are free!'"

[9-second applause]

O many years have gone since that hour–the Speaker, his brethren, all, have crumbled into dust, but it would require an angel's pen to picture the magic of that Speaker's look, the deep, terrible emphasis of his voice, the prophet-like beckoning of his hand, the magnetic flame which shooting from his eyes, soon fired every heart throughout the hall!

The work was done. A wild murmur thrills through the hall.–Sign? Hah? There is no doubt now. Look! How they rush forward–stout-hearted John Hancock has scarcely time to sign his bold name, before the pen is grasped by another–another and another! Look how the names blaze on the Parchment–Adams and Lee and Jefferson and Carroll, and now, Roger Sherman the Shoemaker.

And here comes good old Stephen Hopkins–yes, trembling with palsy, he totters forward–quivering from head to foot, with his shaking hands he seizes the pen, he scratches his patriot-name.

Then comes Benjamin Franklin the Printer....

And now the Parchment is signed; and now let word go forth to the People in the streets–to the homes of America–to the camp of Mister Washington, and the Palace of George the Idiot-King–let word go out to all the earth–

And, old man in the steeple, now bare your arm, and grasp the Iron Tongue, and let the bell speak out the great truth:

FIFTY-SIX TRADERS, LAWYERS, FARMERS AND MECHANICS HAVE THIS DAY SHOOK THE SCHACKLES OF THE WORLD!

[13-second applause]

Hark! Hark to the toll of that Bell!

Is there not a deep poetry in that sound, a poetry more sublime than Shakespeare or Milton?

Is there not a music in the sound, that reminds you of those awful tones which broke from angel-lips, when news of the child Jesus burst on the shepherds of Bethlehem?

For that Bell now speaks out to the world, that–

GOD HAS GIVEN THE AMERICAN CONTINENT TO THE FREE–THE TOILING MILLIONS OF THE HUMAN RACE–AS THE LAST ALTAR OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN ON THE GLOBE–THE HOME OF THE OPPRESSED, FOREVERMORE!

[10-second applause]

Are we not bought with a price?

This reading is taken from the book Washington and His Generals: or, Legends of the Revolution by George Lippard, published in 1847. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnoble14 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. But too large for the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If a separate article were written about 'Myths & legends about the Founding Fathers', 'Myths & Legends about the Declaration of Independence' or something similar, perhaps this 'new section' idea might fit there, but this article is about the Declaration of Independence and what Reliable Sources state about its creation, etc. George Lippard's 'Legends of the Revolution' is not a historical scholarly account but is a work of romantic fiction (per the George Lippard article as well as the University of Virginia Library , which classifies 'Legends' as 'Early American Fiction' [5]. Shearonink (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You can read a bit more about this fictional story here. My favorite part of the tale as quoted above is the oddly specific amount of time given for each round of applause. —Kevin Myers 07:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)