Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Semi-protection requested for article

I have requested semi-protection for the article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Interested parties should add any comments they would like to make regarding semi-protection on the WP:RFPP page. Rklahn 16:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. One Month semi-protection was granted. YEA! Rklahn 20:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Annotated text of the Declaration

The first paragraph of the declaration quite clearly states not why independence is necessary but that IF indepencence is necessary THEN one should declare it and the reason for it properly. If I still remember that in two weeks I'll be changing the article accordingly. Comments?

Congress voted independence on July 2 so the issue was settled on July 4, but still had to be explained. Rjensen 12:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically the issue wasn't settled until the 1783 treaty. Wahkeenah 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the discussion page of the Chinese version of the article. I think that was written thus to convince the people of the Colonies to support the decision of the Continental Congress. Chadlupkes 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The annotation of the first paragraph currently reads "The first sentence of the Declaration asserts as a matter of Natural Law the ability of a people to assume political independence, and acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained." I would say that this first sentence does NOT require that the grounds be reasonable - but rather that it is out of "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" that the explanation of their motives is given at all. This serves two purposes - to tell those being separated FROM why, and to rally supporters behind the separation why have been injured in any of the ways described.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.234.42 (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Жmerinca

What do you think of this? Makes some sense or is made up completely? Nikola 19:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is an April Fools joke. It keeps being included in the article, and I keep having to remove it. It isn't real. Don't believe everything you see on the internet.

hahahahahahaha --JW1805 (Talk) 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any pages debunking it you could link to here for the sake of future queries? Jachin 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Look at the date it was written - April 1, 2005. Isn't that clear enough? — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wake Up !

Watchers, Wake Up! This edit, [1] lasted 19 hours until I reverted it. Hu 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have missed what you saved Wikipedia from? The whole external links and footer section? Jachin 04:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1776 (Musical)

I changed the description of the play from "somewhat accurate" to "generally accurate". While 1776 does change a few facts here and there, the musical's accuracy has been one of its strengths, and the authors actually left details out that they felt would be too much for audiences to believe. At one point, Benjamin Franklin says on the slavery issue, "If we do not deal with this now, history will not forgive us," a paraphrase of Samuel Adams quote, "If we do not deal with this now, a hundred years hence history will not forgive us." The authors said they were astonished by the farsightedness of the comment, and chose to drop the 100 years hence talk.--Idols of Mud 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but that was John Adams' line. Franklin advocated postponing the question of slavery in order to secure the South's vote for Independence. Franklin responds with something along the lines of, "Well, we'll be long dead by then...." —  MusicMaker5376 06:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Analysis section

The entire Analysis section was anonymously removed with no discussion and no obvious reason. There's a lot of worthwhile material there: someone might consider putting it back. The edit in question was made by 204.24.158.49 on 11 January. Hce1132 18:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for spotting that vandalism. I restored it. Rjensen 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening section

I disagree with recent attempts to change the opening section to read: The Declaration of Independence was an act of the Second Continental Congress, adopted on July 4, 1776, which declared that the Thirteen United Colonies were independent of Great Britain. It proclaimed that they formed a new nation called the "United States of America" that would "assume, among the powers of the earth, a separate and equal station."

• Why say "Thirteen United Colonies"? The link is to Thirteen Colonies, which is the term most people are familar with. The phrase "Thirteen United Colonies" is not used in the DOI, it says "United Colonies" (and yes, I also oppose a POV fork article called "United Colonies".
• It proclaimed that they formed a new nation called the "United States of America". The DOI doesn't say that. It says the individual states will assume a separate and equal station. There is no explict creation of a "new nation" in the DOI. It says "united States of America", not "United States of America". It says "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. " The USA was orginally a group of states, then a loose confederation. The United States article explains this, so we should link to that. We shouldn't extrapolate the text of the DOI in the opening section. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read that wording closely, it's a particular user's somewhat-subtle POV-pushing and hype. Wahkeenah 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What material was it written on ?

animal parchment or hemp parchment or cotton parchment or tree parchment?

I have heard from several sources that it is written on hemp paper, but someone at the National Archives insisted that that was not true. Does anyone here have any reliable information?12.17.141.39

I'll add mention of this fun non-fact. Here's a list of "facts" including that: [2], but it doesn't cite sources. NAIHC claims the same [3] but again doesn't cite a source. This site claims not: [4]. This page claims it was drafted but not signed on hemp paper: [5]. The national archives says it's parchment: [6]. —Ben FrantzDale 03:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to throw some controversy in the mix. The National Archives page that is linked in this section says a couple of things. 1. That parchment is a general term for animal skin prepared for writing. 2. The Declaration of Independence is written upon parchment. and 3. That the terms parchment and vellum are also used in the paper making industry. Parchment paper is made from cellulose fibers prepared from fir trees or plants such as cotton or flax.

Omitted is the fact that parchment can also be made from hemp. I would just add that although it is inferred that the Declaration is written on animal skin parchment, it is not explicitly stated, and therefore is up for interpretation. I will also say that in my personal research I have found nothing stating conclusively that the parchment used is derived from animal skin. I suppose if I don't hear any loud objections, I'll edit the myths section to include this information referencing. [7] Jaredbelch 18:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaredbelch (talk • contribs) 18:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Loud Objection: Parchment is parchment; treated hide. That's the difference between parchment and paper. The link you give says (on what authority?) that Jefferson's drafts, which were a different text on a different medium, were on hemp paper. It says nothing about parchment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, the definition of parchment [8] says it can be paper made in imitation of this material, so when saying it is made of parchment you must say what type of parchment. The National Archives state that the term parchment is used in the paper making industry [9]. The link [10] I gave says that "Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper." I made the connection from hemp paper to parchment based on the facts given by the National Archives site.

If anyone can give me a reliable source that shows the parchment used is in fact animal skin parchment, then I will back off. Until then, there are plenty of sources saying the declaration was written on hemp, so why shouldn't I believe them? Jaredbelch 19:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The draft is not the text; far less the printed text, which is what is on parchment. See Jefferson's own account of the writing, in the Anas. Any such modification fails verification on this source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede that if Anas states it was written on animal parchment I am wrong, but I am having trouble locating anything referencing the type of paper or parchment, could you give me the quote you are referring to please? The section and page number would also be helpful. If you need help, here is a link to an online copy of the Anas and other works by Jefferson [11] Jaredbelch 22:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Jefferson's account demonstrates that his hamd-written drafts were not the final printed text.
• The final text was printed on parchment.
• The industry advertisement which Jared cites says the drafts were written on parchment.
• It is a novel synthesis to claim that they were the same thing.
• The statement that the drafts were written on hemp is uncredited in the industry website; it may be true, but the source is insufficient.
• Inclusion of the link in this article is spam.

Enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish the article mentioned exactly on what material the original and the surviving Dunlap "original copies" were printed. The United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Distribution_and_copies "distribution and copies" section is the appropriate place to mention the material. Was it printed on a surface made from animal hide or cotton fibers or tree fibers or hemp fibers? Even though what kind of surface a draft is written on is normally not notable, Wikipedia:N#NCONTENT allows such non-notable information in an article. Or can we just state "as of 2008, it is unknown what material it was written on" ? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Congress said "United States" but engrosser wrote it "united States"

(from discussion at Thirteen Colonies

Congress decided the issue on July 19, 1776: Resolved, That the Declaration passed on the 4th, be fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile of "The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America," and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress. The lower case "u" on the engrossed copy was a printer error and was not authorized by Congress: it used the upper case. Source = Journals at [12] Rjensen 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen, please provide a bone-fide reference to this being "printer error". Frankly, your story sounds preposterous.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the engrossed document: small letter "u". Take a look at the official journal [13] which specifies capital "U". What's preosterous? Rjensen 04:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Show me a bone-fide reference that explicitly states that it is a printer error.

Old Copy

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/DECLARATION/us_declarationE.jpg

Later Reprint

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/23dunlap.jpg

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for a reference. But what else can one call it when the engrosser's version differs slightly from what was ordered by Congress? Note that capitalization was quite erratic in those days. The Journals on July 4 clearly specify the capital U in "United", see [14] However notice the mixed capital and lower case letters in the opening: 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 to 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. [15] Perhaps they upper-cased most (but not all) nouns and the engrosser though "united" was an adjective and did not notice that Congress had ordered it upper cased? Rjensen 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, both Jefferson's handwritten draft[16] and the printing made on the night of July 4 have "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (all upper case). It's the engrossed copy made by Matlack several weeks later that has the lower case "united". [17] The Congress officially stated "United" on both July 4 and July 19. Rjensen 04:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Up for GA review

No-one apparantly bothered to notified anyone that this article is up for GA review. See Wikipedia:Good_article_review. Most concerns are rather trivial. Please comment. / 87.251.205.194 10:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

united States vs. United States

As in the title, the word "united" in the Conclusion section of the Declaration should not be capitalized.

From the Wikipedia entry on the United States: The phrase "united States of America" [sic] was first used officially in the Declaration of Independence...

72.204.29.249 14:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

the lower case u was a printer's error; the formal record of the Congress has upper case U Rjensen 23:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The united, not United, was intentional, as the States were not forming a conglomerated new nation, but declaring sovereign independence from Great Britain. Each State was (and in theory still is) sovereign unto itself. See America's Constitution: A Biography, by Akhil Reed Amar, pages 22-23. - MSTCrow 20:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know much about this topic, but I suggest we wait for more people to weigh in before making the changes to a lower case "u" in "united" throughout the article like you just did. --CapitalR 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Find a credible source that indicates that it should be United, instead of united. The US government's transcript of the Declaration of Independence, http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html, clearly states "united." In addition, the visual document itself is "united," and the literature on the Declaration of Independence pointedly ponders the meaning of the use of united instead of United. The distinction of "united" is clear. The United States was only formed upon ratification of the US Constitution by 9 of the 13 independent colonies, in 1788 (Virginia joined days after New Hampshire, to become the 10th State to join the US, so the US consisted of 9 States very briefly, then 10 for about a year). North Carolina and Rhode Island joined the US in 1789 and 1790, respectively, after George Washington's election as the first President of the newly created US. - MSTCrow 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We were taught in school that "united" was intended to be an adjective. There was no such country as the USA yet. Note in the intro that the nouns are capitalized and the adjectives are not. That was standard orthography at that time, probably a carryover from the Germanic origins of English and/or legalese (read the U.S. Constitution for another example). English no longer capitalizes nouns, except "proper nouns". German still capitalizes all nouns. If the current English rules were in effect in 1776, the document probably would have read "united states". Wahkeenah 21:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that united was meant as an adjective, I think that it would be States, as they are proper nouns (like Vatican City, or the British Commonwealth, not Vatican city or British commonwealth). Each State was a sovereign nation/State unto itself. This is made clear by the ratification process, and the concern by the Federalists that if enough States decided to remain sovereign and separate from the United States (a very real concern, that was almost realized), their goal of creating a newly centralized nation from multiple nations would fail. I think this may be alluded to in "Out of many, one." - MSTCrow 21:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"State" by itself is not a proper noun. "State of New Hampshire" is. Notice also that "Declaration" is capitalized. Wahkeenah 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the statement above that the "United States" only applies after the Constitution is incorrect. The term is used by the Articles of Confederation, and Jefferson used the term "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (all caps) in his drafts of the Declaration of Independence (indicating that the full name was already in use). In my Google searches, I couldn't find a single site that titles the document with a lowercase letter, though all sites use the lowercase letter when quoting the text. --CapitalR 21:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

More research on this is needed before wholesale switcheroos to "united States". The case usage in the document as a whole is inconsistent. Some nouns are capitalized, some are not. It's as if they capitalized whenever they felt like it. Wahkeenah 21:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the case usage of the word "united" in the document inconsistent? - MSTCrow 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just talking case in general. Also, please note the document in Articles of Confederation, which I think dates from 1777. It says "United States", not "united States". Wahkeenah 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsure what to make of the Articles of Confederation (ratified 1781) case usage. In any case, the case usage within the Declaration of Independence is internally consistent. - MSTCrow 21:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to read discussion section that is two sections above this one where this topic was already discussed. It seems the copy made on July 4 had capital letters, but the printer's version made a few weeks later didn't. It also looks like the version the Congress approved had the capital letters in it. --CapitalR 21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that the original copy had "united," at least some reprints had "United," but the US government has "united," as well as literature on the subject. Perhaps the reprints were the misprints? Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, but the signed copy was modified by others. - MSTCrow 21:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some folks thought Jefferson was getting ahead of himself, designating it as a single USA. The lower-case could have been done for politically-correct reasons. But don't rule out the possibility that they didn't think it was a very big deal either way. They were probably more concerned with "capital punishment" for treason, than with "capital letters". Wahkeenah 22:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. A "united States" means sovereign but allied States. "United States" would indicate a political, not solely militarily, fusion into a new nation. The Founders were extremely particular about capitalization and punctuation, especially in the US Constitution. I don't think with so many of the same people involved they'd totally disregard the meanings of words in the Declaration of Independence, whereas then be as precise as the tip of a needle in the US Constitution. - MSTCrow 22:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your argument, then, could be that Jefferson enthusiastically capitalized it and other more cautious founding fathers overruled him. Wahkeenah 22:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a suggestion of a possible explanation of why a draft had "United," while the signed document had "united." I'm curious as to exactly what conspired, but it is clear that the Declaration of Independence spoke of the "united States," not the "United States." - MSTCrow 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an intriguing storyline. It's as if they went with "united States" to see how it would fly, and then went with "United States" when it seemed safe. Wahkeenah 23:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence does twice say "Free and Independent States." The document itself would not appear to have been at all sympathetic towards political union, so I don't know if "united States" could be a trial balloon. - MSTCrow 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So the subtle message they were trying to convey was not so much political union as it was union of purpose, i.e. of rejecting British rule. Wahkeenah 01:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that, and a general military alliance between the States, for the purpose of ejecting British forces from their territories. - MSTCrow 02:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the rationale for using the lowercase style united States of America when citing the declaration itself, but not how it is reasonable to replace United States with united States in the article. Is the title united States Declaration of Independence referenced at all in any scanned documents? — Nivix ^talk 05:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If by scanned, you mean transcribed into typed text, I've gone with the US Federal Government's copy, here: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html. As seen above, I believe the noun "united States" is different from that of "United States," and the distinction between the two was intentionally made in the Declaration of Independence. - MSTCrow 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good website that shows the rough draft of the DOI. It has "United States" [18]

  Miafan1

Nobody has presented any reliable sources stating that the lowercase u in the finished document is a result of an error, so the draft itself doesn't really help. However, claiming that the distinction between united States and United States was intentional, without having any sources, would probably count as original research too. What about changing the opening phrase of the article to reflect the legal title of the document, e.g. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America was an act ...? — Nivix ^talk 11:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Third post in thread: "See America's Constitution: A Biography, by Akhil Reed Amar, pages 22-23. - MSTCrow 20:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)" - MSTCrow 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else who says that it should be spelled with a lower case "u". Owlly1 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'd like to rename the article "united States Declaration of Independence," with an auto-redirect to the new article title from "United States Declaration of Independence" (to minimize confusion and as most people probably do not know the correct title of the document at this time) and with an entry in the article on the existence and implication of the usage of the adjective "united" in the document title. - MSTCrow 23:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's going too far. Unless your name is e. e. cummings, you shouldn't be putting the first word of a title in lower case. Besides which, standard titling in wikipedia is to capitalize the first word, even if the word is not a proper noun (see the articles Cat and Dog as simple examples). If you want to give the proper title to the document, you should title it "Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" and then redirect "united States Declaration of Independence", and "United States Declaration of Independence", and anything else you can think of, to the article. In fact, since this document is the "launching pad" for the country known as the United States of America, calling it the "united States Declaration of Independence" is incorrect, because that's not its actual title, regardless of the case of the letter "u"; it's a "title" retrofitted from the viewpoint of the country called the USA. Calling it "[The unanimous] Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" would be fair. Wahkeenah 23:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Most people who want to reference this article aren't interested in the trivia regarding capitalization of united. They believe they're looking for the Declaration of Independence associated with the United States of America. That should be clear to all. If you want to go into this trivia, create a separate trivia section for minutiae regarding capitalizations and intent of same. To force this discussion in the main body of the article doesn't make sense. It's the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America. If anyone thinks this is an important distinction, make it a separate section specifically for that discussion. Pete5775

You are objectively misinformed. The United States of America did not come into existence until 1787, 11 years after the Declaration of Independence. However, as it did not occur to me that an article title must be capitalized, I would create a note on the top stating that the incorrect title is due to technical limitations. - MSTCrow 20:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you American? Wahkeenah 20:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am a citizen of the United States of America by birth. I am puzzled as to the relevance of this, though. - MSTCrow 20:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering. OK, to put it another way, I think you're nitpicking. The USA dates itself to 1776. The Articles of Confederation were drafted in 1777 and adopted in 1781, for a country called the USA. The current constitution dates to 1787, but the country itself is older. Wahkeenah 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not nitpicking. As stated above, the usage of the lower-case "united" was purposefully political in nature, as each State at the time regarded itself as sovereign and in a military alliance, not components of a new nation. It is debatable under the Articles of Confederation, the thirteen original colonies were a confederacy, or a federal republic. When one realizes that all 13 original colonies only joined the nascent United States of American in 1789 (it became operational in 1787 with ratification by 9 States) under the US Constitution, it becomes clear that the United States itself only came into being in 1787, and each State decided on its own whether to join the United States or not. It certainly did not exist circa the Declaration of Independence. It is exceedingly important, as an American, that we ensure our history is factual. We must know how and where we came from, and fudging it to bring it in line with popular misconception would be unacceptable. - MSTCrow 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, is the wording of the first two paragraphs of the article acceptable? Wahkeenah 20:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. You removed a discussion tag from the top of the article, which was not editorial in nature. You did not attempt to discuss your claims for doing so, or changing "united" to "United," in the discussion section. This is out of process. While your opinion is appreciated, please do not work outside of established guidelines and processes in furthering your viewpoint. I have dug up both governmental and private sources that it is indeed "united." Without any sources of your own, based solely on personal opinion, it is inappropriate to change this. - MSTCrow 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a "technical limitations" tag to the page regarding the title. It seems that lower-case titles may be functioning at this time, as it is now auto-redirecting from "United States Declaration of Independence" to "united States Declaration of Independence." As the shorthand title has been established as "united States Declaration of Independence," I now ask if anyone would like to create a section explaining the reasons and distinction of the usage of the lower-case "united." I have found one source, as shown above, and can add that, but additional sources others may have found would help greatly. Thanks. - MSTCrow 23:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting silly. We are the United States, and this is our Declaration of Independence. The reason for the usage of the lower case in the document's title is explained early on. We as a country date ourselves to 1776, not 1781 or 1787 or whatever. Wahkeenah 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to find counter-sources and citations. The article itself does not explain any reason for the usage of the lower-case "u" at this time. I have found a source that argues in support of my position, which I intend to add to the article. Have you found a source that supports yours? The de facto dating of our country's founding year, while interesting, does not invalidate the technical details of the matter. - MSTCrow 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't need a "source" to feel safe in saying that I live in the USA and that we date ourselves to July 4, 1776. You are breaking the revert rules and imposing your own interpretation on this article, against consensus and against American convention. I have asked for help in dealing with you. Wahkeenah 00:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are vandalizing the page. As can be seen in the discussion, I have cited "America's Constitution" by Akhil Reed Amar, and the federal government's own transcription of the Declaration of Independence, as evidence that it is the "united States Declaration of Independence." I have shown this to other users, who mostly agree with my findings. You have not attempted to find data or sources that would indicate it should be "United States Declaration of Independence." Instead, you keep changing it without source or citation. I am ensuring the article is in line with literature on the subject, and the US government. You have been changing it out of custom, not from the historical or contemporary record. You have been asked to find sources and citations that support your point of view. You have not, and continue to alter the article despite being warned that modifying the article without sources or citations constitutes vandalism, and are now threatening others when you have decided you don't need to find sources or citations; you seem to be operating on the principle that whatever you personally believe or desire is suitable for inclusion in the article, regardless of factuality. This is not acceptable behavior. - MSTCrow 00:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such document as united States Declaration of Independence. The document's title, which is verifiable by looking at it, says The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, and the usage of the lower case "united" in that title is explained early on in the article. We Americans (of which you claim to be one) call it simply The Declaration of Independence, but because this page has an international audience, the article is qualifed and called "United States Declaration of Independence", as opposed to "Sweden Declaration of Independence" or whatever. Wahkeenah 00:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

CCed from my talk page in response to above, which also has been posted on my talk page: I quote myself from the article's discussion page, italics added, "As the shorthand title has been established as "united States Declaration of Independence." It is highly unprofessional to insinuate that I am not an American in a pure ad hominem attack. Whether or not I am an American, of which I am, it would not detract from the argument I have set forth regarding the document's proper title. You've gotten personal, and still have not bothered to do any research in support of your premise. - MSTCrow 00:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The "shorthand title" has never been established as "united States Declaration of Independence" except by you in this article. We Americans' "shorthand" is The Declaration of Independence, period. My "research" is having attended the U.S. (not u.S.) public school system, learning about U.S. (not u.S.) history, which dates to July 4, 1776; pledging allegiance to the flag of the U.S. (not the u.S.); learning about The Declaration of Independence; etc. Maybe that was where I went astray. Wahkeenah 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Now there is a US. There was a time when the US did not exist. This does not invalidate the fact that you went to a government school (as did I) in the currently existing US. US history dates back to at least 1492, even though the US did not yet exist, as it led up to our creation. You pledge allegiance to the US flag now (as I have), as the US currently exists. You would not have pledged allegiance to a non-existent flag or nation, say in 1492, despite that being part of our history. What did not previously exist can exist now, and what exists before may not exist now. You and I at one time were not here. Now we are. Someday, neither of us will be. If you can find sources instead of stating irrelevant mundane generalities that we are all familiar with, that would be helpful to your stated position. - MSTCrow 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, and you win. I've had it with this page. Wahkeenah 01:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't let this go... If you allow this argument to carry the day, you might as well concede that Wikipedia has no value. The common sense of the collective has to outweigh the eccentric interpretations of the few. The argument is that the Declaration of Independence being discussed is associated with the United States of America. Whether it was envisioned as such by its creators is irrelevant. That is the common interpretation. To engage in the trivia over the subtle lack of capitalization is just a weird interpretation of one individual. If you want to make the argument about the state of mind of the creators, go ahead. Just don't base the argument on whether or not the capitalization was intentional, and don't insist on making the United lower case. There are many better ways to make your point besides this insistence on "u" versus "U". - Pete5775 03:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm not objectively misinformed about whether the United States of America was a formal entity at the time of the signing of the document. I'm making the point that whether or not the United States of America existed at that time, it is in fact the document commonly regarded as having started the chain of events that ultimately led to the formation of the United States of America. It is the Declaration of Independence associated with the nation, the United States of America. If you quote the title, fine. But otherwise, the common usage ought not to be dispensed due to an arcane point of view. Put your subtle distinctions in a separate section. Pete5775 04:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My theory is that the engrosser made it "united" instead of "UNITED" to make the phrase fit on one line. The all capitalized words were much larger than the lowercase words. Nightkey (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

GA/R

In a 4 to 1 vote, this article has been delisted after a WP:GA/R. While the nominator's original reason wasn't exactly valid since it was primarily concerned with vandalism, that still makes it a relatively clear 3 to 1 to delist. Primarily, the main valid concern was various problems with references in the article. Review archived in Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 14. Homestarmy 01:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Curious.

I noted with great confusion that the word 'Freemason' appears but once in this entire article. There was, I believe, a common bond between all signators of the declaration that seems to be overlooked. Perhaps if one of the fine editors here could add further information on those who signed it, or if need be I'm sure I could find an editor from the Freemasonry article who would step up to the plate. Jachin 04:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Common bond? Not all of the people involved were Freemasons, only about 9 to 19 if you search the web and look around for numbers. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 14:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Jdp92496 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Where is the Decleration of Independence now held??? Response=asap!!!

Translations

Has anyone tried to collect translations of the document itself on Wikisource? There are only a few versions on the site. Chadlupkes 23:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Racism

If you feel you can add to and improve the section on the racist views of the authors please go ahead but do not delete my work because it shines light on the ugly side of history.Esmehwp 03:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an unsosurced editorial expressing your personal opinion. That's against policy. Wahkeenah 03:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, heaven forbid this period of history be swayed by myth, propoganda and lies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.244.202 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the views on race of the authors pertains to the document itself, except perhaps as a note on the ideals expressed in the Declaration, and actual practice at the time. You might as well throw in Ford's anti-Semitism on Model T. It just is not the right place for such a discussion. - MSTCrow 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Change

Stating The text of the Declaration of Independence cannot be divided into sections: it must be read as a whole, with no pauses when clearly it is consequently broken into sections, and can be read partially and with pause like any text over about one word, seems odd to me, does it seem unnecessary to anyone else? Perhaps merely keeping ""it is commonly believed that there are five 'pieces' to it"" with a citation of a possible origin, or rationale behind this interpretaion may be more informative than the mostly flowery wind that begins this section.203.153.253.16 21:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)adam

That wording sounds suspiciously like someone trying to impose a viewpoint on it. I recommend removing it, as it adds nothing factual to the article, and in fact may be misleading, as you indicate. Wahkeenah 00:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hand smudge?

If I'm not mistaken, when I visited the National Archives in Washington a while back, I noticed that the "official" copy of the Declaration of Independence" that is shown to everyone has a very noticeable hand smudge (looks like a left hand mark) at the bottom, near the signatures. It looks more like a decoloration, like if whoever held it had grease or oil in his hands. Is there any explanation for this? 70.45.24.84 15:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this article is the appropriate forum in which to raise the slave issue, but the slave issue was a central focus of the Revolutionary War, according to Blumrosen and Blumrosen's book "Slave Nation" (Barnes and Noble Books) 2005. As described in that book, the northern states, especially Massachusetts, were anxious to secede from England for a variety of political reasons, but the South was not eager to participate in a rebellion until Lord Mansfield's Somerset ruling in 1772. This appeared to the south to indicate an antipathy towards the institution of slavery in England, and the southern states feared that abolitionist sentiment in the home country could eventually lead to outlawing the practice in the colonies.

The southern states were thus prepared to join in a rebellion against England, but only if they could be assured of a continued slave economy in perpetuity. The northern states of course could not hope to win a war against England without the south, so despite anti-slavery sentiment there, they were forced to compromise with the south. The Declaration of Independence was a compromise document, just as the Constitution was later on (although the latter was much more of a compromise.)In particular, I found interesting that George Mason had written a draft of an independence declaration for Virginia, and it was a document to which Jefferson had access during his drafting of the United States declaration. The George Mason document had engendered considerable consternation in the south because it seemed to call for slaves to rebel. (Pretty difficult to write a declaration calling for the inherent right of men to be free and not include all men.)

For example, the George Mason draft stated that all men are "free and independent." The slave states could not accept this. Jefferson's genius was in changing this phrase to state that all men are "created equal." The words "created equal" are spiritual and abstract. As if after death we all go to the creator as equal children of God, etc. But "free and independent" are legal terms. If you state that, you have to apply it to everybody. The drafting of the Declaration, and the furious debate that surrounded its adoption, had less to do with reflections on natural law and the virtues of liberty and equality, as it did with the pragmatism of how to break with a home country by claiming a desire for liberty while maintaining a slave economy.

Needless to say, like World War II evolved out of the preposterous compromises of Versailles, the Civil War evolved out of the contradictory deals struck during the founding of our nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cd195 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

one more time: Upper case U

The National Archives, the cutodian of the actual document, in "The Declaration of Independence: A History" at [19] explains that Congress officially voted on July 19 1776, that the Declaration be "fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile of 'The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America,' and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress." The engrosser Timothy Matlack accidentally changed the upper-case U in United to a lower case-u without authorizationand no one seems to have noticed at the time. The official statement is the one in the Journal. See also the discussion by historian Carl Becker at [20] Rjensen 16:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rights of Man

Thomas Paine's Rights of Man is cited as a source but was written in 1791, after the declaration. This needs to be fixed, maybe mention Locke's Second Treatise. Thejjuggler10 22:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that is a glaring error...--70.91.137.57 01:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Nothing of importance happened today"

Is the origin of this myth related to how Louis XVI wrote "rien" meaning nothing in his diary the day of the storming of the Bastille? I don't mean to speculate and I'm not suggesting that this be added to the article without proof, but does anyone know?Sir Akroy 00:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Influences subsection

What should the influences subsection really say? There was an edit of it that changed most of the text with no comment, and it's been edited a few times since to produce something yet slightly different.

The text before the edit:

The United States Declaration of Independence was influenced by the 1581 Dutch Republic declaration of independence, called the Oath of Abjuration (in Dutch "Plakkaat van Verlatinghe"). Jefferson drew on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which had been adopted in June 1776. (ref) The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath (a letter to the Pope written in 1320 denouncing an English invasion) is sometimes claimed as a source of inspiration. Historians generally do not acknowledge the supposed link. Becker (1922); Maier (1997)(/ref)

The text after the edit:

The United States Declaration of Independence was influenced by Jeffersons own draft preamble to the Virginia Constitution, written a few weeks earlier, and George Mason's draft of Virginia's Decleration of Rights.

The text now:

Jefferson's own draft preamble to the Virginia Constitution influenced the Declaration of Independence. In turn, Thomas Paine's Rights of Man influenced that preamble.

Only the first one above has at least some kind of citation (a bit odd one though, as it has a footnote attached). The citation and mention of influence on the Declaration of Independence is, by the way, still present in the Oath of Abjuration article. Virginia Declaration of Rights also mentions DI, as does Constitution of Virginia. -- Coffee2theorems 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Paine's Rights of Man was published in 1791--15 years too late. No biographer of Jefferson mentions the Dutch document nor dioes Becker's standard history of the Declaration. Rjensen 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Would there be any way to get a proper citation to prove the following: "Sense was very influential to Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers, as well as most Americans as a whole"?Peteyboy64 16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

try these quotes from scholars at [21]: "the incalculably influential Common Sense"; and "made Common Sense the single most influential political work in American history"; "Thomas Paine's Common Sense, the most influential document of the entire American Revolutution" Rjensen 19:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To start with, I would like to mention that what Rjensen has posted is not a correct citation for the quote I mentioned. That aside, none of the ten or so books from the link listed in Amazon by Rjensen backed up the statement that, "Sense was very influential to Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers..." Nothing in those pages of excerpts substantiates the claim that Jefferson or any Founding Father claimed Sense was "very influential." The "[A]s well as most Americans as a whole," is ambiguous as well. However, given the amount of books sold, and the quote that "the most influential document of the entire American Revolutution," we could possibly let that part go; the "Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers" is currently POV unless a correct and proper citation can be offered.Peteyboy64 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Peterson's biography of Jefferson says Jefferson "praised its contribution" (referring to Common Sense) Peterson says "the essentially naturalistic assumptions of Paine's pamphlet went

right along with Jefferson's philosophy, and bringing these assumptions to bear on the question of national independence helped to free him from the inhibitions of law and history." (p 85-86 of Peterson "Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation (1975) Another biographer points out " Jefferson had, before he left America, tried to get Paine a grant of 2,000 guineas from the Virginia Assembly in recognition of his services to the Revolution" [Schachner, Jefferson 1:368]. Ferling says "it was Washington who sounded most like Paine". [Ferling Setting the World Ablaze (2002) p 128]. Ferling adds, "Paine's style resonated with the American public as had no other political tract published between 1763 and 1776. It reached an audience 100 times larger than Dickinson's Pennsylvania Farmer, somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 readers who purchased the pamphlet and countless others—such as the soldiery in the Continental army—who listened as it was read."[ ibid 129] Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Can you add these in the notes section and then make a hyperlink from the "Jefferson" area of the quote? And then we could use something for the "Founding fathers" assumption. Maybe 2 or 3 quotes from others on Common Sense as "very influential."Peteyboy64 (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

a written constitution?

Some edits suggest that because the US did not have a written constitution in effect in 1776 it was not a real country. Not. In 1776 very few real countries had a written constitution (France did not have one, for example)....no one considered that essential for independence.Rjensen 05:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. When the colonies won independence it was 13 "countries" (more accurately states.) PhilLiberty (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Add "Declaration of Independence" article to "American Revolutionary War" article

The only part of the Revolutionary War article that mentions the Declaration is one line that says something like "the following year, they wrote a Declaration". That is pitiful. It deserves a large section, including its effects on the war. Make sure they include the date, too. Even on this page, "July 4th" is only listed twice. This needs to be fixed.

Knightskye 02:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

George Washington

I don't know if he signed it or not, cause' several sites say he signed it yet several sites didn't. If he did, he should be put on the list. If he didn't, he should be put under myths. We should also have a list of the people who refused to sign the Declaration of Independence(and there were only 3 who didn't.)68.81.252.24 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)68.81.252.24

This one's easy- look at the bottom of the image of the declaration. No Washington signature. I don't think he was a part of the congress that signed it.Themissinglint (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I know. i found out the day afterwards. He was in New York at the time so he could not sign it.68.81.252.24 (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)68.81.252.24

pursuit of property note in annotated copy removed

This note was in the annotated text since edit 17:03, 24 August 2007, by 75.28.99.144: "(Note: the original hand-written text ended on the phrase "the pursuit of property" rather than "the pursuit of Happiness" but the phrase was changed in subsequent copies in part because it was broader. The latter phrase is used today)." My understanding is that "pursuit of property" was from John Locke, and that Jefferson always used the phrase "happiness". I can find nothing to support the idea that pursuit of property was in any Declaration of Independence draft, and my belief seems to be supported by Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Themissinglint (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• The phrase "the pursuit of property" can also be interpreted as an endorsement for slavery. BradMajors (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge from "Democracy in the United States"

Somebody seems to be writing a new article at Democracy in the United States which is entirely about the Declaration of Independence, and the nation's attitudes to it. If there's anything salvageable there, it should be merged into this article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Innacuracy

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were not the only men who qualify to be listed under the 'authors' section. Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman were also part of the comitee that drafted the declaration. Livingston was not present at the signing, so he is not mentioned at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.94.53 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Americas Declaration of Independance

The 56 men from the Thirteen colonies who signed the declaration were almost entirly of British family origin.Thirty eight were firmly established as being of English extraxtion,eight Irish (at least five of whom had direct Ulster-scots Family connection),five welsh,four pure Scottish and one swedish.

One account from Ulster writer W.F.Marshall records the far-seeing contribution of the Scots(Ulster Scots) in the struggle for American independance with General George Washington reportedly stating: "If defeated everywhere else i will make my last stand for liberty among the Scotch and Irish of my native Virginia.

- [HHAHAHAHAHAHHA! Oh for goodness sake no he didn't! Seriously, the way these idiotic national myths get reported here as fact is exactly why wikpedia will continue to been as a subjective work rather than a serious one!]

The people who were involved in what was happening at that time knew the influence of the Scotch-Irish.

Captain Johann Heinrichs of the Hassian Jaeger Corps in British service in the Colonies,said in 1778:"Call it not an American rebellion,it is nothing more or less than a Scots-Irish Presbyterian rebellion".

Colonel A.K. McClure, the Philadelphia writer commented:"It was the Scots and Irish People of the colonies that made the Declaration of Independance of 1776. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AcidC4 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Number one, no such thing as scotch Irish. Number two, duh they were European, America Hadn't been established yet!DLWDWFreek (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Brittain's copy?

What happened to Great Brittain's copy of the declaration? Do they still have it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.112 (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Who? Oh, Great BriTain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.244.202 (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"International law"

I am mystified by the entire "international law" section and the talk of the "legitimacy" of the document being based on this, that, or the other, or the "legal foundation". The Declaration was an announcement of an action previously taken. A press release. It is not a legal document, not a bill, not a law. I am thus deleting that section. Vidor (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to start deleting everything that you don't understand, then you should start by writing an explanation. Reviewing your edits (and noticing that you removed a fact tag I added), I see lots of opinion expressed, few sources. Tedickey (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I did write an explanation. This is it. You see it right here, written in English. And I removed your fact tag as ridiculous, because the sentence in question has a reference, that being National Public Radio. Vidor (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got three choices: (a) correct the statement, (b) improve the ref, (c) continue making random edits. Tedickey (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(d) ignore you. (e) delete that statement as being pointless and trivial, per the "trivia" tag atop the section. (f) point out that it was you, for reasons unknown to God or man, that insisted on reinserting the non-sequitur "This error was corrected in 2006". Further point out that National Public Radio is a perfectly respectable source. (g) delete the entire section, per the "trivia" tag. (h) a combination of (d) and (g)...that is, ignore you, while also deleting the section per the "trivia" tag at the top. Actually, that sounds like the best option. Remove the silly non-sequitur about George III's non-existent diary, while also ignoring you and anybody else who presumes to tell me or any other individual editing Wikipedia that "you've got three choices". Vidor (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you chose (c). Bye. Tedickey (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no, I choose (h). Bye bye! Vidor (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. The "myth" section, already tagged as being unreferenced and liable to challenge and remvoal, is gone. The bit about the Lee Resolution seemed redundant; I changed the wording a bit in a section above to further clarify that the Lee Resolution was the actual "declaration" of independence and the D of I was the announcement that followed. The part about New York not voting Yes until July 9 I inserted into the text. The item about the date it was signed was redundant with the text above. The part about the Declaration being signed "in secret" is deleted as being basically false; according to this source the names of the signatories were published in 1777 and in any case the signing wasn't any more "secret" than any other session of the Congress. The part about George III's diary entry is deleted as being pointless and boring, though, for the record, I think National Public Radio is a perfectly fine source if somebody wants to figure out a way to put it back in. And if anybody DOES put it back in, I'll fight to the death to use NPR as an adequate, reliable source thar renders any fact tag unnecessary.

Whether or not this was done at "random" or was a "random edit" (as opposed to what? a planned edit? an edit directed and pre-approved by Tedickey? Just how long does one have to plan an edit for it not to be a "random" edit?) is in the eye of the beholder. Vidor (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Freemasons among the undersigners?

File:Washington apron shrunk.jpg

George Washington with a Masonic garb and Masonic apron

I heard here at youtube (6'29 onward) that of the 56 persons who signed the Declaration, 50 were known members of freemasonry, only one not known. We should verify that and put in the article. --84.56.56.172 (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

from my understanding it was less than 40, I should be able to verify it via the masonic group in New York City ( the bible that is used to swear in George Washington is still in their possession onepoint (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

John Hancock

Not sure if this has been discussed or raised before but I culd not find any further reference to it. In this article the text proclaims: "John Hancock, as the elected President of Congress, was the only person to sign the Declaration of Independence on July 4th. It was not until the following month on August 2nd that the remaining 55 other delegates began to sign the document"

The article on John Hancock, however, suggests: "Another misconception is that Hancock was the only one to sign the Declaration on July 4, 1776, and that others signed the document later, but this confuses two events and two different documents"

I am far from knowledgeable on American Political history, so could someone with further knowledge help to clear up this confusion, please?!

Juicemarie (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)