Talk:United States Declaration of Independence

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (20 Jul 2005 to 11 Nov 2005):

---

Physical document

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

References

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

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

King George

Royal assent

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

• Once again, JW1805, as a constitutional Sovereign King George III was powerless to stop any of that, so "indicting" him personally as a tyrant for doing so is something that many historians maintain was more false propaganda in the "indictment" section of the Declaration. The important statement here is not that it is an absolute truth, or something that "JW1805 says," but rather the statement is something that many historians maintain. Again, see Professor Hibbert's 1996 biography (with cites) of George III. As such, this should rightly be included. 65.28.2.172 04:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• A source ([1]) says that "absolute executive vetoes were still exercised by some royal governors within the American colonies." So the "he has refused his assent" is a valid complaint. I think, 65.28.2.172, that your argument is that it was unfair to personally blame George III for these things, since he really didn't have anything to do with it. But, in this context, "the King" means "the British Government, Parliament, Royal Governors, etc.", not George III as a person (obviously, the King didn't come over to the colonies to personally dissolve legislatures, etc.). Maybe some general statement can be included about this, to avoid confusion? --JW1805 (Talk) 20:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Once again, JW1805, need I state that the inclusion was not that you or I think that the charges in question were "unfair," but that many historians do indeed maintain that they were propaganda, falsehoods, or what have you. That many historians so maintain is an accurate, factual statement, and should well be included. Given the facts that (1) the declaration's charges were intended to portray the King himself as a tyrant, and not merely His Majesty's Government, and many colonists viewed it as stating such, and (2) given the constitutional structure of the Westminster system - even in the 18th century - King George was powerless to prevent his Government from exercising such vetoes, that the historians who maintain as such believe what they do is a perfectly valid, rational belief. Pursuant to Wikipedia's neutrality principles, I strongly suggest that both the veto falsehood section and the slave trade section ought rightly to be included. Again, though, if you so heartily refuse to do so, it appears that (much like the King) I am powerless to prevent you from excluding them. 65.28.2.172 01:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Why single out just these two grievances? By your logic, every one of them is false. Are we to put, "Many historians maintain that King George III didn't personally dissolve the colonial legislatures, so this change is false propaganda". That just doesn't make sense. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• No, JW1805, if you read what I had included, it was an example of the alleged falsehoods in the indictment, and I included that one particularly because it had an additional interesting fact linked elsewhere in Wikipedia that pertained to the particular falsehood. Again, it's not my logic per se, but rather something that "many historians maintain," as I had written. As such, they should properly be included. It seems to me, however, that you aren't following the neutrality principles of Wikipedia, and even though it is commonly-held assertion by historians, the statement about falsehoods offends your personal beliefs, so you're refusing to include it. That just doesn't seem right. I suggest, again, that you allow in the information in question. 65.28.2.172 07:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As you, JW1805, a moderator, are unwilling to include a legitimate historical perspective held by numerous academics simply because you happen to disagree with that perspective, or personally think it to be wrong (yet an equally valid historical perspective held by numerous academics), I strongly dispute the neutrality of this article. A Wikipedia article about the American Declaration of Independence is not merely a forum for what JW1805 and historians sharing his perspective believe - its articles are to remain unbiased and neutral. 65.28.2.172 03:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm just an editor. Wikipedia works by trying to achieve consensus. I have already put in the statement "The grievances are directed personally at the King (as in "He has refused his Assent to Laws..."), although many of them refer to actions taken by the British Parliament or the Royal Governors" which is true, and should address the issues you seem to be concerned about. The sentence about some grivences being exaggerated was already included. So I don't quite know what you have a problem with. Including long sections about King George III and his personal opinions doesn't seem to be relevant to this article. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Under the "indictment" section of the article, the current paragraph only adresses the issue of "exaggerated propaganda" in the Declaration, whereas the sentence that I added there (and you removed) concerned blatant "falsehoods." Under the section of the article concerning changes between the draft and final copies, you removed my inclusion asserting that many historians maintain that to charge the King with promoting the slave trade would have been another example of a "falsehood" in the indictment section. Both of these statements are perfectly valid points of view about a very important part of the Declaration. They rightly deserve to be included, and are highly relevant to the subject matter. I have re-included both passages. 65.28.2.172 07:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

They are not "blatant falshoods". What is your source for that assertion? ("many historians" is not good enough). The problem here is that you read "the King" as George III as an individual person who has opinions, whereas "the King" in the Declaration of Independence refers to the monarch of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and all the ministers and officers who act in his name. Read this way, the "he has refused assent" is 100% true, and "he has allowed the slave trade" is 100% true. To take into account your views, I inserted the sentence clarifing this, which should settle the matter. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

King George and the slave trade

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

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

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

• Also, the section about the slave trade wasn't included in the final version anyway. --JW1805 ^(Talk) 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

• I concur with JW1805. --Dan East 05:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

NPOV

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

• Agreed. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Historical analysis

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

Disputes about Authorship

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

While most Americans steadfastly believe that Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration, there is a group who believes that evidence exists to the contrary. There is a group of people, both from the past and present, that believe that Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense, was also the true architect and author of the Declaration.

William Van Der Weyde, one of Paine's biographers, wrote in The Life and Works of Thomas Paine [2] (Thomas Paine National Historical Association. 1925.):

Several modern authors believe that Thomas Paine was himself the writer of the Declaration and the evidence adduced by Joel Moody, William H. Burr, Van Buren Denslow, and others, is at least plausible. The wording in the Declaration is strikingly similar to that of "Common Sense," as well as is the sequence of argument. Paine, as the author of the stirring pamphlet urging complete independence from Britain, might very logically have been selected to draft the Declaration, but Jefferson, heading the committee appointed to draft the paper, no doubt prepared the historic document.

Paine, never the less, was intimately associated with its preparation. As one of Jefferson's closest friends, and the leading writer on political subjects in America, it is reasonable to suppose that Jefferson, entrusted with the drafting of the Declaration, should turn to Paine for consultation and, perhaps, collaboration. (p.32) There can be no doubt that Paine either wrote the anti-slavery clause of the Declaration, or that the writer had before him Paine's essay advocating the abolishment of negro bondage. The anti-slavery clause in the first drafts of the Declaration was omitted eventually because South Carolina and Georgia objected to it, as did also some Northerners who made a business of supplying slaves.

The matter of the authorship of the Declaration will, in all probability, never be absolutely settled. The several drafts of the Declaration, supposed to be the "original" drafts, are in the handwriting of Jefferson. Paine's ideas are visible in all these drafts. Whether he was actually concerned in the writing of the famous document matters little. As William Cobbett truly said: "Whoever wrote the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine was its author.

This notion that Paine, not Thomas Jefferson, authored the founding document of America has met with a mix of sharp denials and enthusiastic support. Most Americans accept that Thomas Jefferson was the author.

But those that believe that Paine was the author find support from the biographies of the two men before the Declaration was penned. Previous to July 4, 1776, Paine wrote one of the earliest treaties against African slavery, wrote for the equal rights of women, wrote against animal cruelty, was a student of Newton, was adept at physics and at advanced mathematics, wrote Common Sense (in January of 1776), and was the first to coin the term United States of America.

Supporters of this hypothesis that Paine penned the founding document of America assert that Paine had a body of work and a biography that was congruent with human dignity and freedom without exception, while Jefferson held slaves and had no previous body of work that congruent with the principles in the Declaration of Independence. These people also point to the notable differences between previous drafts and the final version of the Declaration of Independence, and to the idea that it has been seemingly impossible to reconcile the fact that Jefferson was a slaveholder, with the notion that he wrote the foundational document for the freedom of all mankind. Many of these believers in Paine's authorship, scholars and laypeople among them, find it simpler, with the support of logic and evidence, to believe that Paine authored the document and allowed Jefferson to have the credit.

Among historical figures who support this idea (in addition to the ones quoted above) are: William Van Der Weyde, Robert G. Ingersoll, Joseph Lewis (who wrote Thomas Paine: Author of the Declaration of Independence. Freethought Press. 1947), Thomas Alva Edison, Andrew Galambos.

(see Thomas Paine for further reading)

Treasure

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

What is at the National Archives?

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

The original handwritten document as ratified by the continental congress and signed by the President and the Secretary of the Congress on July 4th, 1776 was sent that night to the printing shop of John Dunlap ***and never seen again***, thus my edit summary note that "the original was lost". The oldest surviving copies are those copies Dunlap printed that night. The original wording of this article, "the original signed copy", makes it sound like the copy that was lost is the one on display.

I would simply like it to be clear to readers that it is not The "handwritten signed copy" that was ratified, but simply a ceremonial "handwritten signed copy" that is actually on display, thus my original edit to "A ceremonial signed copy". IMHO, "The handwritten copy", even with the trailing qualification "signed by the delegates to the Congress", still makes it sound too much like "The original handwritten copy" for the casual reader to discern. In this case the "A" in my edit was in reference to "handwritten copy" not "handwritten copy signed by the delegates to the Congress". I agree that the "signed by the delegates to the Congress" is a bit cumbersome, and that entire part of the sentence should probably be removed, which I guess you could say is really why the "A" was basically ignoring it.

Not sure what the objection was to my original edit to "A ceremonial signed copy". A copy of a document made weeks later and signed a month later is just about the definition of a ceremonial copy, and in fact the first hit on a Google search for "ceremonial copy" is to a page talking about the "ceremonial copy" of the DoI on display at the National Archives. --Pascal666 06:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you that "original" is misleading. I'm just not sure about "ceremonial". This document was officially produced by the Congress, signed by (most of) the delegates, and has gone down in history as the official handwritten version. The problem I had with the "A" in "A signed copy", makes it sound like there were other copies floating around that were signed by the delagates, which isn't true. "The" makes it clearer that there exists only one handwritten copy signed by the delagates, and that is the one at the National Archives.--JW1805 (Talk) 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Versions of the opening paragraph

Two versions of the opening paragraph exist. Please indicate which you think is better.

Version A

The Declaration of Independence is the document that founded the United States of America. In it, the United States Congress: declares the minimum rights that an equitable government must recognize, shows multiple instances of how the British Crown has failed to recognize these rights in regard to the Thirteen Colonies, and concludes that the Colonies are therefore "free and independent states." The document was unanimously ratified by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. This anniversary is celebrated as Independence Day in the United States. The original signed copy of the document is on display in the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Version B

The Declaration of Independence is the document in which the Thirteen Colonies declared themselves independent of the Kingdom of Great Britain and explained their justifications for doing so. It was ratified by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. This anniversary is celebrated as Independence Day in the United States. The handwritten copy signed by the delegates to the Congress is on display in the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

--Cheese Curd 03:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)