LiteratureFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search This article is about (usually written) works. For the card game, see Literature (card game).

Old book bindings at the Merton College library. Literature is the art of written works. Literally translated, the word means "acquaintance with letters" (from Latin littera letter). In Western culture the most basic written literary types include fiction and nonfiction.

Contents[hide]

1 Definitions 2 History o 2.1 Poetry o 2.2 Prose 2.2.1 Essays 2.2.2 Fiction 2.2.3 Other prose literature o 2.3 Drama o 2.4 Oral literature o 2.5 Other narrative forms 3 Genres of literature 4 Literary techniques 5 Literary criticism 6 Legal status o 6.1 UK 7 See also o 7.1 Lists o 7.2 Related topics 8 Notes 9 External links

DefinitionsLiteratureMajor forms Novel Poem Drama Short story Novella Genres Epic Lyric Drama Romance Satire Tragedy Comedy Tragicomedy Media Performance (play) Book Techniques Prose Poetry History and lists Basic topics Literary terms History Modern history Books Writers Literary awards Poetry awards Discussion Criticism Theory Magazines

The word "literature" has different meanings depending on who is using it. It could be applied broadly to mean any symbolic record, encompassing everything from images and sculptures to letters. In a more narrow sense the term could mean only text composed of letters, or other examples of symbolic written language (Egyptian hieroglyphs, for example). An even more narrow interpretation is that text have a physical form, such as on paper or some other portable form, to the exclusion of inscriptions or digital media. The Muslim scholar and philosopher Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (702-765 AD) defined Literature as follows: "Literature is the garment which one puts on what he says or writes so that it may appear more attractive."[1] added that literature is a slice of life that has been given direction and meaning, an artistic interpretation of the world according to the percipient's point of views. Frequently, the texts that make up literature crossed over these boundaries. Russian Formalist Roman Jakobson defines literature as "organized violence committed on ordinary speech", highlighting literature's deviation from the day-today and conversational structure of words. Illustrated stories, hypertexts, cave paintings and inscribed monuments have all at one time or another pushed the boundaries of "literature." People may perceive a difference between "literature" and some popular forms of written work. The terms "literary fiction" and "literary merit" often serve to distinguish between individual works. For example, almost all literate people perceive the works of Charles Dickens as "literature," whereas some critics[citation needed] look down on the works of Jeffrey Archer as unworthy of inclusion under the general heading of "English literature." Critics may exclude works from the classification "literature," for example, on the grounds of a poor standard of grammar and syntax, of an unbelievable or disjointed story-line, or of inconsistent or unconvincing characters. Genre fiction (for example: romance, crime, or science fiction) may also become excluded from consideration as "literature."

HistoryOne of the earliest known literary works is the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, an epic poem dated around 2700 B.C., which deals with themes of heroism, friendship, loss, and the quest for eternal life. Different historical periods have emphasized various characteristics of literature. Early works often had an overt or covert religious or didactic purpose. Moralizing or prescriptive literature stems from such sources. The exotic nature of romance flourished from the Middle Ages onwards, whereas the Age of Reason manufactured nationalistic epics and philosophical tracts. Romanticism emphasized the popular folk literature and emotive involvement, but gave way in the 19th-century West to a phase of realism and naturalism, investigations into what is real. The 20th century brought demands for symbolism or psychological insight in the delineation and development of character.

PoetryA poem is defined as a composition written in verse (although verse has been equally used for epic and dramatic fiction). Poems rely heavily on imagery, precise word choice, and metaphor; they may take the form of measures consisting of patterns of stresses (metric feet) or of patterns of different-length syllables (as in classical prosody); and they may or may not utilize rhyme. One cannot readily characterize poetry precisely. Typically though, poetry as a form of literature makes some significant use of the formal properties of the words it uses the properties attached to the written or spoken form of the words, rather than to their meaning. Metre depends on syllables and on rhythms of speech; rhyme and alliteration depend on words Poetry perhaps pre-dates other forms of literature: early known examples include the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh (dated from around 2700 B.C.), parts of the Bible, the surviving works of Homer (the Iliad and the Odyssey), and the Indian epics Ramayana and Mahabharata. In cultures based primarily on oral traditions the formal characteristics of poetry often have a mnemonic function, and important texts: legal, genealogical or moral, for example, may appear first in verse form. Some poetry uses specific forms: the haiku, the limerick, or the sonnet, for example. A traditional haiku written in Japanese must have something to do with nature, contain seventeen onji (syllables), distributed over three lines in groups of five, seven, and five, and should also have a kigo, a specific word indicating a season. A limerick has five lines, with a rhyme scheme of AABBA, and line lengths of 3,3,2,2,3 stressed syllables. It traditionally has a less reverent attitude towards nature. Poetry not adhering to a formal poetic structure is called "free verse" Language and tradition dictate some poetic norms: Persian poetry always rhymes, Greek poetry rarely rhymes, Italian or French poetry often does, English and German can go either way (although modern non-rhyming poetry often, perhaps unfairly, has a more "serious" aura). Perhaps the most paradigmatic style of English poetry, blank verse, as exemplified in works by Shakespeare and by Milton, consists of unrhymed iambic pentameters. Some languages prefer longer lines; some shorter ones. Some of these conventions result from the ease of fitting a specific language's vocabulary and grammar into certain structures, rather than into others; for example, some languages contain more rhyming words than others, or typically have longer words. Other structural conventions come about as the result of historical accidents, where many speakers of a language associate good poetry with a verse form preferred by a particular skilled or popular poet. Works for theatre (see below) traditionally took verse form. This has now become rare outside opera and musicals, although many would argue that the language of drama remains intrinsically poetic.

In recent years, digital poetry has arisen that takes advantage of the artistic, publishing, and synthetic qualities of digital media.

ProseProse consists of writing that does not adhere to any particular formal structures (other than simple grammar); "non-poetic" writing, perhaps. The term sometimes appears pejoratively, but prosaic writing simply says something without necessarily trying to say it in a beautiful way, or using beautiful words. Prose writing can of course take beautiful form; but less by virtue of the formal features of words (rhymes, alliteration, metre) but rather by style, placement, or inclusion of graphics. But one need not mark the distinction precisely, and perhaps cannot do so. One area of overlap is "prose poetry", which attempts to convey using only prose, the aesthetic richness typical of poetry. Essays An essay consists of a discussion of a topic from an author's personal point of view, exemplified by works by Francis Bacon or by Charles Lamb. 'Essay' in English derives from the French 'essai', meaning 'attempt'. Thus one can find open-ended, provocative and/or inconclusive essays. The term "essays" first applied to the self-reflective musings of Michel de Montaigne, and even today he has a reputation as the father of this literary form. Genres related to the essay may include:

the memoir, telling the story of an author's life from the author's personal point of view the epistle: usually a formal, didactic, or elegant letter.

Fiction Narrative fiction (narrative prose) generally favours prose for the writing of novels, short stories, graphic novels, and the like. Singular examples of these exist throughout history, but they did not develop into systematic and discrete literary forms until relatively recent centuries. Length often serves to categorize works of prose fiction. Although limits remain somewhat arbitrary, modern publishing conventions dictate the following:

A Mini Saga is a short story of exactly 50 words A Flash fiction is generally defined as a piece of prose under a thousand words. A short story comprises prose writing of between 1000 and 20,000 words (but typically more than 5000 words), which may or may not have a narrative arc. A story containing between 20,000 and 50,000 words falls into the novella category. A work of fiction containing more than 50,000 words falls squarely into the realm of the novel.

A novel consists simply of a long story written in prose, yet the form developed comparatively recently. Icelandic prose sagas dating from about the 11th century bridge the gap between traditional national verse epics and the modern psychological novel. In mainland Europe, the Spaniard Cervantes wrote perhaps the first influential novel: Don Quixote, the first part of which was published in 1605 and the second in 1615. Earlier collections of tales, such as the One Thousand and One Nights, Boccaccio's Decameron and Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, have comparable forms and would classify as novels if written today. Other works written in classical Asian and Arabic literature resemble even more strongly the novel as we now think of it for example, works such as the Japanese Tale of Genji by Lady Murasaki, the Arabic Hayy ibn Yaqdhan by Ibn Tufail, the Arabic Theologus Autodidactus by Ibn al-Nafis, and the Chinese Romance of the Three Kingdoms by Luo Guanzhong.

Early novels in Europe did not, at the time, count as significant literature, perhaps because "mere" prose writing seemed easy and unimportant. It has become clear, however, that prose writing can provide aesthetic pleasure without adhering to poetic forms. Additionally, the freedom authors gain in not having to concern themselves with verse structure translates often into a more complex plot or into one richer in precise detail than one typically finds even in narrative poetry. This freedom also allows an author to experiment with many different literary and presentation styles including poetry in the scope of a single novel. See Ian Watt's The Rise of the Novel. [This definition needs expansion] Other prose literature Philosophy, history, journalism, and legal and scientific writings traditionally ranked as literature. They offer some of the oldest prose writings in existence; novels and prose stories earned the names "fiction" to distinguish them from factual writing or nonfiction, which writers historically have crafted in prose. The "literary" nature of science writing has become less pronounced over the last two centuries, as advances and specialization have made new scientific research inaccessible to most audiences; science now appears mostly in journals. Scientific works of Euclid, Aristotle, Copernicus, and Newton still possess great value; but since the science in them has largely become outdated, they no longer serve for scientific instruction, yet they remain too technical to sit well in most programmes of literary study. Outside of "history of science" programmes students rarely read such works. Many books "popularizing" science might still deserve the title "literature"; history will tell. Philosophy, too, has become an increasingly academic discipline. More of its practitioners lament this situation than occurs with the sciences; nonetheless most new philosophical work appears in academic journals. Major philosophers through history Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Descartes, Nietzsche have become as canonical as any writers. Some recent philosophy works are argued to merit the title "literature", such as some of the works by Simon Blackburn; but much of it does not, and some areas, such as logic, have become extremely technical to a degree similar to that of mathematics. A great deal of historical writing can still rank as literature, particularly the genre known as creative nonfiction. So can a great deal of journalism, such as literary journalism. However these areas have become extremely large, and often have a primarily utilitarian purpose: to record data or convey immediate information. As a result the writing in these fields often lacks a literary quality, although it often and in its better moments has that quality. Major "literary" historians include Herodotus, Thucydides and Procopius, all of whom count as canonical literary figures. Law offers a less clear case. Some writings of Plato and Aristotle, or even the early parts of the Bible, might count as legal literature. The law tables of Hammurabi of Babylon might count. Roman civil law as codified in the Corpus Juris Civilis during the reign of Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire has a reputation as significant literature. The founding documents of many countries, including the United States Constitution, can count as literature; however legal writing now rarely exhibits literary merit. Game design scripts are never seen by the player of a game and only by the developers and/or publishers to help them understand, visualize and maintain consistency while collaborating in creating a game, the audience for these pieces is usually very small. Still, many game scripts contain immersive stories and detailed worlds making them a hidden literary genre. Most of these fields, then, through specialization or proliferation, no longer generally constitute "literature" in the sense under discussion. They may sometimes count as "literary literature"; more often they produce what one might call "technical literature" or "professional literature".

DramaA play or drama offers another classical literary form that has continued to evolve over the years. It generally comprises chiefly dialogue between characters, and usually aims at dramatic / theatrical performance (see theatre) rather than at reading. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, opera developed as a combination of poetry, drama, and music. Nearly all drama took verse form until comparatively recently. Shakespeare could be considered drama. Romeo and Juliet, for example, is a classic romantic drama generally accepted as literature. Greek drama exemplifies the earliest form of drama of which we have substantial knowledge. Tragedy, as a dramatic genre, developed as a performance associated with religious and civic festivals, typically enacting or developing upon well-known historical or mythological themes. Tragedies generally presented very serious themes. With the advent of newer technologies, scripts written for non-stage media have been added to this form. War of the Worlds (radio) in 1938 saw the advent of literature written for radio broadcast, and many works of Drama have been adapted for film or television. Conversely, television, film, and radio literature have been adapted to printed or electronic media.

Oral literatureThe term oral literature refers not to written, but to oral traditions, which includes different types of epic, poetry and drama, folktales, ballads, legends, jokes, and other genres of folklore. It exists in every society, whether literate or not. It is generally studied by folklorists, or by scholars committed to cultural studies and ethnopoetics, including linguists, anthropologists, and even sociologists.

Other narrative forms

Electronic literature is a literary genre consisting of works which originate in digital environments. Films, videos and broadcast soap operas have carved out a niche which often parallels the functionality of prose fiction. Graphic novels and comic books present stories told in a combination of sequential artwork, dialogue and text.

Genres of literatureA literary genre refers to the traditional divisions of literature of various kinds according to a particular criterion of writing. See the list of literary genres. List of literary genres

Autobiography, Memoir, Spiritual autobiography Biography Diaries and Journals Electronic literature Erotic literature Slave narrative Fiction o Adventure novel o Children's literature o Comic novel o Crime fiction Detective fiction

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o

Fable, Fairy tale, Folklore Fantasy (for more details see Fantasy subgenres; fantasy literature) Gothic fiction (initially synonymous with horror) Historical fiction Horror Medical novel Mystery fiction Philosophical novel Political fiction Romance novel Historical romance Saga, Family Saga Satire Science fiction (for more details see Science fiction genre) Thriller Conspiracy fiction Legal thriller Psychological thriller Spy fiction/Political thriller Tragedy

Literary techniquesMain article: Literary technique A literary technique or literary device may be used by works of literature in order to produce a specific effect on the reader. Literary technique is distinguished from literary genre as military tactics are from military strategy. Thus, though David Copperfield employs satire at certain moments, it belongs to the genre of comic novel, not that of satire. By contrast, Bleak House employs satire so consistently as to belong to the genre of satirical novel. In this way, use of a technique can lead to the development of a new genre, as was the case with one of the first modern novels, Pamela by Samuel Richardson, which by using the epistolary technique strengthened the tradition of the epistolary novel, a genre which had been practiced for some time already but without the same acclaim.

Literary criticismAlso see: Literary criticism, Literary history, Literary theory Literary criticism implies a critique and evaluation of a piece of literature and in some cases is used to improve a work in progress or classical piece. There are many types of literary criticism and each can be used to critique a piece in a different way or critique a different aspect of a piece.

Legal statusUKLiterary works have been protected by copyright law from unauthorised reproduction since at least 1710. [2] Literary works are defined by copyright law to mean any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung, and accordingly includes (a) a table or compilation (other than a

database), (b) a computer program, (c) preparatory design material for a computer program, and (d) a database. It should be noted that literary works are not limited to works of literature, but include all works expressed in print or writing (other than dramatic or musical works).[3]

See alsoLists

List of basic literature topics List of authors List of books List of literary awards List of literary terms List of prizes, medals, and awards for literary prizes. List of women writers List of writers

Related topics

Asemic Writing Children's literature Cultural movement for literary movements. English studies Ergodic literature Hinman Collator History of literature (antiquity 1800) History of modern literature (1800 ) Literature basic topics Literary criticism Literature cycle Literary magazine Modern Language Association Orature Postcolonial literature Rabbinic literature Rhetorical modes Scientific literature Vernacular literature World literature

Notes Essay Contents[hide]

1 Etymology 2 The essay as a pedagogical tool o 2.1 The five-paragraph essay o 2.2 Academic essays 2.2.1 Descriptive 2.2.2 Narrative 2.2.3 Exemplification 2.2.4 Comparison and Contrast 2.2.5 Cause and Effect 2.2.6 Classification and division 2.2.7 Definition 2.2.8 Dialectic 2.2.9 Other Logical Structures 3 Non-literary essays o 3.1 Visual Arts o 3.2 Music o 3.3 Film o 3.4 Photography 4 See also 5 References 6 Bibliography 7 External links

United States Declaration of IndependenceFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search United States Declaration of Independence

1823 facsimile of the engrossed copy

Created Ratified

JuneJuly 1776 July 4, 1776

Location Engrossed copy: National Archives Original: lost Rough draft: Library of Congress Authors Signers Thomas Jefferson et al. 56 delegates to the Continental Congress To announce and explain separation from Britain[1]

Purpose

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of United States Government/The Declaration of Independence The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, announcing that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration is a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The birthday of the United States of America Independence Dayis celebrated on July 4, the day the wording of the Declaration was approved by Congress. After approving the wording on July 4, Congress issued the Declaration of Independence in several forms. It was initially published as a printed broadside that was widely distributed and read to the public. The most famous version of the Declaration, a signed copy that is usually regarded as the Declaration of Independence, is on display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Contrary to popular mythology, Congress did not sign this document on July 4, 1776; it was created after July 19 and was signed by most Congressional delegates on August 2. Philosophically, the Declaration stressed two Lockean themes: individual rights and the right of revolution. These ideas of the Declaration continued to be widely held by Americans, and had an influence internationally[citation needed], in particular the French Revolution[citation needed]. Abraham Lincoln, beginning in 1854 as he spoke out against slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act,[2] provided a reinterpretation[3] of the Declaration that stressed that the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness were not limited to the white race.[4] "Lincoln and those who shared his conviction" created a document with continuing usefulness with a capacity to convince and inspire living Americans.[5] The invocation by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address of the Declaration of Independence defines for many Americans how they interpret[6] Jefferson's famous preamble:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Contents[hide]

1 Background o 1.1 Parliamentary sovereignty o 1.2 Congress convenes 2 Towards independence o 2.1 Revising instructions o 2.2 Lee's resolution and the final push 3 Draft and adoption 4 Text 5 Influences 6 Signers o 6.1 Date of signing o 6.2 List of signers o 6.3 Signer details 7 Publication and effect 8 History of the documents o 8.1 Drafts and Fair Copy o 8.2 Broadsides o 8.3 Engrossed copy o 8.4 Publication outside North America 9 Legacy o 9.1 From the Founding through 1850 o 9.2 Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War era o 9.3 Subsequent legacy 10 See also 11 Notes 12 References 13 External links

Background

Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration, argued that Parliament was a foreign legislature that was unconstitutionally trying to extend its sovereignty into the colonies.

Parliamentary sovereignty

By the time the Declaration of Independence was adopted in July 1776, the Thirteen Colonies and Great Britain had been at war for more than a year. Relations between the colonies and the parent country had been deteriorating since the end of the Seven Years' War in 1763. The war had plunged the British government deep into debt, and so Parliament enacted a series of measures to increase tax revenue from the colonies. Parliament believed that these acts, such as the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767, were a legitimate means of having the colonies pay their fair share of the costs to keep the colonies in the British Empire.[7] Many colonists, however, had developed a different conception of the empire. Because the colonies were not directly represented in Parliament, they argued that Parliament had no right to levy taxes upon them, a view expressed by the slogan "No taxation without representation". After the Townshend Acts, some essayists began to question whether Parliament had any legitimate jurisdiction in the colonies at all.[8] By 1774, American writers such as Samuel Adams, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson were arguing that Parliament was the legislature of Great Britain only, and that the colonies, which had their own legislatures, were connected to the rest of the empire only through their allegiance to the Crown.[9] Parliament, by contrast, contended that the colonists received "virtual representation."[citation needed]

Congress convenesThe issue of parliamentary sovereignty in the colonies became a crisis after Parliament passed the Coercive Acts in 1774 to punish the Province of Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party. Many colonists saw the Coercive Acts as a violation of the British Constitution and a threat to the liberties of all of British America. In September 1774, the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia to coordinate a response. Congress organized a boycott of British goods and petitioned the king for repeal of the acts. These measures were unsuccessful because King George III and his ministers were determined to force the issue. As the king wrote to Prime Minister Lord North in November 1774, "blows must decide whether they [the colonies] are to be subject to this country or independent".[10] Even after fighting in the American Revolutionary War began at Lexington and Concord in April 1775, most colonists still hoped for reconciliation with Great Britain.[11] When the Second Continental Congress convened at the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia in May 1775, some delegates hoped for eventual independence, but no one yet advocated declaring it.[12] Although many colonists no longer believed that Parliament had any sovereignty over them, they still professed loyalty to King George, whom they hoped would intercede on their behalf. They were to be disappointed: in late 1775, the king rejected Congress's second petition, issued a Proclamation of Rebellion, and announced before Parliament on October 26 that he was even considering "friendly offers of foreign assistance" to suppress the rebellion.[13] A pro-American minority in Parliament warned that the government was driving the colonists towards independence.[14]

Towards independenceIn January 1776, just as it became clear in the colonies that the king was not inclined to act as a conciliator, Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense was published.[15] Paine, who had only recently arrived in the colonies from England, argued in favor of colonial independence, advocating republicanism as an alternative to monarchy and hereditary rule.[16] Common Sense introduced no new ideas,[17] and probably had little direct effect on Congress's thinking about independence; its importance was in stimulating public debate on a topic that few had previously dared to openly discuss.[18] Public support for separation from Great Britain steadily increased after the publication of Paine's enormously popular pamphlet.[19]

The Assembly Room in Philadelphia's Independence Hall, where the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. Although some colonists still held out hope for reconciliation, developments in early 1776 further strengthened public support for independence. In February 1776, colonists learned of Parliament's passage of the Prohibitory Act, which established a blockade of American ports and declared American ships to be enemy vessels. John Adams, a strong supporter of independence, believed that Parliament had effectively declared American independence before Congress had been able to. Adams labeled the Prohibitory Act the "Act of Independency", calling it "a compleat Dismemberment of the British Empire".[20] Support for declaring independence grew even more when it was confirmed that King George had hired German mercenaries to use against his American subjects.[21] Despite this growing popular support for independence, Congress lacked the clear authority to declare it. Delegates had been elected to Congress by thirteen different governmentswhich included extralegal conventions, ad hoc committees, and elected assembliesand were bound by the instructions given to them. Regardless of their personal opinions, delegates could not vote to declare independence unless their instructions permitted such an action.[22] Several colonies, in fact, expressly prohibited their delegates from taking any steps towards separation from Great Britain, while other delegations had instructions that were ambiguous on the issue.[23] As public sentiment for separation from Great Britain grew, advocates of independence sought to have the Congressional instructions revised. For Congress to declare independence, a majority of delegations would need authorization to vote for independence, and at least one colonial government would need to specifically instruct its delegation to propose a declaration of independence in Congress. Between April and July 1776, a "complex political war"[24] was waged in order to bring this about.[25]

Revising instructionsIn the campaign to revise Congressional instructions, many Americans formally expressed their support for separation from Great Britain in what were effectively state and local declarations of independence. Historian Pauline Maier identified more than ninety such declarations that were issued throughout the Thirteen Colonies from April to July 1776.[26] These "declarations" took a variety of forms.[27] Some were formal, written instructions for Congressional delegations, such as the Halifax Resolves of April 12, with which North Carolina became the first colony to explicitly authorize its delegates to vote for independence.[28] Others were legislative acts that officially ended British rule in individual colonies, such as on May 4, when the Rhode Island legislature became to the first to declare its independence from Great Britain.[29] Many "declarations" were resolutions adopted at town or county meetings that offered support for independence. A few came in the form of jury instructions, such as the statement issued on April 23, 1776, by Chief Justice William Henry Drayton of South Carolina: "the law of the land authorizes me to declare...that George the Third, King of Great Britain...has no authority over us, and we owe no obedience to him."[30] Most of these declarations are now obscure, having been overshadowed by the declaration approved by Congress on July 4.[31] Some colonies held back from endorsing independence. Resistance was centered in the middle colonies of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.[32] Advocates of independence saw

Pennsylvania as the key: if that colony could be converted to the pro-independence cause, it was believed that the others would follow.[33] On May 1, however, opponents of independence retained control of the Pennsylvania Assembly in a special election that had focused on the question of independence.[34] In response, on May 10 Congress passed a resolution, which had been introduced by John Adams, calling on colonies without a "government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs" to adopt new governments.[35] The resolution passed unanimously, and was even supported by Pennsylvania's John Dickinson, the leader of the anti-independence faction in Congress, who believed that it did not apply to his colony.[36]

This Day the Congress has passed the most important Resolution, that ever was taken in America. John Adams, May 15, 1776[37]

As was the custom, Congress appointed a committee to draft a preamble that would explain the purpose of the resolution. John Adams wrote the preamble, which stated that because King George had rejected reconciliation and was even hiring foreign mercenaries to use against the colonies, "it is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed".[38] Everyone understood that Adams's preamble was meant to encourage the overthrow of the governments of Pennsylvania and Maryland, which were still under proprietary governance.[39] Congress passed the preamble on May 15 after several days of debate, but four of the middle colonies voted against it, and the Maryland delegation walked out in protest.[40] Adams regarded his May 15 preamble as effectively an American declaration of independence, although he knew that a formal declaration would still have to be made.[41]

Lee's resolution and the final pushOn the same day that Congress passed Adams's radical preamble, the Virginia Convention set the stage for a formal Congressional declaration of independence. On May 15, the Convention passed a resolve instructing Virginia's congressional delegation "to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent States, absolved from all allegiance to, or dependence upon, the Crown or Parliament of Great Britain".[42] In accordance with those instructions, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia presented a three-part resolution to Congress on June 7. The motion, which was seconded by John Adams, called on Congress to declare independence, form foreign alliances, and prepare a plan of colonial confederation. The part of the resolution relating to declaring independence read:Resolved, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.[43]

The resolution met with resistance in the ensuing debate. Moderate delegates, while conceding that reconciliation with Great Britain was no longer possible, argued that a resolution of independence was premature. Therefore, further discussion of Lee's resolution was postponed for three weeks.[44] Until then, while support for independence was consolidated, Congress decided that a committee should prepare a document announcing and explaining independence in the event that the resolution of independence was approved.

Draft and adoptionOn June 11, 1776, Congress appointed a "Committee of Five", consisting of John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston

of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, to draft a declaration. Because the committee left no minutes, there is some uncertainty about how the drafting process proceededaccounts written many years later by Jefferson and Adams, although frequently cited, are contradictory and not entirely reliable. [45] What is certain is that the committee, after discussing the general outline that the document should follow, decided that Jefferson would write the first draft.[46] Considering Congress's busy schedule, Jefferson probably had limited time for writing over the next 17 days, and likely wrote the draft quickly. [47] He then consulted the others, made some changes, and then produced another copy incorporating these alterations. The committee presented this copy to the Congress on June 28, 1776. The title of the document was "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled."[48] Congress ordered that the draft "lie on the table".[49]

John Trumbull's famous painting is often identified as a depiction of the signing of the Declaration, but it actually shows the drafting committee presenting its work to the Congress.[50] On Monday, July 1, having tabled the draft of the declaration, Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole and resumed debate on Lee's resolution of independence.[51] John Dickinson made one last effort to delay the decision, arguing that Congress should not declare independence without first securing a foreign alliance and finalizing the Articles of Confederation.[52] John Adams gave a speech in reply to Dickinson, restating the case for an immediate declaration. After a long day of speeches, a vote was taken. As always, each colony cast a single vote and the delegation for each colonynumbering two to seven membersvoted amongst themselves to determine the colony's vote. Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted against declaring independence. The New York delegation, lacking permission to vote for independence, abstained. Delaware cast no vote because the delegation was split between Thomas McKean (who voted yes) and George Read (who voted no). The remaining nine delegations voted in favor of independence, which meant that the resolution had been approved by the committee of the whole. The next step was for the resolution to be voted upon by the Congress itself. Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, who was opposed to Lee's resolution but desirous of unanimity, moved that the vote be postponed until the following day.[53] On July 2, South Carolina reversed its position and voted for independence. In the Pennsylvania delegation, Dickinson and Robert Morris abstained, allowing the delegation to vote three-to-two in favor of independence. The tie in the Delaware delegation was broken by the timely arrival of Caesar Rodney, who voted for independence. The New York delegation abstained once again, since they were still not authorized to vote for independence, although they would be allowed to do so by the New York Provincial Congress a week later.[54] The resolution of independence had been adopted with twelve affirmative votes and one abstention. With this, the colonies had officially severed political ties with Great Britain.[55] In a now-famous letter written to his wife on the following day, John Adams predicted that July 2 would become a great American holiday.[56] After voting in favor of the resolution of independence, Congress turned its attention to the committee's draft of the declaration. Over several days of debate, Congress made a few changes in wording and deleted nearly a fourth of the text, most notably a passage critical of the slave trade, changes that Jefferson resented. On July 4, 1776, the wording of the Declaration of Independence was approved and sent to the printer for publication.

TextWikisource has original text related to this article: United States Declaration of Independence 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.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.

The next section, the famous preamble, includes the ideas and ideals that were principles of the Declaration. It is also an assertion of what is known as the "right of revolution": that is, people have certain rights, and when a government violates these rights, the people have the right to "alter or abolish" that government.[57]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The next section is a list of charges against King George which aim to demonstrate that he has violated the colonists' rights and is therefore unfit to be their ruler:Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the

State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Many Americans still felt a kinship with the people of Great Britain, and had appealed in vain to the prominent among them, as well as to Parliament, to convince the King to relax his more objectionable policies toward the colonies.[58] The next section represents disappointment that these attempts had been unsuccessful.Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish [sic] brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

In the final section, the signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions, and by necessity the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion incorporates language from the resolution of independence that had been passed on July 2.We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Influences

Thomas Jefferson considered English philosopher John Locke (16321704) to be one of "the three greatest men that have ever lived".[59] Historians have often sought to identify the sources that most influenced the words of the Declaration of Independence. By Jefferson's own admission, the Declaration contained no original ideas, but was instead a statement of sentiments widely shared by supporters of the American Revolution. As he explained in 1825:Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.[60]

Jefferson's most immediate sources were two documents written in June 1776: his own draft of the preamble of the Constitution of Virginia, and George Mason's draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Ideas and phrases from both of these documents appear in the Declaration of Independence.[61] They were in turn directly influenced by the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, which formally ended the reign of King James II.[62] During the American Revolution, Jefferson and other Americans looked to the English Declaration of Rights as a model of how to end the reign of an unjust king.[63] English political theorist John Locke is usually cited as a primary influence on the Declaration. As historian Carl L. Becker wrote in 1922, "Most Americans had absorbed Locke's works as a kind of political gospel; and the Declaration, in its form, in its phraseology, follows closely certain sentences in

Locke's second treatise on government."[64] The extent of Locke's influence on the American Revolution was questioned by some subsequent scholars, however, who emphasized the influence of republicanism rather than Locke's classical liberalism.[65] Historian Garry Wills argued that Jefferson was influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment, particularly Francis Hutcheson, rather than Locke,[66] an interpretation that has been strongly criticized.[67] The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath (1320) and the Dutch Act of Abjuration (1581) have also been offered as models for Jefferson's Declaration, but these arguments have been disputed.[68]

Signers

The signed, engrossed copy of the Declaration, now badly faded, is on display at the National Archives in Washington, DC.

Date of signingOne of the most enduring myths about the Declaration of Independence is that it was signed by Congress on July 4, 1776.[69] The misconception became established so quickly that, before a decade had passed, even Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams believed it.[70] While it is possible that Congress signed a document on July 4 that has since been lost, historians do not think that this is likely.[71] The myth may have originated with the Journals of Congress, the official public record of the Continental Congress. When the proceedings for 1776 were first published in 1777, the entry for July 4, 1776, stated that the Declaration was "engrossed and signed" on that date, after which followed a list of signers.[72] In 1796, signer Thomas McKean disputed the claim that the Declaration had been signed on July 4, pointing out that some of the signers had not yet been elected to Congress on that day.[73] Jefferson and Adams remained unconvinced, however, and cited the published Journal as evidence that they had signed on July 4. McKean's version of the story gained support when the Secret Journals of Congress were published in 1821, but uncertainty remained.[74] In 1884, historian Mellen Chamberlain demonstrated that the entry in the published Journal was erroneous, and that the famous signed version of the Declaration had been created after July 4.[75] Historian John Hazelton confirmed in 1906 that many of the signers had not been present in Congress on July 4, and that the signers had never actually been together as a group.[76] The actual signing of the Declaration took place after the New York delegation had been given permission to support independence, which allowed the Declaration to be proclaimed as the unanimous decision of the thirteen states. On July 19, 1776, Congress ordered a copy of the Declaration to be engrossed (carefully handwritten) on parchment for the delegates to sign. The engrossed copy, which was probably produced by Thomson's clerk Timothy Matlack, was given the new title of "The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America".[77] Most of the delegates who signed did so on August 2, 1776, although some eventual signers were not present and added their names later.

List of signersFifty-six delegates eventually signed the Declaration: President of Congress 1. John Hancock (Massachusetts) New Hampshire 2. Josiah Bartlett 3. William Whipple 4. Matthew Thornton Massachusetts 5. Samuel Adams 6. John Adams 7. Robert Treat Paine 8. Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island 9. Stephen Hopkins 10. William Ellery Connecticut 11. Roger Sherman 12. Samuel Huntington 13. William Williams 14. Oliver Wolcott New York 15. William Floyd 16. Philip Livingston 17 Francis Lewis 18. Lewis Morris New Jersey 19. Richard Stockton 20. John Witherspoon 21. Francis Hopkinson 22. John Hart 23. Abraham Clark Pennsylvania 24. Robert Morris 25. Benjamin Rush 26. Benjamin Franklin 27. John Morton 28. George Clymer 29. James Smith 30. George Taylor 31. James Wilson 32. George Ross Delaware 33. George Read 34. Caesar Rodney 35. Thomas McKean Maryland 36. Samuel Chase 37. William Paca 38. Thomas Stone 39. Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia 40. George Wythe 41. Richard Henry Lee 42. Thomas Jefferson 43. Benjamin Harrison 44. Thomas Nelson, Jr. 45. Francis Lightfoot Lee 46. Carter Braxton North Carolina 47. William Hooper 48. Joseph Hewes 49. John Penn South Carolina 50. Edward Rutledge 51. Thomas Heyward, Jr. 52. Thomas Lynch, Jr. 53. Arthur Middleton Georgia 54. Button Gwinnett 55. Lyman Hall 56. George Walton

Signer detailsOf the approximately fifty delegates who are thought to have been present in Congress during the voting on independence in early July 1776,[78] eight never signed the Declaration: John Alsop, George Clinton, John Dickinson, Charles Humphreys, Robert R. Livingston, John Rogers, Thomas Willing, and Henry Wisner.[79] Clinton, Livingston, and Wisner were attending to duties away from Congress when the signing took place. Willing and Humphreys, who voted against the resolution of independence, were replaced in the Pennsylvania delegation before the August 2 signing. Rogers had voted for the resolution of independence but was no longer a delegate on August 2. Alsop, who favored reconciliation with Great Britain, resigned rather than add his name to the document.[80] Dickinson refused to sign, believing the

Declaration premature, but remained in Congress. Although George Read had voted against the resolution of independence, he signed the Declaration. The most famous signature on the engrossed copy is that of John Hancock, who, as President of Congress, presumably signed first.[81] Hancock's large, flamboyant signature became iconic, and "John Hancock" emerged in the United States an informal synonym for "signature".[82] Two future presidents, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26) was the youngest signer, and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) was the oldest signer.

John Hancock's now-iconic signature on the Declaration is nearly 5 inches (13 cm) long.[83] Some delegates, such as Samuel Chase and Charles Carroll of Carrollton, were away on business when the Declaration was debated, but were back in Congress for the signing on August 2. Other delegates were present when the Declaration was adopted, but were away on August 2 and added their names later, including Elbridge Gerry, Lewis Morris, Oliver Wolcott, and Thomas McKean. Richard Henry Lee and George Wythe were in Virginia during July and August, but returned to Congress and signed the Declaration probably in September and October, respectively.[84] As new delegates joined the Congress, they were also allowed to sign. Seven men signed the Declaration who did not become delegates until after July 4: Matthew Thornton, William Williams, Benjamin Rush, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, and George Ross.[85] Because of a lack of space, Thornton was unable to place his signature on the top right of the signing area with the other New Hampshire delegates, and had to place his signature at the end of the document, on the lower right.[86] The first published version of the Declaration, the Dunlap broadside, was printed before Congress had signed the Declaration. The public did not learn who had signed the engrossed copy until January 18, 1777, when the Congress ordered that an "authenticated copy", including the names of the signers, be sent to each of the thirteen states.[87] This copy, the Goddard Broadside, was the first to list the signers.[88] Various legends about the signing of the Declaration emerged years later, when the document had become an important national symbol. In one famous story, John Hancock supposedly said that Congress, having signed the Declaration, must now "all hang together", and Benjamin Franklin replied: "Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." The quote did not appear in print until more than fifty years after Franklin's death.[89]

Publication and effect

The Dunlap broadside was the first published version of the Declaration. After Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration on July 4, a handwritten copy was sent a few blocks away to the printing shop of John Dunlap. Through the night between 150 and 200 copies were made, now known as "Dunlap broadsides". Before long, the Declaration was read to audiences and reprinted in newspapers across the thirteen states. The first official public reading of the document was by John Nixon in the yard of Independence Hall on July 8; public readings also took place on that day in Trenton, New Jersey, and Easton, Pennsylvania. President of Congress John Hancock sent a copy of the Dunlap broadside to General George Washington, instructing him to have it proclaimed "at the Head of the Army in the way you shall think it most proper". [90] Washington had the Declaration read to his troops in New York City on July 9, with the British forces not far away. Washington and Congress hoped the Declaration would inspire the soldiers, and encourage others to join the army.[91] After hearing the Declaration, crowds in many cities tore down and destroyed signs or statues representing royalty. An equestrian statue of King George in New York City was pulled down and the lead used to make musket balls.[92]

History of the documentsAlthough the document signed by Congress and enshrined in the National Archives is usually regarded as the Declaration of Independence, historian Julian P. Boyd, editor of Jefferson's papers, argued that the Declaration of Independence, like Magna Carta, is not a single document. The version signed by Congress is, according to Boyd, "only the most notable of several copies legitimately entitled to be designated as official texts".[93] By Boyd's count there were five "official" versions of the Declaration, in addition to unofficial drafts and copies.

Drafts and Fair CopyJefferson preserved a four-page draft that late in life he called the "original Rough draught".[94] Known to historians as the Rough Draft, early students of the Declaration believed that this was a draft written alone by Jefferson and then presented to the Committee of Five. Scholars now believe that the Rough Draft was not actually an "original Rough draught", but was instead a revised version completed by Jefferson after consultation with the Committee.[95] How many drafts Jefferson wrote prior to this one, and how much of the text was contributed by other committee members, is unknown. In 1947, Boyd discovered a fragment in Jefferson's handwriting that predates the Rough Draft. Known as the Composition Draft, this fragment is the earliest known version of the Declaration.[96]

The earliest known draft of the Declaration is the Composition Draft, a fragment in Jefferson's handwriting. Jefferson showed the Rough Draft to Adams and Franklin, and perhaps other committee members,[97] who made a few more changes. Franklin, for example, may have been responsible for changing Jefferson's original phrase "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" to "We hold these truths to be selfevident".[98] Jefferson incorporated these changes into a copy that was submitted to Congress in the name of the Committee. Jefferson kept the Rough Draft and made additional notes on it as Congress revised the text. He also made several copies of the Rough Draft without the changes made by Congress, which he sent to friends, including Richard Henry Lee and George Wythe, after July 4. At some point in the process, Adams also wrote out a copy.[99] The copy that was submitted to Congress by the Committee on June 28 is known as the Fair Copy. Presumably, the Fair Copy was marked up by secretary Charles Thomson while Congress debated and revised the text.[100] This document was the one that Congress approved on July 4, making it the first "official" copy of the Declaration. The Fair Copy was sent to be printed under the title "A Declaration by the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled". The Fair Copy has been lost, and was perhaps destroyed in the printing process.[101] If a document was signed on July 4, it would have been the Fair Copy, and would likely have been signed only by John Hancock, president of Congress, and secretary Charles Thomson.[102]

Broadsides

The Goddard Broadside, the first printed version of the Declaration of Independence to include the names of the signatories. The Declaration was first published as a broadside printed the night of July 4 by John Dunlap of Philadelphia. John Hancock's eventually famous signature was not on this document; his name appeared in type under "Signed by Order and in Behalf of the Congress", with Thomson listed as a witness. It is unknown exactly how many Dunlap broadsides were originally printed, but the number is estimated at about 200, of which 25 are known to survive. One broadside was pasted into Congress's journal, making it what Boyd called the "second official version" of the Declaration.[103] Boyd considered the engrossed copy to be the third official version, and the Goddard Broadside to be the fourth.

Engrossed copyThe copy of the Declaration that was signed by Congress is known as the engrossed or parchment copy. Throughout the Revolutionary War, the engrossed copy was moved with the Continental Congress,[104] which relocated several times to avoid the British army. In 1789, after creation of a new government under the United States Constitution, the engrossed Declaration was transferred to the custody of the secretary of state.[104] The document was evacuated to Virginia when the British attacked Washington, D.C. during the War of 1812.[104]

National Bureau of Standards preserving the engrossed version of the Declaration of Independence in 1951. After the War of 1812, the symbolic stature of the Declaration steadily increased even as the engrossed copy was noticeably fading. In 1820, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams commissioned printer William J. Stone to create an engraving essentially identical to the engrossed copy.[104] Boyd called this copy the "fifth official version" of the Declaration. Stone's engraving was made using a wet-ink transfer process, where the surface of the document was moistened, and some of the original ink transferred to the surface of a copper plate, which was then etched so that copies could be run off the plate on a press. When Stone finished his engraving in 1823, Congress ordered 200 copies to be printed on parchment.[104] Because of poor conservation of the engrossed copy through the 19th century, Stone's engraving, rather than the original, has become the basis of most modern reproductions.[105] From 1841 to 1876, the engrossed copy was publicly exhibited at the Patent Office building in Washington, D.C. Exposed to sunlight and variable temperature and humidity, the document faded badly. In 1876, it was sent to Independence Hall in Philadelphia for exhibit during the Centennial Exposition, which was held in honor of the Declaration's 100th anniversary, and then returned to Washington the next year.[104] In 1892, preparations were made for the engrossed copy to be exhibited at the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, but the poor condition of the document led to the cancellation of those plans and the removal of the document from public exhibition.[104] The document was sealed between two plates of glass and placed in storage. For nearly thirty years, it was exhibited only on rare occasions at the discretion of the secretary of state.[106]

The Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom in the National Archives building. In 1921, custody of the Declaration, along with the United States Constitution, was transferred from the State Department to the Library of Congress. Funds were appropriated to preserve the documents in a

public exhibit that opened in 1924. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the documents were moved for safekeeping to the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox in Kentucky, where they were kept until 1944.[107] For many years, officials at the National Archives believed that they, rather than the Library of Congress, should have custody of the Declaration and the Constitution. The transfer finally took place in 1952, and the documents, along with the Bill of Rights, are now on permanent display at the National Archives in the "Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom". Although encased in helium, by the early 1980s the documents were threatened by further deterioration. In 2001, using the latest in preservation technology, conservators treated the documents and re-encased them in encasements made of titanium and aluminum, filled with inert argon gas.[108] They were put on display again with the opening of the remodeled National Archives Rotunda in 2003.

Publication outside North AmericaThe Declaration of Independence was first published in full outside North America by the Belfast Newsletter on the 23rd of August, 1776.[109] A copy of the document was being transported to London via ship when bad weather forced the vessel to port at Derry. The document was then carried on horseback to Belfast for the continuation of its voyage to England, whereupon a copy was made for the Belfast newspaper.[110][111]

LegacyPlease help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (July 2008)

From the Founding through 1850Historian Pauline Maier wrote of the legacy of the Declaration of Independence from 1800 on, The Declaration was at first forgotten almost entirely, then recalled and celebrated by Jeffersonian Republicans, and later elevated into something akin to holy writ, which made it a prize worth capturing on behalf of one cause after another. Its meaning changed from a justification for revolution in 1776 to a moral standard by which day-to-day policies and practices of the nation could be judged.[112] In the first fifteen years after its adoption, including the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, the Declaration was rarely mentioned in the periods political writings. It was not until the 1790s, as the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republics began the bitter debates of the First Party System, that Republicans praised a Declaration created by Jefferson alone while Federalists argued that it was a collective creation based on the instructions from the Continental Congress.[113] The abolitionist movement combined their own interpretation of the Declaration of Independence with their religious views. Historian Bertram Wyatt-Brown wrote:The abolitionist movement was primarily religious in its origins, its leadership, its language, and its methods of reaching the people. While the ideas of a secular Enlightenment played a major role, too, abolitionists tended to interpret the Declaration of Independence as a theological as well as a political document. They stressed the spiritual as much as the civil damage done to the slave and the nation. Antislavery sentiment, of course, found its political expression in the Free Soil, and later the Republican, parties.[114]

Abolitionist leaders Benjamin Lundy and William Lloyd Garrison both adopted the twin rocks of the Bible and the Declaration of Independence as the basis for their philosophies. Garrison wrote, as long as

there remains a single copy of the Declaration of Independence, or of the Bible, in our land, we will not despair.[115] Garrison and most other abolitionists like Lewis Tappan saw their role outside the electoral process with the broader moral education of the citizenry to be the movements most urgent political task.[116]

Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War eraIn the political arena, Abraham Lincoln, beginning in 1854 as he spoke out against slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act,[117] provided a reinterpretation of the Declaration that stressed that the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness were not limited to the white race.[118] In his October 1854 Peoria speech, Lincoln said:Nearly eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a 'sacred right of self-government. ... Our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it. ...Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. ... If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union: but we shall have saved it, as to make, and keep it, forever worthy of the saving.[119]

Lincoln accused southerners and Democrats of showing a willingness to "reject, and scout, and spit upon" the Founders and creating their own reinterpretation of the Declaration in order to exclude blacks.[120] 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.[121] 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.[122] In his 1863 Gettysburg Address, Lincoln, referring to the Declaration of Independence, noted: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Historian Douglas L. Wilson wrote:But with the victory at Gettysburg, coming almost exactly on the Fourth of July, Lincoln saw something like the blind hand of fate and determined to look for an opportunity to reinvoke the spirit and emotional response of Jeffersons own inspiring words. Having crafted and condensed his message and adapted it to an occasion ideally suited to a receptive hearing, Lincoln had maximized his chances for success. Once it gained wide readership, the Gettysburg Address would gradually become ingrained in the national consciousness. Nether an argument nor an analysis nor a new credo, it was instead a moving tribute incorporated into an alluring affirmation of the nations ideals. This was the perfect medium for changing the way most Americans thought about the nations founding act, Garry Wills has written. Lincoln does not argue law or history, as Daniel Webster did. He makes history.[123]

Subsequent legacyThe Declaration has also been influential outside of the United States.[124][vague]

In fiction, the adoption of the Declaration of Independence was dramatized in the 1969 Tony Awardwinning musical play 1776, and the 1972 movie of the same name, as well as in the 2008 television miniseries John Adams. The engrossed copy of the Declaration is central to the 2004 Hollywood film National Treasure, in which the main character steals the document because he believes it has secret clues to a treasure hidden by some of the Founding Fathers of the United States. The Declaration figures prominently in The Probability Broach, wherein the point of divergence rests in the addition of a single word to the document, causing it to state that governments "derive their just power from the unanimous consent of the governed."

See also

Declaration of Independence History of the United States Articles of Confederation United States Constitution United States Bill of Rights

Notes

Freedom (philosophy)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search This article is missing citations or needs footnotes.Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (May 2008)

For other uses, see Freedom.

Part of a series on

FreedomFreedom by topic Assembly Association Economics Intellectual pursuits Liberty Movement Personal life Philosophy Politics Press Religion and beliefs Speech and expression Information Thought Other Censorship Coercion Children's rights Human rights Indices Media transparency Negative liberty Positive liberty

The Statue of Liberty, a popular icon of freedom. Freedom, or the idea of being free, is a broad concept that has been given numerous interpretations by philosophies and schools of thought. The protection of interpersonal freedom can be the object of a social and political investigation, while the metaphysical foundation of inner freedom is a philosophical and psychological question.

Contents[hide]

1 Etymology 2 Forms 3 Interpretation o 3.1 Innate state o 3.2 Positive and negative freedom o 3.3 Inner autonomy 4 The ontology of freedom 5 See also 6 References 7 Bibliography 8 External links

[edit] EtymologyAma-gi, an early human symbol representing freedom in Sumerian cuneiform The ama-gi, a Sumerian cuneiform word, is the earliest known written symbol representing the idea of freedom. The English word "freedom" comes from an Indo-European root that means "to love." Cognates of the English word "freedom" include the Old High German word for "peace" and the English word "afraid" from a Vulgar Latin word for breaking the peace and all have freedom.

[edit] Forms

Liberty Leading the People, a personification of Liberty.

Outer or political freedom, or personal liberty, is the absence of outward restraints, for example with respect to speech, freedom of thought, religious practice, and the press; freedom to modify one's outward circumstances. (See Freedom (political)) Inner freedom, i.e. the state of being an inwardly autonomous individual capable of exerting free will or freedom of choice within a given set of outward circumstances.

[edit] Interpretation[edit] Innate state

Gandhi promoted political and spiritual freedom through nonviolence. In philosophy, freedom often ties in with the question of free will. The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that the condition of freedom was inherent to humanity, an inevitable facet of the possession of a soul and sapience, with the implication that all social interactions subsequent to birth imply a loss of freedom, voluntarily or involuntarily. He made the famous quote "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains". Libertarian philosophers have argued that all human beings are always free Jean-Paul Sartre, for instance, famously claimed that humans are "condemned to be free" because they always have a choice. Even an external authority can only threaten punishment after an action, not physically prevent a person from carrying out an action. At the other end of the spectrum, determinism claims that the future is inevitably determined by prior causes and freedom is an illusion.

[edit] Positive and negative freedomThe philosopher Isaiah Berlin drew an important distinction between "freedom from" (negative freedom) and "freedom to" (positive freedom). For example, freedom from oppression and freedom to develop one's potential. Both these types of freedom are in fact reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Freedom as the absence of restraint means unwilling to subjugate, lacking submission, or without forceful inequality.[citation needed] The achievement of this form of freedom depends upon a combination of the resistance of the individual (or group) and one's (their) environment; if one is in jail or even limited by a lack of resources, this person is free within their power and environment, but not free to defy reality. Natural laws restrict this form of freedom; for instance, no one is free to fly (though we may or may not be free to attempt to do so). Isaiah Berlin appears to call this kind of freedom "negative freedom" an absence of obstacles put in the way of action (especially by other people). He distinguishes this from "positive freedom", which refers to one's power to make choices leading to action.

[edit] Inner autonomy

Kierkegaard insists that awareness of one's freedom leads to existential anxiety. Freedom can also signify inner autonomy, or mastery over one's inner condition. This has several possible significances:[1]

the ability to act in accordance with the dictates of reason; the ability to act in accordance with one's own true self or values; the ability to act in accordance with universal values (such as the True and the Good); and the ability to act independently of both the dictates of reason and the urges of desires, i.e. arbitrarily (autonomously).

Especially spiritually-oriented philosophers have considered freedom to be a positive achievement of human will rather than an inherent state granted at birth. Rudolf Steiner developed a philosophy of freedom based upon the development of situationally-sensitive ethical intuitions: "acting in freedom is acting out of a pure love of the deed as one intuits the moral concept implicit in the deed".[2] Similarly, E. F. Schumacher held that freedom is an inner condition, and that a human being cannot "have" freedom, but "can make it his aim to become free".[3] In this sense, freedom may also encompass the peaceful acceptance of reality. The theological question of freedom generally focuses on reconciling the experience or reality of inner freedom with the omnipotence of the divine. Freedom has also been used a rallying cry for revolution or rebellion. In Hans Sachs' play Diogenes, the Greek philosopher says to Alexander the Great, whom he believes to be unfree: "You are my servants' servant". The philosopher states that he has conquered fear, lust, and anger - and is thus inwardly free - while Alexander still serves these masters - and despite his outward power has failed to achieve freedom; having conquered the world without, he has not mastered the world within. The self-mastery Sachs refers to here is dependent upon no one and nothing other than ourselves. Notable 20th century individuals who have exemplified this form of freedom include Nelson Mandela, Rabbi Leo Baeck, Gandhi, Lech Wasa and Vclav Havel.

[edit] The ontology of freedomFreedom appears to be in conflict with scientific determinism. One solution to this is dualistic, suggesting that if everything material is subjective to deterministic causality, then for freedom to exist, it must be of a fundamentally different substantial nature then material existence. If, on the other hand, freedom does not exist, then our subjective experience of freedom - and thus our responsibility for our own actions - is an illusion. Thus, determinism can lead to the claim that nobody is responsible for anything, and materialism may also put into question concepts of ethics and guilt.

[edit] See also

Freedom (political) Anarchism Golden Freedom Liberty Anarchy Christian libertarianism Parametric determinism List of indices of freedom Leo Strauss

Inner peace Self-ownership Philosophy of Freedom

[edit] References1. ^ Wolf, Susan, Freedom Within Reason 2. ^ Robert McDermott, The Essential Steiner, ISBN 00606553450, p. 43 3. ^ E. F. Schumacher, Guide for the Perplexed, ISBN 0060906111, pp. 29f

[edit] Bibliography

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, Book III. Augustine (Saint), On Free Will. Hobbes, Thomas, Of Liberty and Necessity. Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty. Plato, The Republic. Schiller, Friedrich, Letters upon the Aesthetic Education of Man. ISBN 1-4191-3003-X Wolf, Susan, Freedom Within Reason, Oxford: 1990. Berlin, Isaiah, Four Essays on Liberty. London: Oxford University Press, 1969.

[edit] External linksWikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: freedom

Sovereignty and Freedom Non-Freedom - an article about the concept of non-freedom (in german), Ich denke,dass ich frei bin, in Sic et Non Free Will article from Catholic Encyclopedia

Philosophy of religionFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2008) This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (October 2008)Philosophy portal

Philosophy of religion is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the philosophical study of religion, including arguments over the nature and existence of God, religious language, miracles, prayer, the problem of evil, and the relationship between religion and other value-systems such as science and ethics, among others.[citation needed]

It is sometimes distinguished from "religious philosophy", the philosophical thinking that is inspired and directed by religion, such as Christian philosophy and Islamic philosophy. Instead, philosophy of religion is the philosophical thinking about religion, which can be carried out dispassionately by a believer and non-believer alike.[1]

Contents[hide]

1 Philosophy of religion as a part of metaphysics 2 Questions asked in philosophy of religion 3 What is God? o 3.1 Monotheistic definitions o 3.2 Polytheistic definitions o 3.3 Pantheistic definitions 4 Rationality of belief o 4.1 Positions o 4.2 Natural theology 5 Major philosophers of religion 6 See also 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links

[edit] Philosophy of religion as a part of metaphysics

Aristotle Philosophy of religion has classically been regarded as a part of metaphysics. In Aristotle's Metaphysics, he described first causes as one of the subjects of his investigation. For Aristotle, the first cause was the unmoved mover, which has been read as God, particularly when Aristotle's work became prevalent again in the Medieval West. This first PO cause argument later came to be called natural theology by rationalist philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In Metaphysics, Aristotle also states that the word that comes closest to describing the meaning of the word God is 'Understanding.'[citation needed] Today, philosophers have adopted the term philosophy of religion for the subject, and typically it is regarded as a separate field of specialization, though it is also still treated by some, particularly Catholic philosophers, as a part of metaphysics. To understand the historical relationship between metaphysics and philosophy of religion, remember that the traditional objects of religious discussion have been very special sorts of entities (such as gods, angels, supernatural forces, and the like) and events, abilities, or processes (the creation of the universe, the

ability to do or know anything, interaction between humans and gods, and so forth). Metaphysicians (and ontologists in particular) are characteristically interested in understanding what it is for something to exist--what it is for something to be an entity, event, ability, process, and so forth. Because many members of religious traditions believe in things that exist in profoundly different ways from more everyday things, objects of religious belief both raise special philosophical problems and, as extreme or limiting cases, invite us to clarify central metaphysical concepts. However, the philosophy of religion has concerned itself with more than just metaphysical questions. In fact the subject has long involved important questions in areas such as epistemology, philosophy of language, philosophical logic, and moral philosophy. See also world view.

[edit] Questions asked in philosophy of religion

Kierkegaard One way to understand the tasks at hand for philosophers of religion is to contrast them with theologians. Theologians sometimes consider the existence of God as axiomatic, or self-evident. Most theological treatises seek to justify or support religious claims by two primary epistemic means: rationalization or intuitive metaphors. A philosopher of religion examines and critiques the epistemological, logical, aesthetic and ethical foundations inherent in the claims of a religion. Whereas a theologian could elaborate metaphysically on the nature of God either rationally or experientially, a philosopher of religion is more interested in asking what may be knowable and opinable with regards to religions' claims. A philosopher of religion does not ask "What is God?", for such is a complex question in that it assumes the existence of God and that God has a knowable nature. Instead, a philosopher of religion asks whether there are sound reasons to think that God does or does not exist.[citation needed] Still, there are other questions studied in the philosophy of religion. For example: What, if anything, would give us good reason to believe that a miracle has occurred? What is the relationship between faith and reason? What is the relationship between morality and religion? What is the status of religious language? Does petitionary prayer (sometimes still called impetratory prayer) make sense? Are salvolobotomies (lobotomies performed to keep believer from sinning) moral actions?

[edit] What is God?The question "What is God?" is sometimes also phrased as "What is the meaning of the word God?" Most philosophers expect some sort of definition as an answer to this question, but they are not content simply to describe the way the word is used: they want to know the essence of what it means to be God. Western philosophers typically concern themselves with the God of monotheistic religions (see the nature of God in Western theology), but discussions also concern themselves with other conceptions of the divine.[originalresearch?]

Indeed, before attempting a definition of a term it is essential to know what sense of the term is to be defined. In this case, this is particularly important because there are a number of widely different senses of the word 'God.' So before we try to answer the question "What is God?" by giving a definition, first we must get clear on which conception of God we are trying to define. Since this article is on "philosophy of religion" it is important to keep to the canon of this area of philosophy. For whatever reasons, the Western, monotheistic conception of God (discussed below) has been the primary source of investigation in philosophy of religion. (One likely reason as to why the Western conception of God is dominant in the canon of philosophy of r