Wikisource:Featured text candidates
| ←Featured texts | Featured texts (candidates) | archives (current)→ |
|
This page hosts nominations for featured text status in accordance with the Featured text guidelines. A featured text should exemplify Wikisource's very highest standards of accuracy. If you nominate a text, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised.
Any established user may nominate a text or vote (as long as it matches the criteria). Every month the nomination with the highest support ratio, weighted in favour of nominations with more numerous votes (equation forthcoming), will be chosen as featured text. All nominations with under 70% support after a week will be archived. The most promising nominations (up to 10) will be carried over to the next week, during which time established users may continue to place votes. |
Contents |
Information [edit]
Nominating a text [edit]
- Ensure that the text meets all the featured text criteria and style guidelines. Nominations that are flagged as not meeting the criteria will be unlisted after 24 hours, unless the criteria are met in that time.
- Note the nomination on the talk page by adding the template {{featured text candidate}}.
- Begin a discussion at the bottom of this page. Note your reason for nominating the text.
- See also
Discussion [edit]
- If you believe an article meets all of the criteria, write Support followed by your reasons.
- If you oppose a nomination, write Object followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an text's suitability for the Wikisource main page, unless such suitability can be fixed.
- To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>text</s>) rather than removing it.
Closing a nomination (administrators only) [edit]
- Failed nominations
- Add a comment explaining why the nomination failed.
- Archive it.
- Place {{featured text not passed|year|title}} at the top of the work's main talk page (adding the year and heading of the archived discussion).
- Passed nominations
- Add it to {{Featured text}} (inside the respective month) and {{featured schedule}}.
- Place {{featured}} on top of the work's main page {{header}} template.
- Place {{featured talk|June 2013}} at the top of the work's main talk page (changing the numbers to the appropriate date if not next month).
- Protect all the work's text pages.
Nominations [edit]
For older nominations, see the archives.
Magic (Ellis Stanyon) [edit]
This is a well-illustrated guide to performance of magic tricks and illusions. Many of the illusions contained in here are still performed today. Ellis Stanyon was a noted illusionist and magic dealer based in London in the early 1900's. He developed many new sleight of hand tricks throughout his professional career and was greatly esteemed in the profession. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support - very cool book. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Ultra Kool! I have always liked Magic, Magicians, the science used, slight of hand tricks, and the history behind it all. My wife, my sons, and myself once saw an open (not on a stage) magic presentation and later I joined that Magic Club. My eldest son also became involved and later "borrowed" my magician's lapel pin forever! —William Maury Morris IITalk 15:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support, really useful and educational. -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Problem: the final DjVu pages have not been created, proofread, or validated. These are advertisements, but a Featured Text really shouldn't lead into red links in the document. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- We're looking at a Featured Text, not a Featured Book. The 12 pages of advertisements are not part of the text and the pages are not in the Mainspace. Also, the current Featured Text has adverts, which have not been validated. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- In fact, the adverts in the current FT have been validated. The problem I have with this nomination is that the adverts aren't even created yet, let alone proofread or validated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- So they are. They weren't when I last looked. Why do you want the adverts done? They are not part of the work. The description of a completed work (status done) is "Done—All pages of the work proper are validated". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- By Wikisource custom (if not policy) adverts are optional, hence the wording "the work proper" in the status. They can be included or they can be ignored. Personally, I like including adverts as I find them interesting. That shouldn't be a road block for texts where the proofreader(s) do(es) not share my preferences, however. Featured texts represent Wikisource and its culture, which includes the optional status of adverts. Of course, if you would like to get the adverts validated and transcluded: that's fine too. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Those 2 "adverts" were very simple to do. The 2nd one of them is just an image of an image. It is not typed out. The 1st of them I typed out for several reasons. One of the reasons was that the book, Mexico as it was and is, looked so complete except for the advertisements being left undone. Beeswaxcandle has done a fantastic job in editing out mistakes in that book and adding in tables. All work came to a point to where the book itself was beautiful due to myself and others working together on it. It just did not look finished, or good enough by leaving two advertisements showing as untouched. Only a true pro like AdamBMorgan would have tackled that 2nd image as wiki-coded text. So, another person just placed an image of the original book image there. In this, it seems all 666 ads of a book can be simply images of images. There was only the one (1) image that was transcribed and I wanted to give that a try and did. I did not follow any policy about doing that ad other than I personally wanted the book to look totally complete because those of us who worked on it had done (in my thinking) such a beautiful work and without any arguments throughout that entire book which is yet another form of beauty.—William Maury Morris IITalk 15:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- By Wikisource custom (if not policy) adverts are optional, hence the wording "the work proper" in the status. They can be included or they can be ignored. Personally, I like including adverts as I find them interesting. That shouldn't be a road block for texts where the proofreader(s) do(es) not share my preferences, however. Featured texts represent Wikisource and its culture, which includes the optional status of adverts. Of course, if you would like to get the adverts validated and transcluded: that's fine too. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- So they are. They weren't when I last looked. Why do you want the adverts done? They are not part of the work. The description of a completed work (status done) is "Done—All pages of the work proper are validated". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Adverts are now proofread, only thing missing is the image on the first advert page (and validation)--T. Mazzei (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- If we are worried about redlinks from the header files, then remove them. If we have them in the index page, then ignore them. I do not see the failure to validate adverts should stop a text from being FT; showing the links to the blank pages from headers is a different matter. — billinghurst sDrewth
- In fact, the adverts in the current FT have been validated. The problem I have with this nomination is that the adverts aren't even created yet, let alone proofread or validated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- We're looking at a Featured Text, not a Featured Book. The 12 pages of advertisements are not part of the text and the pages are not in the Mainspace. Also, the current Featured Text has adverts, which have not been validated. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Tracks of McKinlay and party across Australia [edit]
Australians are the stars at irony, in that we celebrate Burke & Wills and their intrepidly (stupid) expedition across Australia. Anyway, 150 years ago this year rescue missions were sent and this work sets out the trials and tribulations of the party as they traversed the continent and the different search parties did what B&W did not AND in both directions (more irony). Anyway, 2013 is the 150 years since the release of the work, and it shows the absolute perils of outback Australia and the expeditioners at work. Has some nice lithographic images. I submit the work for your consideration and hope that we can find it a berth in 2013 in a little celebration. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support, especially as there be alligators. Moondyne (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support — I greatly enjoy reading about expeditions and I like illustrations to the Max. I like the idea Billinghurst presents in that this book is also a "little celebration" but I disagree that it was "stupid". I do detest "alligators", (sharks and barracuda I have had to deal with when in the USN) and prefer they all would be killed. They ruin a good swimming place including the ocean and even the beaches of Key West Florida where I could have easily been killed by barracuda. But the alligator image is excellent -- see the men tremble in horror when bathing. Know some of that feeling of horror and the image becomes even more real, otherwise it is just a lithograph -- like some sort of fantasy. The men were very brave on that expedition. After all, it was only a 2,000 mile trek from point A to point B of uncharted territory. —Maury (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The Yellow Wall Paper [edit]
The Yellow Wall Paper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is "an important early work of American feminist literature" first published in 1892 in The New England Magazine and republished as a stand alone work in 1899 and reprinted in 1901 (we have the 1901 printing). Dealing with the medical profession's oppression of women in the 19th C., the work has been the subject of multiple films (including an episode of the The Twilight Zone, paintings, film, and plays. There are Wikipedia articles about both the author and the book (as well as some of the related works), additionally, there are two audio recordings of the work on commons, one of which is linked from the work here.
Prior to 27 April 2013, the work existed in unsupported text on Wikisource that had been imported from Project Gutenberg; however, that work contained numerous errors including a missing line. On 27 April, as part of the GLAM-Wiki Boot Camp, this work was presented to a group of Wikipedians, most of whom had no or negligible prior experience with Wikisource. The group was provided with scans uploaded to Commons and was walked through the process of setting up the index and then various editors transcribed pages of the work then and over the course of the following week. This was referenced in the Signpost on Wikipedia and spurred a discussion with Asaf Bartof over the value of Wikisource compared to Project Gutenberg or raw scans. The work was substantially complete on 4 May and was transcluded to main space replacing the PG text. On 6 May, the work was added to the New Texts section of the main page.
This work is important historically and it is important to Wikisource. The text is clean, the header contains appropriate external links, and the formatting is in accordance with the Wikisource Style Guide--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support Everything looks good to me and I like the background to the Wikisource edition. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Laura Secord: A Study in Canadian Patriotism (1907) [edit]
A short, early text on Laura Secord, heroine to Canadians of the War of 1812. After the Americans invaded the Niagara Peninsula in 1813, they planned further invasions into Upper Canada; Secord overheard their plans, and stole away on 23 June to British-controlled territories to warn them. The British won against the invading Americans at the Batttle of Beaver Dams the next day.
The 200th anniversary of her walk is coming up next month; her Wikipedia article was recently made a Featured Article, and will likely be on the Main Page on the date of the anniversary. The text is proofread, well-formatted, illustrated, and full of wikilinks. Curly Turkey (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support: It appears to be a good quality work, meeting all requirements and an anniversary is always nice. While "full of wikilinks" might be a problem, they all appear to be neutral links, mostly from personal names to Wikipedia biographies, which is OK under the recent annotation debate. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support - I think the em-dashes should have the excess padding removed in order to conform to the original, these appear to be unpadded in the original but {{—}} would work fine too. I recently had an issue with this in the work above; however, I can't see that the style guide says anything about the amount of padding. Additionally, some could complain at the lack of a clean version. Personally, I don't see that as an issue and the only wikilink I think may stretch the Style Guide is the "revolutionary war" link on page 2, I don't think that's especially "difficult to understand". Finally, I'm not sure that the images couldn't be improved but that's not my skill set so it's just a suggestion.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Do Not Support - Although I do like chocolate, Laura Ingersoll-Secord was a treacherous woman living in one of the British colonies who went against her own father (and perhaps he was killed because of her along with other American patriots). He too was an "American patriot" according to that wikipedia article, from Massachusetts just as other American patriots who were seeking freedom from British Royalty and their long-time wrongs in those days. Americans were like cattle for the taking and they were taken from the plow to far away combat for England to conquer even more places (India &c, &c, &c, &c) So how many American patriots died for their families and friends freedoms against the wrongs of England. How many got killed because of her walk? How do we know she "walked twenty miles"? Genl. Washington's soldiers walked further than twenty miles and suffered terrible trials right down to winters with no shoes leaving bloody footprints in the snow from "walking"? Perhaps she "hitched a ride"—we do not, in fact, "know". "Laura lived a very long time, dying at the age of 93. In her lifetime the government never formally recognized her singular feat of bravery, and much controversy still envelopes her legacy." It is a supposition. If she is to be honored then at least she should be known by her real name "Laura Ingersoll-Secord" throughout history instead of by a chocolate company with their own concocted image of a youthful lady. Laura Ingersoll-Secord, by her deeds, was supporting white slavery for England against American colonies.
-
- I agree with Doug on the dashes although I am not sure what to make of the following other than a mistake => —a <= In reference to the images I like them colored for a change. I am considering the same with a book I am working on. (updated text) —Maury (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, is the inherent merit of a text relevant to this discussion? Maybe it is. Where do we draw the lines though between literary merit, historical importance, quality of the underlying text, and other factors. I do think we need to consider whether a work is important, particularly globally, and we should give preference to works of literature and works that are important historically in their own right (say the Declaration of Independence), something we have not necessarily done in the past; but your argument seems to suggest that we shouldn't feature this work because the subject was a traitor and a scoundrel; by that argument we could eliminate most vast amounts of writing, certainly most works of the Nazi's would be doomed, as well as most works of the antebellum south, such as Index:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu; there are many other examples of works that are of good to high quality but either represent immorality or oppression or are downright evil, another example that I think could one day be worthy on an FT but which is somewhere between wrong and evil: Index:The International Jew - Volume 1.djvu. I'm not opposed to the idea that the nominated work is less important than suggested and shouldn't rate an FT but I think I would oppose the idea that the work is "wrong". I'm not particularly concerned about the anniversary coming up and much more concerned with whether the work is well transcribed and formatted.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Doug on the dashes although I am not sure what to make of the following other than a mistake => —a <= In reference to the images I like them colored for a change. I am considering the same with a book I am working on. (updated text) —Maury (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I believe I've obliterated the padding around the emdashes (including the => —a <=); I didn't bother with {{—}} as the original seems to have the emdashes flush against the surrounding text. I've no preference on the images—they are as they are because I have no confidence in my image-manipulating abilities. Curly Turkey (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
| further discussion by Maury and Doug re Jews, slavery, declaration of independence, and the fact that there are embellished texts and a comment by Curley Turkey that this isn't one of them |
|---|
| The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability. |
| A hero to one person or group of people can be the opposite to another person or group. I dislike the woman's story in this particular book. Her story is not established as truthful history and is apparently heavily debated (see wikipedia article). One author added a cow to her story -- embellishment. She herself told different stories. As for Jews, I tend to like them. They gave us (me) our religion. In deeds there is right and wrong and mankind (inc. authors and editors) should endeavor to separate the both of those if possible. In reference to slavery, it existed in all 13 American Colonies, black people and white people and the North attempted slavery with the red man (which didn't work so they were sold to the West Indies) and all thanks to the British Empire. Slavery in the south was wrong. Slavery anywhere is wrong. Because of myth and misconceptions I believe the book should not be a "featured text". Regardless, I am the person who corrected those discolored images in the book so it will look better. Doug, you mention the Declaration of Independence. Well, take a look at what Thomas Jefferson wrote about the English king in his day before that document was revised by Adams and Franklin. Jefferson struck out slavery and gave the English H** and rightly so. Had Jefferson's version passed there would have been no more slavery in the USA from England -- and Northern shipping. Slavery was an unfortunate business of supply and demand. The North of the (later) USA as well as England were on the Demand side of cotton. The South was on the supply side of cotton. When the American Civil War came and the South held back on "King Cotton" then England's mills layed off workers and British cities (i.e. Lancaster) became filled with desperate people with no jobs because there was no cotton (no supply)from the South of the USA. Further, throughout the American Civil War when situations were right the North exchanged Southern prisoners for cotton (still being on the demand side of slavery which was created by the Northern part of the USA and again, "England") Lincoln and Grant had pow exchanges stopped. Northern pows and Southern pows alike suffered and died. Southerners would have went home and if able to defend they would do so again. Northern pows who had signed up for 90 days would have long ago been freed and would go home and likely stayed home.
When I hear or read of wrongs such as slavery I look to how it came to be and grew and continued. The same with the 13 American colonies and the injustices by the British Empire which American Patriots (Sons of Liberty) fought against and lost their life over in seeking freedom from the British empire. The British Empire has many colonies and lived off slavery and other forms of forced labor. Mahatma Gandhi of British ruled India was one of the more recent examples of mankind struggling against the British Empire and its many forms of slavery. The seven provinces of Prussia (Hessians) also suffered from the same British Empire. Empires thrive off the sorrows of other people forced against their will--without freedoms. People struggle, often in combat, and many die from want of freedoms the USA now has. Yes, I can see where that woman can be a heroine for "British America" even though it be in myth. I simply do not think that book, as written, shows the darker side of the human species. The book whitewashes over truths in history. Now we could, in we really wanted, work only on the wrong side of truth and history or all about the better nature of people and nations -- either way. I know works here should be balanced but I also know I have the right to say I dislike that particular book. Still, and again, I worked and removed the discoloration of images so it looks better. I didn't know I would get into a lengthy conversation about it and I have no hatred or any such thing about the book. I prefer truths when we can find them and in that I do not see it as a Featured Text. I presently retain my passing thoughts and solid beliefs unless they can be disproved at which time I can change my beliefs. I am as flexible as anyone here in my opinion because. I am an open-minded person and always willing to change my thoughts but are all others here? I have met many in my life who are not open-minded when facts have been stated. Some will not or can not think beyond what one book states or what their social norms--their society tells them by books and memorials in history as to what is exact history and not to believe different. Kind regards to everyone here. BTW, I never use the expression "argument" lest it be misunderstood. I use the terms discussion and/or debate depending upon the subject. What I have written is a "reply" and a "discussion" in relation to a "Featured Text". —Maury (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Other statements above to a great extent were elicited by me from things Doug mentioned. I tried to cover each of his extra points mentioned including the "Declaration of Independence" from England's king; slavery in the south of the USA, et cetera. This discussion is not about us of today but rather of the long-ago past and wars. 13 colonies struggled for Independence against the British Empire, a seemingly impossible feat but American patriots, with the help of others, gained a nation of many freedoms from a Tyrant King who had rule over many places and people and that includes British Canada fighting American "Sons of Liberty".
I place this here only for a clarification of my own long-held thoughts regarding "British Canada" and the "British Empire" vs 13 colonies of long-ago during their wars against one another. Read about why I think as I do about warning the British against the 13 colonies. Read about that King of England and think of the atrocities beyond this document including slavery of men and his trying to keep them under the yoke of no freedoms and not only in the 13 colonies but throughout many nations of the World. Has the "British Empire" defeated the 13 American colonies we here in the USA may not have our freedoms fought for ever so hard on battlefields including those of today. I myself will say no more. There is no anger on my part but I do detest slavery in all its forms over all people of this world. Farewell and Godspeed, —Maury (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Draft of the Declaration of Independence (1776) John Adams and Thomas Jefferson(Handwritten notes by Jefferson and Adams bolded.) A Declaration by the Representatives of United States of America, in General Congress Assembled When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal and independent 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 change We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable selfevident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and inalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become 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 it's 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, begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to subject reduce them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government. the history of his present majesty is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations, among which no fact stands single or solitary to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, all of which have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. to prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood. 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 neglected utterly 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 dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. [he has dissolved]he has refused for a long space of time, 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 meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within: he has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands: he has suffered the administration of justice totally to cease in some of these colonies, refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers: he has made our judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount of their salaries. he has erected a multitude of new offices by a self-assumed power, 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 and ships of war: he has affected to render the military, independent of and superior to civil power: he has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their pretended acts of legislation, for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; for protecting them, by 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 of the benefits of trial by jury; for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses; for taking away our charters, 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, withdrawing his governors, and declaring us out of his alegiance and protection; he has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people: he is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy unworthy the head of a civilized nation: he has endeavored 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 of existence: he has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens with the allurements of forfeiture and confiscation of our property: he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another. 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 people who mean to be free. future ages will scarce believe that the hardiness of one man, adventured within the short compass of twelve years only, on so many acts of tyranny without a mask, over a people fostered and fixed in principles of liberty. Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. we have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over these our states. we have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here, no one of which could warrant so strange a pretension: that these were effected at the expence of our own blood and treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great Britain: that in constituing indeed our several forms of government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league and amity with them: but that submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if history may be credited: and we appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, as well as to the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which were likely to interrupt our correspondence and connections. they too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity, and when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our harmony, they have by their free election re-established them in power. at this very time too they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch and foreign mercenaries to invade and deluge us in blood. these facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former love for them, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. we might have been a free and a great people together; but a communication of grandeur and of freedom it seems is below their dignity. be it so, since they will have it: the road to [glory and] happiness and to glory is open to us too; we will climb it apart from them in a separate state and acquiesce in the necessity which denounces pronounces our everlasting Adieu! eternal separation! We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled do , in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these states, reject and renounce the allegiance and subjection to the kinds of Great Britain and all others who may herafter claim by, through, or under them; we utterly dissolve and break off all political connection which may have heretofore subsisted between us and the people or parliament of Great Britain; and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states, and that as free and independent states they shall herafter 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 we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
|
| The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability. |
Vanity Fair [edit]
I know it's a little way off yet but Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray would be a good featured text for December. Thackeray died in December 1863, making this December the 150th anniversary of his death. On top of that, Vanity Fair was a PotM earlier in the year. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
