Spectral Imaging Reveals Jefferson Nixed 'Subjects' for 'Citizens'

Jamie points out this excellent piece, well timed for America's Independence Day, that says spectrographic evidence has established that the one word Thomas Jefferson fully blotted out from an early draft of the Declaration of Independence was not "resident," or "patriot," but rather "subject." This, he replaced with "citizen."

Comments

Considering the mindset of the era

[linumax]

Considering the mindset of the era, this actually is a good indicator of how Jefferson and other founding fathers understood that there was something wrong with the status quo and managed to change it.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era

[Darkness404]

...And we still have the status quo today.

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 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 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.

Hm, sound like the immigration mess we have today?

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

Hm, appointing unfair judges for life... Based on the will of ~0.000033667% of the people? Sound familiar?

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.

Sound familiar? DEA, Homeland Security, etc.?

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.

Well, thats a bit different now, because we seem to think that there can't be any times of peace so instead we have a standing army always and find new conflicts to fight.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

Hm, people in the police force and the armed forces getting off easy for abuses of citizens, that of course has never happened in the USA... right?

For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

And today we have embargoes that not only harm our own citizens but keep some parts of the world in poverty because we disagree with their government... -cough- Cuba -cough-

For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:

Lets see, Ben Franklin estimated taxes in the colonies at around 12.5%... Today we have a 15% income tax at the realistic minimum (unless you are like a kid at a summer job or something then its only 10%) and up to 35% if you are successful at what you do! Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)


All the abuses of King George III on America are very similar to the abuses we suffer under our recent presidents and congresses.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era

[Jafafa Hots]

Well, I was going to say that with the Declaration, Jefferson DID change subjects into citizens, and I'm not talking about word replacement.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Besides - most people here aren't citizens, they're subjects of whatever country they are from.

Most people who live in most countries are citizens rather than subjects. The use of the word "citizen" is hardly unique to the USA.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era

[JoshuaZ]

Much of what you said above takes things out of context or makes massive confusions about differences in scale. Let's look at two of them:

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.

Well, thats a bit different now, because we seem to think that there can't be any times of peace so instead we have a standing army always and find new conflicts to fight.

You are missing the point here. The primary objection is "kept among us"- this is an objection to quartering soldiers in private homes (which was then not allowed by the Third Amendment).

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

Hm, appointing unfair judges for life... Based on the will of ~0.000033667% of the people? Sound familiar?

But that's not at all the same. The judges being objected to weren't appointed for life. They were appointed to serve at the pleasure of the King. That's a very different circumstance. Hence the phrasing " on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices."

And of course almost all your objections ignore the fact that these events have all occurred with the consent of the legislator you voted for. That's very different then when things occur by an unelected monarch and a parliament which one can't vote.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era

[Darkness404]

That is a very dangerous mindset to have and a mindset that the founding fathers avoided like the plague. That is why we have the constitution (which is basically ignored which is why we have a government comparable to King George III which ignored the rights that colonists had as English citizens) to limit the government so it doesn't -matter- who is elected, in short the founding fathers had a version of the Debian Free Software Guidelines called the "tentacles of evil test"

"The Tentacles of Evil test". Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation and, now in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the program: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the program, to expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-free, to discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a corporation bought out by a larger corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot allow even the author to take away the required freedoms.

Only the founding fathers changed it a bit with limited government with the constitution basically saying:

"The Tentacles of Evil test". Imagine that the people have voted in a dictator and, now that he/she is elected, attempts to do the worst to the citizens of the USA: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using their freedoms, to expose them to domestic or foreign harm, to make the citizens non-free, to expose all citizen's secrets, etc. The same can happen to a government bought out by a corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The constitution cannot allow even the government to take away the required freedoms.

If you look at dictators, a -lot- of them were voted in, the constitution is designed to prevent a voted-in dictator from taking freedoms. Our rights are natural rights, they should never be voted away like you are suggesting.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era

[Reziac]

"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
    -- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

"The world needs to be reminded that all human ills are not curable by legislation, and that quantity of statutory enactment and excess of government offer no substitute for quality of citizenship."
    -- Warren G. Harding

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed."
    -- H. L. Mencken

"Formerly, we suffered from crimes. Now, we suffer from laws."
    -- Tacitus

Well...

[djupedal]

Since the actual ability within the populace to write went missing years ago (image the Constitution as a tweet), and since today's culture may not know this, let me be reiterate that the document was 'drafted', meaning the author wrote and thought at the same time. It used to be a common practice to write a statement, and then to consider it in context with the expectation that changes were likely to occur. This doesn't mean he f'd up or someone was holding a gun to his head forcing him to change his mind.

Thinking about what you write and why and how it should be cached for your audience used to be a worthwhile goal.

Re:The Irony is....

[insufflate10mg]

LOL, really? When has a "Federal Officer" ever stopped you as you were travelling within the state and asserted his authority to make you turn around and go home?

Re:Don't worry

[Abcd1234]

Then they can opt-out. The fact is *most* people *don't* have "religious objects or objects to the organ donation system itself", so why the hell should the law assume they do, particularly if it means more lives saved due to an increase in available organs?

Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave

[Darkness404]

Right, because we all know how the north loved their Africans right? Everyone thought that the African race was inferior to the European races whether in the north, south, in Europe, etc. for quite some time.

Re:You left out the most important label

[CRCulver]

BTW, this isn't limited to the United States. Lots of countries have made official victimhood the most desirable status one can aspire to. Unfortunately, their additional experience with leeching taxpayers to pay their victims has created a dearth of taxpayers. Funny how that happens.

If you're referring to welfare states, they are a lot closer to financial solvency than the US, which prides itself on its can-do, American dream, pull-youself-up-with-your-own-bootstraps anti-welfare spirit, but is saddled with debt unimaginable in a place like Finland or Sweden.

Re:Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Nature performs its own desecration. It's called rot. Or incineration. Or consumption. Any way you choose, you will be "mutilated." The difference between them is time, a concept that loses all meaning without life.

Re:Don't worry

[Jedi Alec]

So what you are saying is that you don't think the US is as civilized as a good chunk of western europe? We've had opt-out donorship for quite a while now, and yet somehow our authoritation pinko commie cradle to grave goverments have yet to implement their "harvesting organs for fun and profit" programs.

Fact of the matter is that most people can't be bothered to give it thought until the time when either they or one of their loved ones needs a donor organ. By making it opt-out the sheep/lazy folks(I fall into the latter category) don't have to give it any thought, and for those who consider it an issue there's the option to opt-out.