Slashdot Mirror
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."
That redacting documents by simply putting a opaque block over them dosn't removing the unlaying data?
they have correct that correction some time ago now, you are not citizens, you are consumers - inmates - terrorists - child molesters - unique serial numbers - organ donors.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
If I recall correctly, they still considered themselves subjects of Britain that were being mistreated, but I can see why Jefferson changed it. It would be admitting that they were seceeding from a legitimate rule despite their grievances. And it's pretty cool how they found this too.
The editing of the word "subject" emphasizes the founders care to make sure that the US government be of the people, that we should not be subject to any tyranny but rather citizens with representation. Good time of year for the reminder.
Figures. The government has been trying to do that for years ...
Oh SH--! CTRL-Z! CTRL-Z!
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.
Now we have made the transition from Citizens back to Subjects of our Federal Empire. In many cases we can't even travel within our own state's boundaries without having to present our identification and travel papers to a Federal Officer and get their permission to make the trip. We could probably solve the energy crisis if we could tap into the founding fathers continuous spinning in their graves....
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
As well,
a state Citizen is not a subject but the original paramount title of the several nation-states, not the States of the United States because they exist in parallel dis-united to The 48 *u*nited States of America. Thomas Jefferson created that secondary citizen-subject for the rebellion States of the Union that separated from Brittain. Citizen under the Republic-states are more privileged than the nobility in the original estates of nobility because they have supplements exceeding their capacity in limited liability that only work in theory but more expensive obviously.
That's why there is such a fuss about the 14th Amendment because the United States arrived in 1754 as a moorish nation that was not allowed into America, so the Illuminati Freemasons captured that moorish nation in 1775 and layed it doormant while erecting a non-class non-body politic Style (an idea) known as The United States of America. The United States in that regard has been trying to amend it's own documents to overlay onto the states of America to integrate itself as an acceptable style to diversif citizenry in the administrative districts created by Washington and Indian/Endemic/endian territories (yes, free-born are indian too). That new style didn't encumber the Several nation-states, but those that declared independence as The 48 United States of America which can be named as California (state of America, not CA of the United States) all the way down the list of admitted nationalities in the Government Printing Office that expressly doesn't recognize 14th Amendment citizens of the United States because that is a debt charter of a corporation in the District of Columbia (read Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 "Location of Debtor: United States is located in DC", and USC 28 3002 15(a) where "United States is a federal Corporation").
I'm free-born as well as a few others. It's hell on earth, because on this continent I can't get a driver license with my family Bible and crest yet I can prove in Statutory law that I can un-drive without a license because "All roads are open as a Matter of Right to Public Vehicular Travel" (but the incompetants attorney COPS and Patrols take me to court once a month for me to school them on the law and THEIR CODE.
How would history be different if the paragraph condemning the evil of slavery had been kept in the declaration, instead of being removed?
From Wikipedia: "although Jefferson had included a paragraph in his initial draft that strongly indicted Britain's role in the slave trade, this was deleted from the final version"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_Act_1981
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
If he kept in the paragraph banning slavery, we probably would have 13 independent countries rather than any sort of union, especially for the southern states which required the extra labor for agriculture. The founding fathers all had to make compromises in order to get the thing passed, otherwise we would still be a confederacy of independent states. (No, I'm not talking about the CSA, I'm talking about having 13 independent nations with a loose affiliation)
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Slashdot needs a "-1:Tinfoil Hat" mod option.
This ain't rocket surgery.
We'd more expect this kind of thing from Adams, Washington, or others on the Federalist side of the first party system.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
very cool!
And in recent times, citizens are referred to as "consumers"; those who don't consume, effectively don't exist.
To digress a bit, but related to this topic, many organizations, instead of saying they offer programs / activities / education, now often just use the word "programming" - seems very Orwellian to me.
Ron
No doubt it was changed because someone pointed out to Jefferson that it was grammatically incorrect. Or rather, simply the incorrect word to use, by definition.
People at the time were used to referring to themselves as "subjects" of the English king. But if you no longer have a king, then you are no longer a subject. There is no need to assume it is any more complicated than that.
ROFL, wow, interesting take... the south favoured slavery, not because they were filthy bigots who felt Africans were inferior, but simply because the poor bastards "required the extra labor for agriculture".
"that rare first draft of the constitution with the word "suckers" in it."
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Just this morning I was listening to an interview with a Jefferson historian who explained that Jefferson was unable to find a solution to the slavery issue. He realised that his lack of opposition to slavery would be a negative part of his legacy. For the interested: New Books in History.
That should be "+1: Tinfoil Hat"
Meh.
In our current society the most important label is "victim." Once you or your somewhat defined demographic group can achieve the official label of victim, the largess of the non-victims (also known as taxpayers) is yours for the grovelling. Keep in mind that both the lawmakers who bestow victimhood and the bureaucracy take their cut from what is extorted from the taxpayers as their part of the squeeze.
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.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
And maybe a "+1 Stylish Tinfoil Hat"
ROFL, wow, interesting take... the south favoured slavery, not because they were filthy bigots who felt Africans were inferior, but simply because the poor bastards "required the extra labor for agriculture".
The abolition of slavery moved very slowly even in the North.
The percentage of colonists - all races and both sexes - who arrived as slaves, prisoners, or more or less voluntarily indentured servants, was around 1/3.
1777 Vermont Republic (constitution)
1780 Pennsylvania "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery" Frees adult children of slaves born after 1780.
1783 Massachusetts (judicial decision - state constitutional law)
1783 -1784 New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island (children of slaves) (statute)
1799 -1804 New York, New Jersey (children of slaves) (statute)
1817 New York - emancipation for all slaves on July 4, 1827
1827 New York Children born of slaves between 1799 and 1827 are indentured until age 25 (females) or age 28 (males)
1847 Slavery ends in Pennsylvania. Those born before 1780 are freed - perhaps 100 surviving.
Abolition of slavery timeline
From the beginning, the plantation South was raising labor-intensive, non-edible, non-perishable, crops for the export trade. It was one of the few sources of hard currency - gold and silver - the colonies possessed. Which matters if you are seriously bent on waging a war against Great Britain.
wow, if you're going to troll in this way you could at least have put this in a thread about linux.
Defective Logic
Just to add to you, ALL thirteen original states were slave states at the time of the revolutionary war. So trying to say that it was only the south that favored slavery is a bit of misinformation.
Pull numbers out of your nether region much?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/02/mark-critz/critz-touts-democratic-role-low-taxes-job-creation/
I bolded combined so you wouldn't come back and go "but that doesn't include state and local taxes!!11"
Actually that's correct. White people didn't enslave blacks because they hated them. They did it because they saw that slave labor could make them rich. They started hating blacks *after* enslaving them, as a retroactive moral justification so they wouldn't have to admit they were willing to brutalize people for money.
"Is it within the realm of possibility that some nobody might be allowed to die so that his organs can be harvested for a prominent somebody?"
Why stop with prominent somebodies? In "The Jigsaw Man" (spoiler warning on the link), Larry Niven has an interesting take on the potential for unexpected side-effects in a system where organ transplant is perfected but organ supply remains scarce.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Sure at the beginning of the revolutionary war that was true, but it began to shift pretty soon. In 1780 Massachusetts abolished slavery. So at least one state in the north banned slavery by the time of the revolutionary war's end. Rhode Island had technically banned it in the 1600s, but it continued in practice for quite some time afterword.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
But I'd rather die young than live a long life as a bootlick, and I've no base urge to jack into the gene pool. So it looks like we can agree to disagree!
The US *is* taxing Iraq for the cost of war! The oil money is being used to pay for work needed and that work given to US companies without tender.
I was thinking more in terms of an actual tax like "let's tax Iraqi incomes and send the money directly to the IRS" rather than other means of economic exploitation. Regardless, the point still stands. Do you think it is morally right to do that? Do you think the Iraqis are a little pissed off right now because of it?
It was also the fact that the big corporations (UK companies) were not paying taxes whilst colonial (smaller) companies had to pay. Rather like Microsoft can avoid paying taxes by accounting tricks but Bob's Software Shack cannot and therefore has to take the burden MS avoided.
Excellent point. Thank you.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
The Norse countries
Norse? What is this, the 12th century?
Old Norse:
Ráðumk, ér Loddfáfnir, en ú ráð nemir, -
njóta mundu, ef ú nemr, ér munu góð, ef ú getr -:
rimr orðum senna skal-at-tu ér við verra mann
oft inn betri bilar,
á er inn verri vegr.
Shakespeare Era Translation:
I rede thee, Loddfafnir! | and hear thou my rede,--
Profit thou hast if thou hearest,
Great thy gain if thou learnest:
With a worse man speak not | three words in dispute,
Ill fares the better oft
When the worse man wields a sword.
20th Century Translation:
Even three words of quarrelling you shouldn't have with an inferior.
21st Century Translation:
Don't feed trolls.
Some things never change.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
when was the last time you wrote code that lasted more than two centuries with less than 30 patches?
Six thousand years ago.
I still think making Woman a decedent of the Rib Class was something of a hack.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
Not in America; we still believe the government has the right to wage the drug war. Ergo, subjects' bodies belong to society, and any say they are given in the matter, is a privilege for which they should be grateful.
Some minority might disagree with that, but 99% of the voters repeatedly confirm their deep conviction that people are the government's property, over and over and over again.
And on the other side of the coin, the later northern opposition to slavery in the frontier states wasn't motivated by human good will, but it was motivated by the "They'll take our jobs!" thinking identical to that applied to modern immigrants. The northern states simply didn't want the friontier states to become slave states because they didn't want to compete with the cheap/free labor there. Most of them still had a rather strong prejudice against blacks and other races, as a non-revisionist historical study will reveal.
Also, a previous poster asserts that "the south needed slave labor for agriculture". The real situation is more like "the rich and entrenched plantation owners 'needed' slave labor to continue their industrial might". The book Markets and Minorities, which is a great read, argues that the South's economy, as a whole, would have been much better off with free blacks, who would have been able to branch out into other industries and be more productive by far, and that slavery was a detriment to the South's economy at the benefit of a couple industries (kinda like some copyright law now benefits a few industries while hurting the rest of the wider economy).
That's what "+1 Insightful" is for.
How would history be different if the paragraph condemning the evil of slavery had been kept in the declaration, instead of being removed?
I bet that would work now too! Just put together a declaration that has all your favorite stuff in it, we'll sign it, and the world will be a vastly better place! I wonder why no one has thought of this before?