Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Government United Kingdom United States Politics

Spectral Imaging Reveals Jefferson Nixed 'Subjects' for 'Citizens' 360

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 03, 2010 @05:38PM (#32788274)

    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.

  • Re:Very interesting. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Trepidity ( 597 ) <delirium-slashdo ... g ['kis' in gap]> on Saturday July 03, 2010 @05:42PM (#32788298)

    Yeah, in that era "citizen" had strong republican (i.e. anti-monarchist) connotations, which would be made even clearer in the revolution a few years later in France, where "Citizen so-and-so" became the common mode of greeting (to emphasize that all titles were abolished, replaced by a single title, "Citizen", that everyone possessed), and was featured prominently in such texts as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen [].

    I don't believe it had quite as radical a connotation in 1776, but it was still a clear shift from "grievances of subjects who feel their king is unjust" (which was the sentiment of some of the colonists) to a more explicit declaration of anti-monarchism.

  • Back in the UK ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by TopSpin ( 753 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @05:44PM (#32788316) Journal

    ... citizens stopped being 'subjects' in 1983, apparently. []

  • by IorDMUX ( 870522 ) <> on Saturday July 03, 2010 @05:56PM (#32788394) Homepage

    It's incredible to think that that one ink blot had such a profound effect on the US today.

    I'm... not so sure about that. Jefferson's mindset had a profound impact on the formation of the US and its laws and liberties today, and this inkblot itself gives us insight into his thoughts, but the article itself notes that the entire line was removed from the final draft. The actual Declaration of Independence does not include this text, altered or otherwise, at all.

  • Re:The Irony is.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Darkness404 ( 1287218 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @05:57PM (#32788398)
    The founding fathers (particularly Jefferson) knew that this would happen, from including the second amendment which, contrary to popular belief didn't give us the right to bear arms because the founding fathers wanted us to go deer hunting but rather as a last resort to oppose government force. In fact Jefferson was reported to say that every generation needed its own revolution along with quotes such as

    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.


    I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.

    The founding fathers knew that this apathy would happen because it did, it was the entire reason why they believed they had to gain independence from Britain.

  • Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 03, 2010 @06:00PM (#32788418)

    When you're a Chinese criminal, for suitably bizarre values of "criminal".

  • Re:Don't worry (Score:3, Informative)

    by larry bagina ( 561269 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @06:20PM (#32788520) Journal
    some people have religious objections or objections to the organ donation system itself.
  • by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @06:22PM (#32788534)
    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.
  • by seyyah ( 986027 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @06:38PM (#32788630)

    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 [].

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 03, 2010 @06:50PM (#32788676)

    in all fairness, there weren't many Japanese-Americans in 1776.

    There were plenty of Chinese getting screwed over in for most of the 1800s though.

  • Re:The Irony is.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Volante3192 ( 953645 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @06:50PM (#32788680)

    Look at the US Code, says the same thing (except it's just not enforced.) []
      1304. Forms for registration and fingerprinting

    (e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

    Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.

  • by RobertM1968 ( 951074 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @06:56PM (#32788698) Homepage Journal

    Glad someone mentioned this. It's difficult for me to take the Declaration of Independence seriously when blacks didn't get rights until almost 200 years later... not to mention the plight of Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.

    In all fairness to Jefferson, he did have that in mind (Constitution) - along with other things that did not make it in due to the mindset of the times and those others who had input into the matter.

  • Re:Don't worry (Score:3, Informative)

    by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @07:04PM (#32788728) Homepage

    But probably the worst part of it is that there isn't any guarantee that the doctor responsible for saving the individuals life isn't also the doctor for the patient that needs the transplant.

    That would be extraordinarily unlikely. I suppose if you crashed your motorcycle into a barrier in front of the transplant hospital and they dragged your soon-to-be-lifeless body into the ER AND the transplant doc was moonlighting as the ER attending it could happen.

    But I would worry a lot more about going to some random bar and waking up next day missing a kidney. Or Elvis appearing in front of me. Or a balanced budget.

  • by westlake ( 615356 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @07:27PM (#32788872)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 03, 2010 @07:33PM (#32788908)

    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.

  • by QuantumLeaper ( 607189 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @08:05PM (#32789078) Journal
    Tax evaders have tried that in the past and failed, by saying those augments.
    Why not read about it at []
    Case law from the court doesn't back up what your saying either...
  • Re:The Irony is.... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 03, 2010 @08:10PM (#32789096)

    If you read the Arizona law you will realize that it is more or less drafted from the current Federal legislation. So, really, there is no need to get Arizona's laws "up to that level."

  • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @10:00PM (#32789508)
    When was the last time you had to feed or house a federal agent against your will?

    The last time I received a paycheck and a sum of money was removed to pay federal agents. Trust me, I'd rather keep that than have my "property" taken to pay federal agents against my will. I understand your point. And you either miss the point or are being deliberately obtuse. It's not that they are being done today exactly as they were then, but that the complaints themselves are valid in regards to todays government, even if minor modifications to wording would need to be made. Yes, you don't have to keep them in your home, but you have to pay for theirs. Completely different, yet exactly the same.
  • The Norse countries

    Norse? What is this, the 12th century?

    I was thinking of the insolvent welfare states such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.

    The problem of Greece has a lot to do with corruption in the minority of people who work in administration and very little to do with a welfare state, which is pretty negligible, actually. And taxation is fairly low there as well. Looks like you haven't read any more about the problem than the stereotypes posted around news sites recently, which blamed a generally mythical lazy, non-working, early-retiring Greek people for everything.

  • by unwastaken ( 1586569 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @10:48PM (#32789674)
    It might be true that spending would be higher for some people. The difference is that an income tax is unavoidable, whereas you can't force people to spend their money (except for our new health care program...).
  • by poopdeville ( 841677 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @11:19PM (#32789768)

    Just because they aren't subject to a king doesn't mean they couldn't be subjects of a sovereign...

  • by Culture20 ( 968837 ) on Saturday July 03, 2010 @11:32PM (#32789814)

    Most people who live in most countries are citizens rather than subjects.

    You're welcome.

    Parent is not a troll. Parent is pointing out that at the time "subjects" was crossed out by Jefferson, Nearly everyone on the planet was subject to a King, or if not, were not living in a level of civilization where "citizen" would be an appropriate term. Following the American Colonies' example, many other English colonies and colonies of other countries threw off their shackles, and eventually the mother-countries followed suit.

  • Organ donation (Score:4, Informative)

    by DragonHawk ( 21256 ) on Sunday July 04, 2010 @12:30AM (#32790038) Homepage Journal

    "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.

  • by olivebridge ( 1122781 ) on Sunday July 04, 2010 @11:47AM (#32792064)

    False. "Freemen" had the same rights as whites

    False. Hate crimes, segregation and intimidation were common until the Civil Rights Movement [] in the 1960s. My parents grew up in the 1950s when there were "whites only" restaurants, etc.

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling