Hyperspectral imaging reveals Declaration of Independence rough draft dubbed citizens 'subjects'
By Laura June 
posted July 3rd 2010 7:07PM
posted July 3rd 2010 7:07PM
posted July 3rd 2010 7:07PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Wait, so USA was supposed to become a Monarchy?
@kapanak No, the "all men are created equal" bit would've negated a Monarchy.
@d0mth0ma5 They scratched out the word 'Not' at the beginning of the sentence there.
@kapanak
Great! This changes the whole course of history! We've been lied to by our politicians! What next?
@kapanak
No, they were just counting on illegal immigration 200+ years later.
@kapanak Not *exactly* but kinda.
The model the US has looks a LOT like a monarchy with a parliament, except that instead of descent by lineage, the positions are elected. But if you've ever compared the inauguration of a president to a coronation of a queen.... a LOT of similarities.
Also, your president is accorded a lot of power and status that bears a strong resemblence to monarchies as well.
Compare this to Canada where the Queen is *technically* the head of state, but really has almost no power - and yet where the Prime Minister (the technical head of government) has very strict limits on power and isn't accorded much in the way of special priviledges. In fact, the office of Prime Minister isn't even a specifically elected position - it's just the leader of the party with the most seats - if the party kicks out the guy, he's not PM anymore.
Much simpler than that impeachment thing.
@d0mth0ma5
Actually no. Most modern monarchys value all citizens (even the King/Queen) alike. But then again - the monarch has no real power in modern time neither (except in third world countries that is).
@Tech Wolf
Yeah, but if the party decides to take a radical change in policy and kicks the PM out, the party still has complete control over what they did before, besides the fact that that is not what they were elected for. The impeachment process keeps a party from kicking out somebody they previously supported without good reason, or at least convincing most of Congress that there is good reason.
I prefer a government where the de facto head of state is not a complete extension of the leading party of the legislative body.
Sorry if I perceived a part of your government wrong.
The only reason I can see something like this reaching the media is to be used against the citizens.... sorry, subjects, of America later.
@Tech Wolf
Australia would of been a better example, because the leader of our Labor party changed two weeks ago, meaning we ended up with a new prime minister.
@bravokiloromeo don't be racist
@Tech Wolf
Interestingly enough, the founding fathers of the United States meant for the president to be the head of the executive branch. There are three branches of government in the USA, all of them are supposed to be equal in power though they differ in function. The US system was intentionally designed so that no one person could never hold complete (or even a simple majority of) power in the nation.
This system seeks to eliminate the conceptual power that a monarch is seen to possess. There have been some presidents who abuse the system and seek to supplant the balance of powers by flexing their political muscle to gain more power than they have been alloted (these presidents include Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, F. Roosevelt. Some would also include G.H.W. Bush, G. W. Bush and Obama on this list)
Because of the arguable modern trend towards violating the intent of the founders of the US, some presidents have obtained power that far exceeds what they are alloted as a member of a branch that is theoretically equal in power, authority and influence to the other branches of government. I hope this clarifies some of the issues you mentioned.
@Tech Wolf: So what you're saying is that the US system is exactly like a monarchy except without the absolute power and the inheritance of power? In other words, exactly like a monarchy except for the two most critical elements of a monarchy? That's like saying that I look exactly like Brad Pitt except without the perfect body and rugged good looks.
You are officially an idiot.
@tonicboy Just when I thought my politics exams were over...
It's bad enough people can undelete our files after we erase them, now they can unerase our penciled text too?
@Eli Haj
Zing!
@Eli Haj Yes, they did have pencils back then
Well we were kinda currently under rule by a different country at the time.
Probably realized he made a error and scrubbed it out.
Nothing else.
@Ninjakid4 Yeah, I mean really. What do you think they've been used to Britain calling them all along?
@Ninjakid4
Jefferson had some wit and was a pretty ruthless politician. It's entirely possible he meant 'subjects' sarcastically and decided that was too difficult a joke to understand by such a common audience. There's a lot of Jeffersonian material out there to read if you're curious, and I think it lines up with the idea that he meant this 'subjects' to be an insulting term that is beneath us, but also thought better of it.
Better than lowly denizens I suppose.
@fleshpuppet IMO I don't think they meant the 2010 scientific meaning of the word "subjects". It's was 300 years ago and that's the only way their King recognized them. So they said F that and put in the word Citizens.
Out founding fathers were badasses.
I love what we can do. This only adds to the insight we can have into the time of the founding of this nation. This one change show how specifically intentional the declaration of independence really was.
Technically they were subjects until it was signed.
@d0mth0ma5
No, we were subjects until we fought [and won] for freedom.
@Ninjakid4 I don't think your Forefathers would've agreed with that, although the British Government would've until the Treaty of Paris.
@d0mth0ma5
Ironically, two hundred years later, to those who fight to get rid of an invading foreign army, we call them "terrorists".
But then i guess, is all about the ancient rule: those who put the names, those who tell the story, are those who won.
I wonder which names will all of us be given in another two hundred years.
@Hamaki No, they're called Terrorists because of their methods (Terrorising). The Iraqi Republican Guard weren't called Terrorists.
@Hamaki
Not quite. The American Revolutionaries tried to establish a real government, and establish real diplomatic relations with foreign countries. Terrorists do no such thing. In addition, terrorists spread "terror," as that is their primary objective.
@paul34
Their objective is terror? That is a bad generalization that is for the most part, completely false. Their method is terrorism, their objectives are myriad but usually include reorganization of political/social/religious structure or policy of some sort.
@Hamaki My god.... You are so wrong.
@Hamaki
If you wanted to say "insurgents" or "resistance fighters"...you could label revolutionaries that.
But not terrorists. That has clear connotations of a willingness to kill civilians to achieve your goals.
U.S. revolutionaries did not do that, mainly. They roughed up some Tories up a little and might have made a little free with their property. But they did the same to price-gouging merchants sometimes during the war, too.
ITS A TRAP!
@thefrataline Couldn't have said it better myself.
Technically speaking, they were still "subjects" when he sat down to write it. And indeed, they were until the Redcoats left. So I'm not sure it's a "mistake" so much as a very, very careful consideration of the wording.
He chose, at that moment, to make the Declaration much stronger - not just saying that "your lowly subjects have declared independece" but more like "WE citizens of our new INDEPENDENT nation are no longer your bi*tch! F*ck you! - love, the brand new united states"
@paul34 What's a bi*tch?
@d0mth0ma5
biotch?
Very cool!
no need to make him appear as something he was not
we need such guys again to govern us. they built strong bases which ensured USA success for many, many years.
But like everything, it's eroding.
@zob With all this talk about meaning of words i found this post interesting because we shouldn't need to be governed, the problem with this country is not the people in power it is the people who are allowing these people to retain power. If Jefferson had the feeling that he needed to be governed, that document would never have been written. People need to change!
For some reason, I smell a new Dan Brown book coming up.
@HikaKao Haha!
@HikaKao
I see a Nicholas Cage movie.
USA!!!!!!!!!! We shall not be called subjects we are citizens. Yay!
I guess he said subjects because that's what the average brit was called :)
That's like Moses saying let the slaves go, errr i mean, people go
Be excellent to each other.and party on dudes!
I only wish our Congressmen today would spend a fraction of that amount of time and devotion as they once did...
lol;D
People have so short memories !
Initialy, the founding fathers wanted to have a...King! As the head of state !!
I'm not surprised at all by this! Thomas Jefferson, wanted probably to be the first king of the USA.
When the first constitution was written, they did not know what to call tis new thing. A republic? What system would they adopt?
It took a while to figure it out. But really, it was suggested that the US would have a king that would be elected.
I could be wrong but I believe Thomas Jefferson 'cut and pasted' a lot of text from various documents when drafting the Declaration. The word 'subjects' could have merely been an oversight. The wording of the Declaration was debated many times over throughout Congress. And remember George Washington's original title was "His Excellency". Washington rejected that title and decided to be referred to simply as Mr. President