Thomas Jefferson made slip in Declaration

I find it hilarious that some people are saying this discredits Jefferson and the founding fathers...without realizing (or reading?) that this was an early draft, he changed it, he was a subject to the king as were all citizens at that point in time, he says "fellow," and he lived in a totally different time. I believe Benjamin Franklin freed his slaves as well. These men weren't perfect but they were better than anything we have now, and probably certainly much better gentlemen, and far more respectable than the majority of people who bash them (including members of this board.)

[edit on 3-7-2010 by yellowcard]

Some call it a slip, others see it as an epiphany.

Some have a glass half empty, others half full.

The original word was subjects but was changed to citizens - big difference ey.

subjects:
- a person who is subjected to experimental or other observational procedures; someone who is an object of investigation; "the subjects for this investigation were selected randomly"; "the cases that we studied were drawn from two different communities"
- subjugate: make subservient; force to submit or subdue
- being under the power or sovereignty of another or others; "subject peoples"

citizens
- an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman
- a member of a state b : a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
- a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state



What a contrast - to me, it seems they put their original intent on paper first, and covered it up to provide a layer of plausible-deniability...

www.abc.net.au

Originally posted by Kojack
I find this highly awkward.

All the anti-government people who hold this man in such high respect in reverance are gonna be shocked. So what the hell was the true agenda back then? How far back does the plans for the NWO go?

It was probably Madison that had to set him strait.

Does anyone know if the word citizen actually existed before it was put in the Constitution? Just a thought. It would be amazing if the founding fathers' thinking was so revolutionary that they had to create a new word/concept to describe it.

reply to post by ModestThought


Nah I think you would find that if you go back to ancient Greece and Rome that the majority of western political philosophy came from them and hasn't really changed - only modernised.

And I think you'll find that the word it self is French... etymology of the word citizen

Much of what America prides itself on is actually the result of The French Revolution.

America didn't invent everything yakno

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
It seems to say fellow subjects. I think that puts him on the same playing field as us.

It's possible that was a common term in those times.

There was a link, www.myloc.gov... to the documents. I gave a quick look but I couldn't find them.

Like with everything, it seems people go reading more into it before actually reading more.

[edit on 7/2/2010 by ThaLoccster]

I read over the pre draft too. I also noticed the editing of the line "that all men are created equal (and independent)

reply to post by ghostsoldier


Or, you know, the word subjects was there because it meant citizen, but he wanted to use another word... like citizen. The man;s life actions tell a different one you are trying to paint.

Reply to post by Gorman91

I am not grasping the hullabaloo.

Second line.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by ghostsoldier


You have a point to a point however one will find many of the same influences in philosophy influncing them both. The French took a turn into maddness at some point....we didnt borrow that.

Nor did we get our idea of a constitution or social contract with government from the French. French had some thinkers and political philosophers but not real nuts and bolts sort of guys.



[edit on 5-7-2010 by Logarock]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ghostsoldier

 

Or, you know, the word subjects was there because it meant citizen, but he wanted to use another word... like citizen. The man;s life actions tell a different one you are trying to paint.

Its clear what they are trying to do here with jefferson. This story was on the radio new this morning. Really desperate.

We should remember who jefferson was talking to....in a language the king could understand...the kings subjects were declaring independence.

But this got scraped anyway...the subject thing.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


It is sad you do not. If you see Jefferson as a king-like greedy man, you are really being pathetic, as everything the man did was for the people's freedom. He'd probably be the one to Talk to Petraeus and ask him for his support for a revolution.

If you don't get it, maybe read his letters and words. Here, I'll start you off:

The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

With respect to our state and federal governments, I do not thing their relations correctly understood by foreigners. They generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. To the state governments are reserved all legislation administration, in affairs which concern their own citizens only; and to the federal government is given whatever concerns foreigners and citizens of other states; these functions alone being made federal. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government - neither having control over the other, but within its own department.

Never spend your money before you have it.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

The man who fears no truth has nothing to fear from lies.

Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.

So it's quite simple. Stop assuming who the man is based off one erasure, and get off your bum and find out who he was for yourself? Let's see, doesn't that ring a tone with denying ignorance?



reply to post by Logarock


Every day that I watch ignorance grow and learn more and more about why nations fall. It's 2000 years after the Roman republic fell, and we are only 200- 150 years ahead of them. And we still fall into their trap of ignorant people who know nothing of freedom. Must history repeat itself so many damn times? Sometimes I feel I am Jefferson reincarnated, because it seems I'm acting more like him everyday.



Reminds me of this:



[edit on 5-7-2010 by Gorman91]