Declaration of Independence found in Britain's National Archive

[Ivan Seeking]

Just in time for the 4th of July.

An original first print of the American Declaration of Independence has been discovered gathering dust in Britain.

The document that changed history was approved on July 4, 1776, and this is one of only 26 copies known to have survived out of 200 printed that night. The poster size proclamation is in perfect condition and is said to be worth £5million...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...merican-Declaration-Independence--Surrey.html

 

[Pengwuino]

One of the comments:

Don't tell Nicolas Cage!

 

[Moonbear]

The article says they don't know how a copy got into British hands. Odd, I always assumed someone sent them a copy, as I was pretty sure that was the primary purpose of the document, to let them know the colonies were declaring independence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The article says they don't know how a copy got into British hands. Odd, I always assumed someone sent them a copy, as I was pretty sure that was the primary purpose of the document, to let them know the colonies were declaring independence.

Haha, I think they meant that they don't know how the Brits got THIS copy.

It was suspected that this copy was taken after the Brits seized a fort or something, but I didn't quite catch the details. In any event it is one of the original copies, which apparently makes it a rare find.

 

[LowlyPion]

The article says they don't know how a copy got into British hands. Odd, I always assumed someone sent them a copy, as I was pretty sure that was the primary purpose of the document, to let them know the colonies were declaring independence.

You'd think the King was at least cc'ed on it. What's the point of penning a Dear George letter calling the affair off, if you never mail it?

Speculation on the news channels was that it was a copy recovered from a captured ship and forwarded to the Admiralty among the ship's papers. So knowing what a seditious document it was, like perfect bureaucrats, they filed it.

 

[Pengwuino]

It is not certain how the newly discovered copy came into British hands, but it is likely to have been captured by the Royal Navy during the American Revolutionary War which continued for seven years after the Declaration of Independence was signed.

There!

 

[FireSky86]

I have a fairly odd question regarding Britain's realization of US Independence.

First, why did the American Colonies "need" Britain to realize it's independence. Sure, it is important for legal reasons but my question is regarding the American's outlook or attitude at "independence".

Does anybody understand my question? It is kind of confusing at first but once thorougly thought about, it can be a trivial question.

 

[Proton Soup]

I have a fairly odd question regarding Britain's realization of US Independence.

First, why did the American Colonies "need" Britain to realize it's independence. Sure, it is important for legal reasons but my question is regarding the American's outlook or attitude at "independence".

Does anybody understand my question? It is kind of confusing at first but once thorougly thought about, it can be a trivial question.

just think of it as an eviction notice

 

[Moonbear]

I have a fairly odd question regarding Britain's realization of US Independence.

First, why did the American Colonies "need" Britain to realize it's independence. Sure, it is important for legal reasons but my question is regarding the American's outlook or attitude at "independence".

Does anybody understand my question? It is kind of confusing at first but once thorougly thought about, it can be a trivial question.

It is legal reasons, and for the benefit of the full international community, not just between Britain and the colonies at the time. It was basically outlining grievances of the colonies and explaining why those grievances were so bad that they warranted forming their own government. It was also important to distinguish between forming a separate government to rule their own territory, vs any implication that it was a coup to take over existing government. They knew that England was not going to give up her colonies without a fight, so you have to define what it is you're fighting about so that whoever wins the war, you know what you've won or lost. Without declaring that the war was for independence, when all the fighting was done, all they might have won were some seats in Parliament with representatives of the colonies, and some tax reform, which was not the real goal.

It's also important to show that all of the colonies supported independence, and that there was an organized leadership in place. It's the difference between a handful of malcontents being arrested for treason vs an organized revolution supported by a large contingent of the colonists. They knew they weren't just declaring independence, but also declaring war. When you declare war, you need to make it clear that you're not out to overthrow an existing government, but are instead drawing a boundary and telling them they can continue to govern on their side of that boundary, but you want them out of your side.

 

[russ_watters]

I have a fairly odd question regarding Britain's realization of US Independence.

First, why did the American Colonies "need" Britain to realize it's independence. Sure, it is important for legal reasons but my question is regarding the American's outlook or attitude at "independence".

Does anybody understand my question? It is kind of confusing at first but once thorougly thought about, it can be a trivial question.

When you say "realize" do you really mean recognize? The Brits didn't recognize the legitimacy of the document - that was kinda the whole point of the war.

 

[turbo]

Please understand that as a colony, the "US" had no international standing. It was not recognized as an entity separate from England - only as a holding of the empire. The foundling nation sought to fix this by securing the recognition of other European nations, and had the most success with France. Benjamin Franklin was our first "ambassador" of sorts.

Lots of the muskets that our ancestors used to fight the British were British-made muskets that the locals were required to maintain (as colonists) to fight the French in local militias. Some of the first muskets that the colonists got, apart from these arms, were from the French arsenal at Charleville. Charleville muskets that are stamped with state and/or militia markings are highly sought-after collectibles.

Lest we get too wrapped up in jingoism and media hype, it is probably helpful to recall that the colonists were called "renegades", "traitors", and worse by the British. When power and wealth are on the line, the first resort of the powerful and wealthy is the denigration of those who would prefer to be free.

 

[FireSky86]

When you say "realize" do you really mean recognize? The Brits didn't recognize the legitimacy of the document - that was kinda the whole point of the war.

Yes that is what I meant. Sorry about that.

 

[russ_watters]

Lest we get too wrapped up in jingoism and media hype, it is probably helpful to recall that the colonists were called "renegades", "traitors", and worse by the British. When power and wealth are on the line, the first resort of the powerful and wealthy is the denigration of those who would prefer to be free.

It is certainly proper to call people who rebel against their government "renegades" or "traitors". That's not an attempt to denegrate, it is a factual description. Further, had the colonies lost the war, those who wrote/signed the Declaration could have been rightly convicted of such crimes. Not sure what "jongoism and media hype" you are referring to...

 

[Proton Soup]

i suppose that today they would call us terrorists! :)

 

[FireSky86]

i suppose that today they would call us terrorists! :)

To each his own, you know?

 

[russ_watters]

i suppose that today they would call us terrorists! :)

Unlikely sinc that word also has a relatively straightforward definition. Besides..."us" weren't alive in 1776!


-edit: and the word wasn't in common usage back then anyway!

 

[cristo]

Please understand that as a colony, the "US" had no international standing. It was not recognized as an entity separate from England - only as a holding of the empire.

Well, yes, that's the definition of a colony; British America was an overseas territory of Great Britain.

The foundling nation sought to fix this by securing the recognition of other European nations, and had the most success with France.

Hmm.. wonder why that was?

Lest we get too wrapped up in jingoism and media hype, it is probably helpful to recall that the colonists were called "renegades", "traitors", and worse by the British. When power and wealth are on the line, the first resort of the powerful and wealthy is the denigration of those who would prefer to be free.

Like Russ, I'm not sure what you mean by the "jingoism and media hype." Colonists who rebelled were traitors, guilty of high treason (had the British won the war, as others have said-- not that there was much chance of that happening; when you're as strong as the British were it's not surprising that your enemies are going to jump into a war against you!).

 

[mheslep]

It is certainly proper to call people who rebel against their government "renegades" or "traitors". That's not an attempt to denegrate, it is a factual description. Further, had the colonies lost the war, those who wrote/signed the Declaration could have been rightly convicted of such crimes. ...

Rightly? I would have gone with 'legally' on an Independence Day thread.

 

[Proton Soup]

Unlikely sinc that word also has a relatively straightforward definition. Besides..."us" weren't alive in 1776!


-edit: and the word wasn't in common usage back then anyway!

operative word being "today". one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, you know.

We are all ready to be savage in some cause. The difference between a good man and a bad one is the choice of the cause. - William James 'Will' Durant

 

[russ_watters]

operative word being "today". one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, you know.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean - was that supposed to be sarcastic? The words "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are completely different words describing different things and obviously aren't even mutually exclusive. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is just something people say to try to obfuscate the definition of "terrorist" in a disingenuous/clandestine attempt to support it or use the word to denegrate someone else. But ultimately it is a meaningless phrase: Is one man's purple another man's chair?

Regarding the colonial army, they were "freedom fighters", and certainly were not "terrorists". The most important part of the definition of "terrorism" is that it be directed against civilians. It would have been pretty stupid for the colonial armies to engage in terrorism, since support from their fellow colonists was pretty important to their success.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean - was that supposed to be sarcastic? The words "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are completely different words describing different things and obviously aren't even mutually exclusive. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is just something people say to try to obfuscate the definition of "terrorist" in a disingenuous/clandestine attempt to support it or use the word to denegrate someone else. But ultimately it is a meaningless phrase: Is one man's purple another man's chair?

Regarding the colonial army, they were "freedom fighters", and certainly were not "terrorists". The most important part of the definition of "terrorism" is that it be directed against civilians. It would have been pretty stupid for the colonial armies to engage in terrorism, since support from their fellow colonists was pretty important to their success.

you are right, that is a pretty good definition of terrorist. but it seems to be used a lot more broadly today.

 

[russ_watters]

To each his own, you know?

No. This is one of my big pet peves:

One of the global purposes of this forum is to get people to think scientifically. One important aspect of thinking scientifically is using clarity of thought and communication. Precision of wording and objective application of definitions is critical for effective scientific communication and thought. Whether done on purpose or due to carelessness, such statements as the cliche Proton Soup posted are logically flawed and wrong.

Insist on precision of wording and objective application of definitions.

 

[russ_watters]

you are right, that is a pretty good definition of terrorist.

I listed only one part of the definition. An important part, but not the only part and not a part that can be used exclusive of the other parts of the definition. Ie, it wouldn't fit the definition to say every death of a civilian at the hands of a soldier is terrorism.

but it seems to be used a lot more broadly today.

That doesn't make it right. See my post above.

 

[russ_watters]

Hmm.. wonder why that was?
...
(had the British won the war, as others have said-- not that there was much chance of that happening; when you're as strong as the British were it's not surprising that your enemies are going to jump into a war against you!).

Interesting historical issue. Yes, it is obvious that France would want to help the colonists and yes, their help was essential for winning the war, but the question for the French at the time would have been more complicated than just that. It isn't necessarily useful to join a losing cause, especially if you join after the war ends: and due to the slow speed of transportation and power difference between the Brits and colonists, that was a possibility the French government had to consider.

[edit] My history on the French involvement is a little thin: reading up on it, they started with clandestine supply of equipment even before the start of the war. But full involvement wasn't attempted until 1778 (when the Navy was fully engaged) and didn't really become fully realized until French units started fighting on the ground in 1779. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

Needless to say, French involvement is given some treatment in American history classes, but not as an independent and in-depth topic. Does it get more in French schools? The issue for France would be a complex one (similar to the US's initial involvement in WWII).

 

[Proton Soup]

That doesn't make it right. See my post above.

maybe not, but even presidents do it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

President Bill Clinton declared, "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable". Some critics have pointed out that, under U.S. law, an attack against a military target does not meet the legal definition of terrorism[18] (see: 22 USC § 2656f(d)(2)).

and now it has even been taken to new levels in law to cover some old-fashioned crimes such as "recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief. "

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terroristic-threat/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That doesn't make it right. See my post above.

Technically, it does, because common usage is [ultimately] how the definition of a word is determined.

Since we are being technical...

 

[russ_watters]

maybe not, but even presidents do it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

True.

Anyway, why are we talking about this? What is your point? The post where you brought this up seems pretty useless and wrong to me. Am I missing something?

 

[Proton Soup]

Am I missing something?

yeah. you're in the lounge.

 

[russ_watters]

Technically, it does, because common usage is [ultimately] how the definition of a word is determined.

Since we are being technical...

Technically since we are being technical, it isn't technically correct at all in this case, technically! You're wrong for at least three pretty obvious reasons:

1. The definition is being (or attempted to be) purposely changed. People who are doing it for the most part know they are changing the definition to suit their purposes. This is not natural evolution of language.
2. You're asserting that the bastardized version is common usge, which would make it correct. But if you were right, the dictionary would reflect that. Instead, the dictionary either actively or passively reflects the reality: that the word has a definition, "common usage" hasn't changed, but a certain group (size, irrelevant) is trying to co-opt it for political purposes.
3. The definition isn't just a dictionary definition, it is a legal definition and the two cannot be reasonably separated. Not that there is any need to - they are roughly the same and no amount of casual attempts to obfuscate the issue will change the legal definition.

I always find it interesting, the people who choose to come down on the side of purposeful obfuscation, particularly when it comes to this word. Such a strong objection to the concept of rational thought - in a science forum no less - is staggering to me.

 

[russ_watters]

yeah. you're in the lounge.

Good point - I was looking for a point when pointlessness was the point.