Analysis on Revision of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence

     In the second paragraph of the original document, Jefferson says "... and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government." Expunge means to erase completely- so completely that one cannot tell there was something once there. When one is angry, he wants to destroy the ties to whatever or whoever angered him, but, in the reality of world politics, one cannot do this. By using the word "expunge," Jefferson was telling the British Crown that he wanted nothing to do with the former government that had oppressed the colonies. Truthfully, though, Jefferson wanted to change the Parliamentary system of government to suit the new states. He used hyperbole because he was angry. (One tends to exaggerate when he is angry.) So, in order to be truthful or tactful, the committee substituted the word "alter" for "expunge." The revised document says "... and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of governemnt," meaning the colonists planned to change the former system of government- not obliterate it.
     Later in the second paragraph Jefferson said, "The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations...." In his anger, he felt as though the king were constantly, continuously, and unabatingly harming the colonies. Literally that could not be the case; in order for "unremitting" to be correctly used here, the king would have had to be constantly harming the colonies. That was not the case, but Jefferson, in his anger, felt it to be so. A more realistic and truthful word was subsituted, and the document now reads, "The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations." Although the king did not continusly harm the colonies, he did so continually. "Repeated injuries" shows less anger and emotion than "unremitting injuries." One with a broken arm thinks only of the unabating pain, while there was but one incident that caused the break. Such is so with Jefferson and the British Crown.
     Beginning in the twenty-third line of the secong paragraph, Jefferson said, "The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations, among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest but all have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states." When one is angry, he dares his opposition to show him where he is wrong. This is what Jefferson did: The phrase "among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest" shows he was angry with the British Crown. He was saying, "There is nothing you can find that will disprove what I am saying." If this were so, would he say this? Only if he were angry. At a calm, peaceful moment Jefferson would have thought to not include that phrase because it is a sign of dishonesty to say outright, "I'm right!" after making a statement. But Jefferson was angry- he wrote this in a fury, thinking what he was saying would increase others' confidence in his previous statements. That would not. (It would do the opposite.) So, the committee removed the phrase, allowing Jefferson's statement to stand unqualified.