Plan B Forum

A famed British historian has hit out at 'moronic' National Archives staff who decided to erect a 'trigger warning' next to the Declaration of Independence for fears its 'outdated' content could cause offence.

Professor Andrew Roberts said that a rare copy of the 18th century document, which represents the founding papers of the United States, is now adorned with a trigger warning for 'outdated, biased and offensive' content at its home in the National Archives in Richmond, London.

The visiting professor at King's College London and critically-acclaimed author said: 'Anyone who thinks an 18th century document is not going to be outdated, biased and offensive is frankly a moron.


'When you go to see the declaration, you read what it says about Native Americans and so on, you won't be so offended that you can't stand up,' he said sarcastically of the trigger warning.

It comes just days after it was revealed that Bath Spa University had slapped offensive content caveats on the likes of celebrated English poets William Wordsworth and John Keats - though the addition of content warnings to historical texts suggests the 'moronic' practice is being taken one step further.

Trigger warnings have gained popularity in recent years in response to concerns that people could be adversely affected by any troubling content.

But there has significant pushback from historians on any mention of trigger warnings being applied to historical texts or documents for fear that the practice will lead to attempts to censor or erase important parts of history.

A spokeswoman for the National Archives said: 'We are aware that some of the terminology used at the time [of the declaration's writing] is not appropriate or may cause offence today.

'If we are using documents in a talk or webinar, for example, then we would endeavour to make people aware that the documents may contain terms that we would not use today.'

The US Constitution was written as part of a months-long process that included deliberations and compromise by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The most notable delegates included some of the nation’s founding fathers, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin.

The convention was presided over by George Washington, the country’s first president.

It was convened in order to remedy the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, which to that point was the country’s governing document.

Adopted after the 13 states won their independence from Great Britain, the Articles proved ineffectual in allowing a central government to perform basic tasks, like taxation, raising an army, and adjudicating interstate disputes.

But in recent years, as the nation has wrestled with its history that saw non-white communities like Native Americans and African slaves severely marginalized, some have proposed changes to the language of the founding documents.

Critics note that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution still includes the ‘three-fifths compromise’ whereby a slave was considered ‘three-fifths’ of a person.

The compromise was struck in 1787 to settle a dispute over how slaves were to be counted in a state’s population for the purposes of apportioning representation in Congress.

The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, still includes the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause, which requires escaped slaves to be returned to their masters.

The Constitution’s language is also considered outdated by gender rights activists who note that the document only refers to a man when prescribing who can be president.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution reads: 'The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

'He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows...'

"This is a revolution, dammit!  We're going to have to offend SOMEbody!"

The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, still includes the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause, which requires escaped slaves to be returned to their masters.

Big RR wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:25 pm

The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, still includes the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause, which requires escaped slaves to be returned to their masters.

Here is the 13th Amendment:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

I see nothing about Fugitive slaves; but perhaps someone can identify it?

As for the 14th amendment, since slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment, how did it incorporate the 3/5 clause if slavery was ended by the 13th amendment?

Sure, there are archaic ideas in it, many of which were taken care of by amendment (or can later be addressed) and even some archaic language, even if the meaning is clear (We have had many female presidential candiates, and even a current female vice president, but I saw no challenges based on that language). It makes no sense.

Big RR wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:25 pm

Sure, there are archaic ideas in it, many of which were taken care of by amendment (or can later be addressed) and even some archaic language, even if the meaning is clear (We have had many female presidential candiates, and even a current female vice president, but I saw no challenges based on that language). It makes no sense.

"Many"? In what sense? How many is many?

Big RR wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 29, 2022 12:17 am

In addition to Hillary I was thinking of Shirley Chisholm, Pat Schroeder, Jill Stein, and Elizabeth Dole, but , as I recall, there were others throughout history. If I get a chance I will google it. But, if you don't think five is "many", I will change my descriptor to "a number of". And let's not forget, the last democratic prmaries had "a number of" women candidates.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 29, 2022 12:22 am

Calling a contender in a primary a "presidential candidate" is a stretch, but ok.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 29, 2022 2:39 am

Ok, different countries, different usages, I guess. It just seems pretty silly to be referring to Ben Carson or Pat Robertson as "presidential candidates", but if that's your custom...