The Declaration of Independence isn't a living document. It's the announcement that the old Congress sent to the world, to say that they were doing a thing. A revised edition would not be the actual announcement that was actually sent, so it wouldn't be historically significant.

(Also, there's plenty of rude stuff in there besides "all men". Go look at the bit about Native Americans, or the diss about Quebec.)

Doesn't make much sense for it to be edited. It's not an official document in any capacity, just a historically significant one, and it's not clear what it would even mean for someone to edit a historical document or why they would do it. Are they trying to pretend that it said this all along?

I know the idea is that the left would want to edit it to use more inclusive wording, but I don't think that such an edit would be supported by any part of the political spectrum. The right would complain that we're erasing history (and would actually be correct about it this time, unlike most of the times they make that complaint), and the left would complain that you're whitewashing and sugarcoating history by pretending that the founding fathers were egalitarians who supported gender equality.

@JosephNoonan The government can choose to just say "this is the new declaration of independence". It won't change history, but it would be a statement of values.

@IsaacKing But the DoI isn't an official government document. Would this market still resolve YES if the government adopted a new, slightly-differently-worded Declaration as some sort of official motto, even without editing the original version?

@JosephNoonan I think that should count, yeah.

Anything that seems like it's trying to replace the old one.