By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump’s request to move the original Declaration of Independence to the Oval Office was met with alarm by aides due to the document’s fragility and the immense cost involved. Discussions have shifted towards displaying a historical copy instead. The White House asserts that Trump wants to showcase important historical documents. This request comes amidst other Oval Office renovations and follows Trump’s self-proclaimed “king” declaration on social media.
Read the original article here
Trump asked for the original Declaration of Independence to be moved to the Oval Office, a request that immediately sparks a cascade of anxieties and humorous speculation. The sheer audacity of the request itself is enough to raise eyebrows, conjuring images of a historical artifact casually relocated to suit a president’s whims. The possibility of this fragile, irreplaceable document being mishandled seems almost too much to bear.
The thought of the document’s potential journey to the Oval Office immediately leads to concerns about its safety. The risk of damage, intentional or accidental, is palpable. The fear isn’t just about physical harm; the very idea of such a pivotal document being subjected to the potential of someone altering it, perhaps even with a Sharpie – a recurring theme in these discussions – feels sacrilegious.
This concern transforms into outright apprehension about what might happen after a move to the Oval Office. Many envision the declaration ending up in a private collection – a lucrative sale to the highest bidder, the document spirited away to Mar-a-Lago or some other undisclosed location. This scenario quickly conjures up images of a document casually stashed away, perhaps amongst other souvenirs. The potential for such a priceless piece of history to end up lost, damaged, or even worse, altered beyond recognition is profoundly unsettling.
The idea of a private sale fuels this unease. The possibility that this incredibly significant document, a cornerstone of American history, could disappear from public view is frankly outrageous. It feeds the existing unease about the handling of sensitive documents and the casual disregard for protocols and procedures. It is a chilling thought that could erode trust in the responsible stewardship of national treasures.
The hypothetical scenario of the Declaration’s relocation even extends beyond mere theft or carelessness. The concerns include the possibility of the document being defaced or altered. The repeated mention of a Sharpie suggests a particular fear of its use to amend the historical document, a symbolic act that would trivialize the nation’s founding principles. The humor in the suggestion is overshadowed by the profound disrespect it represents towards the history of the United States.
Furthermore, the request is not just about the physical document; it is about the power and symbolism it represents. The original Declaration of Independence is more than just a piece of parchment; it is a symbol of American freedom and ideals. For a president to request its removal from secure storage and its proximity to themselves invites concern about his intentions.
It raises questions about the respect given to the historical weight of the document. Is it truly appreciated as a foundational document of American history or merely as a prop? The worry is that the intent might be to exploit its symbolic value for political or personal gain. The suggestion that it might be used as a means to create replicas to sell, alongside a “certified” Sharpie, emphasizes this concern.
The response to this request highlights a wider disillusionment and anxiety surrounding the handling of important national artifacts. The casual disregard for established procedures and the apparent lack of checks and balances invite worry that such requests could be made in the future, with potentially even more serious consequences.
Even setting aside the more outlandish scenarios, the logistics of such a move pose a significant challenge. The Declaration of Independence is not just an ordinary document; its preservation requires highly specialized environmental controls. The risk of damage during transport and handling is considerable. This is not something that can be casually overlooked, and the idea of the document being subjected to an informal, unscheduled relocation is deeply troubling.
Ultimately, Trump’s request to move the Declaration of Independence to the Oval Office underscores a deep sense of unease and distrust regarding the safeguarding of national treasures and the potential for historical artifacts to be used as political pawns or personal assets. The concerns expressed extend far beyond the immediate event, highlighting anxieties about the broader implications of such a casual disregard for national heritage. The potential for harm, both physical and symbolic, looms large, sparking a wave of fear, frustration and dark humor amongst those who value America’s history.