Skip to comments.Errant spot of ink causes ‘serious misunderstanding’ of Declaration of Independence, scholar says
Posted on 07/05/2014 1:15:22 PM PDT by rickmichaels
Every Fourth of July, some Americans sit down to read the Declaration of Independence, reacquainting themselves with the nations founding charter exactly as it was signed by the Second Continental Congress in 1776.
Or almost exactly? A scholar is now saying that the official transcript of the document produced by the National Archives contains a significant error smack in the middle of the sentence beginning We hold these truths to be self-evident, no less.
The error, according to Danielle Allen, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, concerns a period that appears right after the phrase life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the transcript, but almost certainly not, she maintains, on the badly faded parchment original.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalpost.com ...
Its a load of crap. There were no standards of punctuation or spelling in those days
As has been pointed out several times since this new round of rubbish was circulated, the ‘W’ is capitalized following the purport in k stain, therefore the stain is not a ‘period’, it is in fact a stain.
NY Times is a toxic waste.
UNMITIGATED HORSE MANURE. Scholar, my azz.
Brought to you by the same people who read the 2nd amendment and see nothing wrong with Chicago and NYC total gun ban..
Actually there were and they work against this “professor”. The rule is that the start of every sentence begins with a capital letter. We can see “That” which starts the next sentence is capitalized.
“Professor” is wrong.... period.
Leftists never stop being crazy
Aw geeez, Edith ...
Now they are going to try to use grammar in order to “bootstrap” the government into a position of more influence in our lives ...
Yes, and actually it really really reads “The Decleration of Dependence”
Thomas Jefferson lived for 50 years (to the day) after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
I think, if upon one of the hundreds if not thousands of times he read it or heard it read, he did not say “Whoa! Wait a second. That isn’t what I intended!”, that declaration would have been reported somewhere.
Well we have certainly lost the conection that’s for sure. And I’m not feelin the love either :-)
Danielle Allen is a political theorist who has published broadly in democratic theory, political sociology, and the history of political thought. Widely known for her work on justice and citizenship in both ancient Athens and modern America, Allen is the author of The World of Prometheus: the Politics of Punishing in Democratic Athens (2000), Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown vs. the Board of Education (2004), Why Plato Wrote (2010), and Our Declaration (2014) and co-editor (with Rob Reich) of Education, Justice, and Democracy (2013). In 2002 she was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship for her "ability to combine the classicists careful attention to texts and language with the political theorists sophisticated and informed engagement." She is currently working on books on citizenship in the digital age and political equality and directs The Democratic Knowledge Project, a group of research projects on knowledge and democracy. Among these is HULA, a project on assessment in the humanities and liberal arts. Allen is a frequent public lecturer and regular guest on public radio affiliates to discuss issues of citizenship and education policy, as well as a contributor on similar subjects to the Washington Post, Boston Review, Democracy, Cabinet, and The Nation.
AB, Princeton University, 1993; Ph.D., Classics, Cambridge University, 1996; Ph.D., Government, Harvard University, 2001; Assistant Professor, Classics, University of Chicago, 1997-2000; Associate Professor of Classical Languages and Literatures, Political Science and the Committee on Social Thought, University of Chicago, 2000-03; Professor of Classical Languages and Literatures, Political Science and the Committee on Social Thought, University of Chicago, 2003-07; Dean, Division of Humanities, University of Chicago, 2004-07; UPS Foundation Professor Institute for Advanced Study, 2007-; MacArthur Fellowship, 2002; Trustee, Amherst College, Pulitzer Prize Board, Mellon Foundation, and Princeton University; Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
These are the same fools that say that the 2A is only for muskets that load one ball at a time, and are used only for sustenance hunting.
If that is the case, then the 1A only covers soap box speeches without a microphone, and newspapers printed on an old style printing press, and the Protestant Religion.
They are so full of %^&# that it is embarrassing to those of us with even a modicum of education.
And, if you look at a copy of the document, every sentence finishes with a period, followed by a long line, then by a capitol letter starting the next sentence.
Thus, "pursuit of happiness. ----- That"
One would think the reporter might have printed the two versions of the sentence in question.
As I read the his sentence, it appears as if he defines four “truths” which are self evident... 1. All men are created equal, 2. they are endowed, by their creator, with rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, 3. governments are established to secure those rights and 4. if that government becomes oppressive, the people have the right to abolish it and form a new one that isn’t. It is rather odd, to me, that the first two rights begin with “thats” which are not capitalized, but the second two “thats” are capitalized even though, grammatically, the sentence has not ended.
There are very few reporters anymore, only gossip mongers. There are even less good editors today.
*fewer good editors*
The Congress didn’t much care what Jefferson had to say anyway, thus the story of Ben Franklin consoling him with the story of the hatter. Also the removal of the entire section of the most Christian King of Great Britain being responsible for the slave trade.
What Danielle Allen is responsible for is fallaciously and maybe slanderously attributing e-mails regarding the birth certificate to two illustrious Freepers in the “fight the smears” campaign of candidate Obama in 2008.
Come straight down from the space between "the" and "thirteen."
The "T" in "That" is upper case.
It is preceded by the separation line.
Stains do that you know...
This isn't going to change anything...
Not to mention 51 other men signed this document, all of them reasonably intelligent. I’m pretty sure one of them would’ve pointed out a true error and not affix his name to a document that basically would sign away his life. Come on, now.
There are 4 truths, but only 3 rights: Life, Liberty, and Happiness. The rights are capitalized.
If the founders thought that we could make up new rights, they would have stated in the next sentence:
That to secure these rights and others, governments are instituted among men ..."
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
The only rights mentioned are ONLY the 3 from the previous sentence.
See the text:
By removing the period it becomes clear that government comes from the people by their own consent and to serve them. It makes it clear WHY government exists.
The progressive idea is that the people serve the government, that their consent doesn't matter, and the people can be used by the government for some other purpose.
Total BS!!! Just another scheme of the verminous, evil left.
More BS from the PhD (pile it higher and deeper) crowd.
Sorry, not thinking while composing. I wrote “rights” when I should have written “truths”.
I am going to post a semi-vanity to bring forgetful, slumbering Freepers up to date on what a slanderous vicious enemy this woman was to this site in general and to several freepers by name in 2008
I don’t recognize her name.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, as long as an oppressive tyrant such as the 44th president does not deem them no longer applicable in modern times and not in line with his agenda.” That looks like a comma after Happiness to me.
Wow. Thank you.
This issue can be easily resolved. Microscopic surface examination of all extant copies for quill distortion of the surface. Or use the FBI Doc analysis team. However this person needs to try something else to get more attention.
Would you want her to baby sit your children or educate them ?
"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
only 3 rights: Life, Liberty, and Happiness.
Happiness is not one of the rights; only the PURSUIT of happiness is a right.
Regarding current usage being interchangeable:
The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away. However, the Founders used the word "unalienable" as defined by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:93, when he defined unalienable rights as: "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture."...in other words a person may do something to forfeit their unalienable rights...for instance the unalienable right to freedom which can be forfeited by the commission of a crime for which they may be punished by their loss of freedom. However, once they are freed after serving their punishment their right is restored.
Revisionist history should be a capital offense.
But I have never read Blackstone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.