Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Have we misunderstood the Declaration of Independence? Princeton professor claims rogue..
dailymail.co.uk ^ | July 4, 2016 | JAMES WILKINSON

Posted on 07/05/2016 8:10:03 AM PDT by PROCON

Has America spent the last few hundred years misunderstanding the Declaration of Independence? That's what Danielle Allen, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ, believes.

According to Allen, the paragraph beginning 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' has been misinterpreted thanks to a rogue period that was not in the original document.

And that could completely transform our understanding of how the Founding Fathers viewed the role of government, The New York Times reported.

The line as it is most commonly reprinted reads:

'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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...'

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; History
KEYWORDS: 2016election; danielleallen; declaration; declarationdenier; election2016; government; history; newjersey; newyork; princeton; trump
Full Title: Have we misunderstood the Declaration of Independence? Princeton professor claims rogue period in official transcript DOESN'T appear on original - and massively changes our understanding of government's role

From the article:

But according to Allen, who made the observation while writing her book 'Our Declaration' that period should not be there - that, at most, it should be a comma.

And that changes everything.

'The logic of the sentence moves from the value of individual rights to the importance of government as a tool for protecting those rights,' she told The New York Times. 'You lose that connection when the period gets added.'

Eureka!

It's Government that gives us these Rights, (or take them away).

How silly of us to think our Rights come from God.

I wonder how long before SCOTUS takes this case and "reinterprets" the Declaration?

1 posted on 07/05/2016 8:10:04 AM PDT by PROCON
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Is Danielle Allen a Declaration Denier?


2 posted on 07/05/2016 8:13:55 AM PDT by kiryandil (To the GOPee: "Giving the Democrats the Supreme Court means you ARE the Democrats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

All you have to do is Google/Bing her and her image to see what she’s about.


3 posted on 07/05/2016 8:14:13 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Geez,... the controtions of language liberals go through, to try to increase government control.

Either way it would NOT mean that you OBTAIN those rights from the government, but only that government should PROTECT them (not grant them)


4 posted on 07/05/2016 8:16:50 AM PDT by Mr. K (Trump will win NY state - choke on that HilLIARy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

That is nonsense. That particular phrase was examined VERY closely, as some wanted “PROPERTY” rather than “HAPPINESS” as the last term. It is early in the document and would have been picked up, right away. Until Morse Code, I’ve not seen the “. -” punctuation used in any document.


5 posted on 07/05/2016 8:17:40 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit."-R.Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

An Obama / big government worshipper. And apparently, psychic.

She can’t debate the words, she debates the punctuation...and interprets that our Founders really wanted a Marxist government after all. Because of a period on the document, instead of the comma she’d like to see.

She looks like Obama’s son, too, BTW


6 posted on 07/05/2016 8:20:22 AM PDT by Ketill Frostbeard ("At every doorway, one should look 'round. And fare not one pace from thy weapons." ~ODIN~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Why is the “ T “ capitalized?

.


7 posted on 07/05/2016 8:22:30 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

As history goes, there is a wealth of documentation and actual historic writings from the folks that debated, drafted and signed both the DoI and the Constitution. It’s meaning and intent (both at the time and the here and now) is well explained from several different perspectives. The folks that debated the documents and fought for them were not confused about the meaning. But somehow, today, someone thinks maybe they didn’t mean what they said they meant when they signed their own death warrants in the DoI. (face palm here)

At no time during the debate over the founding was there any question from any participant that the citizens were to have power over the government and their rights as it pertains to government power was to be protected from the government and BY the government. NEVER to be given, granted, modified or revoked by the government.


8 posted on 07/05/2016 8:23:11 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (You couldn't pay me enough to be famous for being stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLI
Why is the “ T “ capitalized?

"Researchers claim that the scribe who penned this version had a bad habit of not capitalizing."

See how this works?

9 posted on 07/05/2016 8:29:55 AM PDT by PROCON (Americans First or Terrorists First - Choose in November)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TLI

Why is the “ T “ capitalized?
________

You have destroyed her argument with that sage observation. This “scholar” has a chip on her shoulder, an agenda, and somehow in all her “research” didn’t answer your simple and obvious question. She’s a tool.


10 posted on 07/05/2016 8:33:51 AM PDT by The Continental Op
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Continental Op

It’s settled law like global warming is settled science. Nothing to see here. Move on.


11 posted on 07/05/2016 8:36:33 AM PDT by Kozy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

original? possibly:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3176381/posts

same author called Trump the next Hitler:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3403889/posts


12 posted on 07/05/2016 8:43:53 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (I'll tell you what's wrong with society -- no one drinks from the skulls of their enemies anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PROCON
The operative phrase is still "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". The debate over the period shows how stupid the would-be author is. No one should buy a book on the Declaration written by such a moron.
13 posted on 07/05/2016 9:58:25 AM PDT by Sans-Culotte ('''Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small''~ Theodore Dallrymple)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Continental Op

He hasn’t. Life, Liberty, and Happiness also started with upper case letters.

The chain of reason is still flawed.

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.—

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

If Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,— are less important then Governments instituted among Men, then just powers from the consent of the governed,—- are less important than the Right of the People to alter or abolish it. In essence, following the stupid Obama lover’s logic means that the United States was intended to exist is a perpetual state of violent revolution.

Such was not the case. The Declaration Of Independence was the justification for a rebellion against specific acts of the British nation. If she insists that the right to overthrow the government was more important than the government, she will have a big problem explaining her position on the Second Amendment.


14 posted on 07/05/2016 10:32:29 AM PDT by sig226
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

I thought this claim looked familiar...

From 2014:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3175855/posts

Why is it resurfacing now?


15 posted on 07/05/2016 12:50:12 PM PDT by Chad N. Freud (FR is the modern equivalent of the Committees of Correspondence. Let other analogies arise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Her little discovery, if it is indeed a discovery, means nothing.

I would certainly consider it a self-evident truth that the only legitimate reason governments should be instituted among men is to secure our inalienable rights, and that any legitimate government can only derive its power from the consent of the governed. I have no problem with those points being considered as important as the first part of that paragraph.


16 posted on 07/05/2016 2:19:11 PM PDT by sonjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson