Replies

To start, the words mean the same thing. “Inalienable” has gained a stronger foothold in modern times, but both appear without distinction on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary website, which defines them as signifying that which is “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.”

The final version of the Declaration of Independence declares: “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.”

But these rights weren’t always “unalienable.” In early drafts of the Declaration — in the handwriting of its primary author, Thomas Jefferson, as well as another writer, John Adams — our rights were “inalienable.” The quote as inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial in the nation’s capital, also says “inalienable.”

But the Declaration, as printed under the order of Congress, says “unalienable,” according to ushistory.org, a Web site of the nonprofit Independence Hall Association.

How did inalienable in early drafts turn to unalienable in the final Declaration?

Ushistory.org cites a footnote in “The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas” by Carl Lotus Becker, published 1922:

The Rough Draft reads “[inherent &] inalienable.” There is no indication that Congress changed “inalienable” to “unalienable”; but the latter form appears in the text in the rough Journal, in the corrected Journal, and in the parchment copy. John Adams, in making his copy of the Rough Draft, wrote ” unalienable.” Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress, and it may have been at his suggestion that the change was made in printing. “Unalienable” may have been the more customary form in the eighteenth century.

Rights can be unalienable even if they are not endowed by God. Inalienable rights can even be created by a government! For example, before slavery was outlawed, it was at least theoretically possible to sell one’s (supposedly unalienable) liberty away and become a slave. By outlawing slavery, the Federal Government closed that loophole. Arguably, they could open it again, by amending the Constitution. So, the right of liberty is only unalienable given the Constitution as currently written.
In my opinion, grounding unalienable rights in God is a little dangerous because it might open the way for atheist citizens to lose rights or atheist government officials to take them away.

Generations of American children have been taught the counterfeit ideas of "progressivism" instead of the authentic histories of the seedbed of ideas out of which the Declaration of Independence, with its emphasis on liberty for the individual, protected by the limitations of a written Constitution for a free society.

America's leaders need to read early histories of the founding of America and of the seedbed of ideas from which its Constitutional government structure arose.

"Rise of the Republic of the United States" - Richard Frothingham.

"Ideas have consequences"(Weaver).

In 2016, we must remember that the ideas of 1776 came out of a set of ideas consistent with liberty.

We tend to forget, or have never considered, that other world views existed then, as now.

Unless today's citizens rediscover the ideas of liberty existing in what Jefferson called "the American mind" of 1776, we risk going back to the "Old World" ideas which preceded the "Miracle of America."

There are those who call themselves "progressives," when, in fact, their ideas are regressive and enslaving, and as old as the history of civilization.

Would suggest to any who wish an authentic history of the ideas underlying American's founding a visit to this web site, at which Richard Frothingham's outstanding 1872 "History of the Rise of the Republic of the United States" can be read on line.

This 600+-page history traces the ideas which gave birth to the American founding. Throughout, Richard Frothingham, the historian, develops the idea that it is "the Christian idea of man" which allowed the philosophy underlying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to become a reality--an idea which recognizes the individual and the Source of his/her "Creator"-endowed life, liberty and law.

Is there any wonder that the enemies of freedom, the so-called "progressives," do not promote such authentic histories of America? Their philosophy puts something called "the state," or "global interests" as being superior to individuals and requires a political elitist group to decide what role individuals are to play.

In other words, they must turn the Founders' ideas upside-down in order to achieve a common mediocrity for individuals and power for themselves.

Quote from the movie 1776:

John Adams: Mr. Jefferson? It so happens that the word is UN-alienable, not IN-alienable.
Thomas Jefferson: I’m sorry, Mr. Adams, but “Inalienable” is correct.
John Adams: I happen to be a Harvard graduate, Mr. Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson: Well, I attended William & Mary.
Hancock: Mr. Jefferson, will you concede to Mr. Adams’ request?
Thomas Jefferson: No, sir, I will not.
[grins]
John Adams: Oh, very well, I withdraw it!
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Oh, good for you, John!
John Adams: I’ll speak to the printer about it later.

No Creator = no unalienable rights.

All the pretzel logic in the so-called multi-verse from all the skeptics, atheists, scientists, et cetera cannot make that not true.

Subtract God from the universal equation, and there can be no rights and no morals.

An atheist may CHOOSE to act in a “moral” manner, but he cannot legitimately argue that his choice is any more valid than an atheist who CHOOSES to act in a very “immoral” manner.