Skip to comments.Historians claim typo in Declaration of Independence changes its meaning
Posted on 07/04/2014 9:10:19 AM PDT by Sasparilla
And, of course, an over reaching government agrees...
(Excerpt) Read more at downtrend.com ...
Oh oh....typo...Sounds like a call to Dan Rather is in order.
This sentence reads like satire. This should be funny, but it's disgusting.
And of course no one at the time, 1776 discovered the error.
The capital ‘T’ in the word ‘That’ should end any controversy. It is the beginning of a new sentence.
So are the “Federalist Papers” a typo too?
Not enough information but “Typo”? Typewriter were not invented for a couple hundred years after the Constitution was written, probably with quill pens. Lets go to the original signed document to see what the law really is and leave the sensationalism behind.
I could argue the same for the current occupant of the White House.
No REAL historian would say any such thing...particularly given the background and copious writings of the Founding Fathers and/or signers.
That’s my understanding: one cannot have a “typo” unless the document is printed with some sort of a machine.
“The capital T in the word That should end any controversy. It is the beginning of a new sentence.”
Liberals also agree that the Second Amendment is an errant ink stain and shouldn’t be there.
Also, the presence of the word “and” before “the Pursuit of Happiness” indicates the end of a list of discrete items. It would make no sense to put “and” after the second item in a list of four items.
Talk about grasping at straws!
And isn’t it the liberals who always say that the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document? It’s disingenuous of them to appeal to it to justify big government. But then, disingenuousness is the very foundation of liberalism.
I suspect Danny Boy Rather would rather stay out of this tempest in a teapot.
Reading the words “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as used by the Founders, the phrase which follows is clear and unambiguous whether or not any punctuation precedes it.
This argument started as a valid historical document examination and publication of a hypothesis. Thanks to America having allowed a plague of lawyers upon the face of the land, and having tolerated commies beyond number in the agencies and among the Academented, this debate now reeks of the agenda driven seeking a peg on which to hang their totalitarian helmet.
George Washington didn’t just talk to the abusive English “swarm of officers sent hither”, when goaded beyond toleration,he and the Americans he led, shot them.
Obamoids think history ended with their glorious assumption of power. End the end, it will be as it must be -
I don’t see what difference it makes whether it’s a new sentence or not.
(A) We hold these truths to be self-evident,
(B) that all men are created equal,
(C) that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
(D) that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
(E) —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
(F) —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.
Whether or not Clause (E) is subordinate to clause (D), they are both still subordinate to clause (A).
A REAL historian would have looked closely at the development of the phrase and known that it was the subject of great discussion - that “property” was preferred by some to “pursuit of Happiness”. The connotation property perhaps having a wider meaning than today, but was determined to be subsumed by the term adopted. Liberals would never want anyone to understand the ramifications of the original intent. Today’s Government would never let one think that they can actually have a property right not subject to the Governments ability to take it.
Not necessarily, since there's another capital 'T" in the word 'That' found later in the same sentence.
Both 'Thats' follow a dash, a punctuation mark seldom used today, so I'm unclear what it's supposed to mean.
However, the second 'That' and its dash are preceded by a comma, and to my mind if the first 'That' was intended to also be part of the same sentence, it would also be preceded by a comma.
A quick look at the Declaration will show clearly that capital letters are used a lot more frequently and apparently randomly than they are today.
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.