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This argument started as a valid historical document examination and publication of a hypothesis.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.
I just happen to have a photo copy of that document (given out everywhere back in 1976). This is what it says....
” ...the pursuit of Happiness.- That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,- ...”
Please notice the first break has .- and the second has ,- that is, a period on the first, and a comma on the second.
Sorry it won’t work, its a period, period!
If it looks like a period ad walks like a period, its a period.
I could not agree more with your conclusion but there is clearly a period there. I would suggest that this professor is nothing but an errant ink stain on The Institute which was home to Einstein who must be rolling over in his grave
The American colonists were not unaware that they were regarded as back-country rubes by their English "betters" and would have been hyper-aware of the presentation of the document.
What a monumentally stupid broad this "historian" is.
The stupid hurts.
2. While the upper case T in "That" is not conclusive (upper case was common mid-sentence due to the German influence on grammar in that century), the period is clearly in the right location and of the right size. There is no indication in the form of the mark that this is anything but an intentional punctuation mark. Further, the presence of the same mark in multiple previous drafts is essentially conclusive proof that the sentence was intended to end at that point.
“Oh oh....typo...Sounds like a call to Dan Rather is in order.”
In between blowing spit bubbles and farting into a sofa cushion, he says that the period there is not the same period as that found on an IBM Selectric with a script type ball, so it must be an ink stain.
It's always important that these phrases are in context.
Mr. Rather faxed me over a copy of the original that was faxed to him from Kinkos. Yep, no period. Case closed.
Per Dan if fake his copy is real and accurate. Who are you going to believe, the brilliant men that wrote that document or Dan Rather? /S
Besides the capitalization, there’s an extended space between the words which also indicates the start of a new sentence. This “historian” is grasping at straws and coming off as a joke.
"The capital T in the word That should end any controversy. It is the beginning of a new sentence.
Typewriter were not invented for a couple hundred years after the Constitution was written, probably with quill pens."
Good observations freepers!
For what it's worth, there's related issues with the Constitution, issues which have been noted. The problem with the Constitution is that it was hand-written, intermediate revisions of Constitution before final draft probably not destroyed like they should have been. Multiple versions of the 2nd Amendment are an example. Have a look.
“Typewriter were not invented for a couple hundred years after the Constitution was written, probably with quill pens.”
Your statement that the “Typewriter were not invented for a couple hundred years after the Constitution was written” is incorrect. I own a Caligraph typewriter that was manufactured about 1880-1883, so typewriters were in existence only 93 years after the Constitution was handwritten and engrossed in 1787.
Yes, the draft and final copies of the Constitution were handwritten and engrossed using quill pens.
Would you care to repeat that?
No, they’re a revolutionary Rohrschach test.
Along with that "truth" comes the czar and fetters. It's the 1960s Marxist-Alinsky campus radical, psycho spoiled brat The Fetteralist Capers.
That right there dismisses any argument based on ink splotches or the primacy of any form of government over the people.
So a progressive professor (redundant I know) finds what she thinks is a typo on a 240 year old document that gives MASSIVE power to the government but can’t find a single anomaly on Obama’s birth certificate.
I honestly don’t see it either to tell you the truth.
All the variables are still there as you have listed.
The only protection of those rights is supposed to be founded in the Constitution itself, not the government structure it lays out and particularly not a functioning government which makes of itself a higher right than the individual rights the Constitution is founded to protect. The protection of THAT CONSTITUTION and its individual rights is the OBLIGATION of the government, above any political prerogatives or policy ambitions of those elected or appointed to the government.
“Historians Claim A Typo In Declaration Of Independence Changes Its Meaning”
I would only point out the irony of a “Typo” Being found in the Declaration of independence.
Democrip voters won’t know why this is a deeply flawed lie.
Look at the original writing. There is a period and a dash....in fact there are several of them. Its a technique...a period and a pause. Almost like a new paragraph.
While pointing out a possible, and not at all probable, as it is meant to afford further intrusion on citizens, error in the most important document in history outside of the Bible is typical of non-journalist’s journalism where no one proof reads their work: “A professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton argues the period is nothing (more?) than an errant ink stain and shouldnt be there.”
Totally pathetic and bogus. Whether it’s a comma or a period, it alters the meaning not one iota.
Just some Statists grasping at straws.