Historians claim typo in Declaration of Independence changes its meaning

downtrend.com ^ | 07/04/2014 | Robert Gehl

[Sasparilla]

And, of course, an over reaching government agrees...

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

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.

[Rock N Jones]

Sorry it won’t work, its a period, period!
If it looks like a period ad walks like a period, its a period.

[cmwy]

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

[Madame Dufarge]

Aside from the fact that good penmanship was considered an important skill at the time the Declaration was written, the idea that a document so monumentally important would be released for the entire world to see with an ink smear on it is an unbelievably stupid assertion.

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.

[Pollster1]

Is this an argument rooted in some attempt to Constitutionally justify big government? I’m not sure, but it’s got the attention of the National Archives, which is considering changing their online presentation of the founding document.

The stupid hurts.

1. This is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States, so even a change would not "constitutionally" justify big government.

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.

[The Antiyuppie]

“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.

[Sacajaweau]

IIRC, the phrase goes back to Locke...and read: "life liberty and property"

It's always important that these phrases are in context.

[cpdiii]

Oh oh....typo...Sounds like a call to Dan Rather is in order

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

[Bob]

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.

[GoldenPup]

A professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton argues the period is nothing than an errant ink stain and shouldn’t be there.

UNMITIGATED BULLSHIIT.

[Amendment10]

• "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.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

[WhiskeyX]

“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.

[miss marmelstein]

Would you care to repeat that?

[liberalh8ter]

No, they’re a revolutionary Rohrschach test.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Professor Danielle Allen argues that also a “truth” is the role of government in securing these rights.

Along with that "truth" comes the czar and fetters. It's the 1960s Marxist-Alinsky campus radical, psycho spoiled brat The Fetteralist Capers.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I could argue the same for the current occupant of the White House.

^^^^100^^^^

[Covenantor]

(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.

That right there dismisses any argument based on ink splotches or the primacy of any form of government over the people.

Case closed.

[Organic Panic]

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.

[CommieCutter]

I honestly don’t see it either to tell you the truth.

All the variables are still there as you have listed.

[Wuli]

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.