Typo in the Declaration of Independence?

[whitehall]

It can't be a "typo" can it? Why is it always "Jefferson's intent"? As we all know there were a few other people involved in crafting the radical document.

 

[emilynghiem]

I thought the REAL issues with this were
1. the original was Life Liberty and PROPERTY
but this got changed to Life Liberty and "Pursuit of Happiness"
which is not a substitute for owning your own property
You can be happy/complacent as a slave to government, run by others at expense to liberty, and still not be equal human beings by owning and managing your own property including equal say in taxation as other property owners. This cannot be overlooked.
(Look up Hernando Desoto Hernando de Soto - Voices - PovertyCure)

2. the fact that "consent of the governed" is mentioned in the
DOI but nowhere in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
To me it is a BIG DEAL, a Telling factor if people respect "consent of dissenters"
or go by majority rule or judicial ruling, and let that override the consent of the people.

I believe "consent of the governed" IS the spirit of any social contract that determines if the law is binding.

I think both issues above, about Consent and Property,
are KEY to "political equality" -- punctuation not withstanding in comparison!

[MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION]

Have We Been Reading the Declaration of Independence All Wrong? - The Wire

Here's some fun news for the Fourth of July: America might be reading an important passage of the Declaration of Independence all wrong. A scholar's argument that an authoritative transcription of the Declaration contains a period that isn't actually in the original document has convinced the National Archives to re-examine their presentation of the document. That's according to a well-timed New York Times story on the controversy, which could change how we read the passage beginning "We hold these truths to be self-evident."

First, let's pinpoint what's in question here. The official transcription from the National Archives reads (emphasis ours):

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.

See that period? According to Princeton professor Danielle Allen, it's not actually in the original document. If she's right, then the individual rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" would share a sentence with what follows:

— 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.

Allen, speaking to the Times, argues that Thomas Jefferson intended to emphasize the second part of this passage — the role of the government — equally with the individual rights in the first part. Instead, with the period in place, there's an implied hierarchy. So you can begin to see how one little punctuation mark's presence or absence could become the subject of heated debate among those who have strong opinions about the role of government as it concerns individual liberty. Although the punctuation mark is still very much up for debate among experts, Allen has convinced several scholars that she might be on to something. The National Archives told the Times that they "want to take advantage of this possible new discovery" and find a way to re-examine the incredibly fragile original Declaration of Independence.

More at the link.

 

[regent]

On July 4th. Jefferson's Declaration was changed numerous times, first by the committee and then the whole Congress. Words were changed punctuation was changed; in the end 86 changes had been made and 480 words eliminated. Then the document went to the printers and who knows what happened there. In any case, Jefferson's main points were made and they continue.

 

[emilynghiem]

[MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] [MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION]
Victoria Woodhull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ And here is the bio on the "First Woman to run for President, "at a time
women could not even vote, in order to make a political statement,
100 years ahead of her time.

When I did a short interview with a living descendant of Woodhull,
the local women's program on KPFT cut the show and wouldn't air it.
It took going through WBAI in New York to air it. Sad that even the local prochoice progressive feminist group found "some excuse" not to air this for Women's Day,
and I had produced it just for them to support the women's program.

People are too busy censoring themselves, and yet
complain when the mainstream media and "other groups" do it.

I included Woodhull in my short spiel on Constitutional Rights and equal powers
of govt:

Another interesting bit of history -

https://www.facebook.com/amightygir...6489315054055/702729059763410/?type=1&fref=nf

A Mighty Girl

In celebration of Independence Day, we remember a little known hero of the American Revolutionary War, 16-year-old Sybil Ludington. At approximately 9 pm on April 26th, 1777, Sybil, the eldest daughter of Colonel Henry Ludington, climbed onto her horse and proceeded to ride 40 miles in order to muster local militia troops in response to a British attack on the town of Danbury, Connecticut -- covering twice the distance that Paul Revere rode during his famous midnight ride.

Riding all night through rain, Sybil returned home at dawn having given nearly the whole regiment of 400 Colonial troops the order to assemble. While the regiment could not save Danbury from being burned, they joined forces with the Continental Army following the subsequent Battle of Ridgefield and were able to stop the British advance and force their return to their boats.

Following the battle, General George Washington personally thanked Sybil for her service and bravery. Although every American school child knows the story of Paul Revere, unfortunately few are taught about Sybil Ludington's courageous feat and her contribution to war effort.

To introduce your children to this inspiring and underrecognized hero of the Revolutionary War, we recommend "Sybil’s Night Ride," a picture book for children 4 to 8 (Sybil's Night Ride | A Mighty Girl) and "Sybil Ludington’s Midnight Ride," an early chapter book for readers 6 to 9 (Sybil Ludington's Midnight Ride | A Mighty Girl). An illustration from the latter by Ellen Beier is pictured here.

More at the link.

 

[Pogo]

[MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] [MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION]
Victoria Woodhull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ And here is the bio on the "First Woman to run for President, "at a time
women could not even vote, in order to make a political statement,
100 years ahead of her time.

When I did a short interview with a living descendant of Woodhull,
the local women's program on KPFT cut the show and wouldn't air it.
It took going through WBAI in New York to air it. Sad that even the local prochoice progressive feminist group found "some excuse" not to air this for Women's Day,
and I had produced it just for them to support the women's program.

People are too busy censoring themselves, and yet
complain when the mainstream media and "other groups" do it.

I included Woodhull in my short spiel on Constitutional Rights and equal powers
of govt:

Another interesting bit of history -

https://www.facebook.com/amightygir...6489315054055/702729059763410/?type=1&fref=nf

A Mighty Girl

In celebration of Independence Day, we remember a little known hero of the American Revolutionary War, 16-year-old Sybil Ludington. At approximately 9 pm on April 26th, 1777, Sybil, the eldest daughter of Colonel Henry Ludington, climbed onto her horse and proceeded to ride 40 miles in order to muster local militia troops in response to a British attack on the town of Danbury, Connecticut -- covering twice the distance that Paul Revere rode during his famous midnight ride.

Riding all night through rain, Sybil returned home at dawn having given nearly the whole regiment of 400 Colonial troops the order to assemble. While the regiment could not save Danbury from being burned, they joined forces with the Continental Army following the subsequent Battle of Ridgefield and were able to stop the British advance and force their return to their boats.

Following the battle, General George Washington personally thanked Sybil for her service and bravery. Although every American school child knows the story of Paul Revere, unfortunately few are taught about Sybil Ludington's courageous feat and her contribution to war effort.

To introduce your children to this inspiring and underrecognized hero of the Revolutionary War, we recommend "Sybil’s Night Ride," a picture book for children 4 to 8 (Sybil's Night Ride | A Mighty Girl) and "Sybil Ludington’s Midnight Ride," an early chapter book for readers 6 to 9 (Sybil Ludington's Midnight Ride | A Mighty Girl). An illustration from the latter by Ellen Beier is pictured here.

More at the link.

You're a radio producer?

We should tawk.

 

[Pogo]

Another interesting bit of history -

https://www.facebook.com/amightygir...6489315054055/702729059763410/?type=1&fref=nf

A Mighty Girl

In celebration of Independence Day, we remember a little known hero of the American Revolutionary War, 16-year-old Sybil Ludington. At approximately 9 pm on April 26th, 1777, Sybil, the eldest daughter of Colonel Henry Ludington, climbed onto her horse and proceeded to ride 40 miles in order to muster local militia troops in response to a British attack on the town of Danbury, Connecticut -- covering twice the distance that Paul Revere rode during his famous midnight ride.

Riding all night through rain, Sybil returned home at dawn having given nearly the whole regiment of 400 Colonial troops the order to assemble. While the regiment could not save Danbury from being burned, they joined forces with the Continental Army following the subsequent Battle of Ridgefield and were able to stop the British advance and force their return to their boats.

Following the battle, General George Washington personally thanked Sybil for her service and bravery. Although every American school child knows the story of Paul Revere, unfortunately few are taught about Sybil Ludington's courageous feat and her contribution to war effort.

To introduce your children to this inspiring and underrecognized hero of the Revolutionary War, we recommend "Sybil’s Night Ride," a picture book for children 4 to 8 (Sybil's Night Ride | A Mighty Girl) and "Sybil Ludington’s Midnight Ride," an early chapter book for readers 6 to 9 (Sybil Ludington's Midnight Ride | A Mighty Girl). An illustration from the latter by Ellen Beier is pictured here.

More at the link.

Great story.

Sadly, Sybil today would be shot before she got the word out by some nutjob "defending his property".

 

[Mad Scientist]

How can it be a "typo" when they used Quill and Ink?

If you think it's anything other than a period then why does a capital T appear right after it?

 

[Pogo]

How can it be a "typo" when they used Quill and Ink?

Because there's no such word as Quillo?

If you think it's anything other than a period then why does a capital T appear right after it?

Because rules of capitalization weren't settled the same way then as they are now. You can't fix 21st-century grammar and punctuation on an 18th century document and come up with a definitive ruling. After all, "created equal" and "inalienable rights" should have semicolons after them -- by our standards. Also the word "That" begins a subordinate clause (not a complete sentence) that depends on the first sentence for its subject and verb ("we hold") -- and that's actually an argument that the T should be lower case, but again that's by our standards. On the other hand "That" cannot begin a sentence, since "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" contains no verb; the verb is back there in the word "hold". Therefore, not a sentence, any more than this is.

Suffice to say they were writing a political document and not a grammarianistic one.

Also it's actually a period followed by an underscore. Which I take in this context to act as a kind of liaison, but that's just a guess.

 

[daveman]

 

[jon_berzerk]

the leftists will attach to anything

now a typo changes the

declaration of Independence

into

the declaration of dependence

--LOL

 

[Pogo]

Where'd anybody do dat, Dave? Read the whole thread and I do Nazi it.




[MENTION=23991]daveman[/MENTION]

 

[Esmeralda]

Read it this way and you see it is a list, with each sentence structure in the list being parallel--

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.

The comma/period makes a difference in whether or not all these statements are meant as a rhetorical list of ideas, one leading to the next. I would say grammatically, that is what it appears to be. Each statement is grammatically equal and each one leads to the next conceptually, so, actually, the 'period' makes no sense. Each clause beginning with 'that' is a relative clause and is referring back to the main clause: "We hold these truths to be self -evident." That's what I mean by their being grammatically equal: they are all relative clauses.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

I find this line to be the most interesting. how could a public who is not as well armed as the government ever abolish it?

 

[Pogo]

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.

I find this line to be the most interesting. how could a public who is not as well armed as the government ever abolish it?

Uh - with ballot boxes and Constitutional Amendments...

Not everything has to be about violence.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

I find this line to be the most interesting. how could a public who is not as well armed as the government ever abolish it?

I think that's easy: one man or one woman, one vote. By voting for change. I see the statement as visionary as well.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

I find this line to be the most interesting. how could a public who is not as well armed as the government ever abolish it?

[MENTION=24208]Spoonman[/MENTION]
It's called being armed with knowledge of the laws, of business, and managing resources.

Of investing in buying out property, cities and managing your own business districts,
campuses and hospital/schools for training, housing and providing services to people
using free market and charitable systems.

No additional armed force is necessary, above what normal policing requires for any community.

 

[boedicca]

What a bunch of Progressive Hooey.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

I find this line to be the most interesting. how could a public who is not as well armed as the government ever abolish it?

I think that's easy: one man or one woman, one vote. By voting for change. I see the statement as visionary as well.

[MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION] I would add using consensus/consent of the governed
as the standard of civil contracts and laws. If people agree to majority rule that's fine.
But areas where parties have split the votes in half, and then push the 1% emotionally
in favor of "one side over the other" -- that opens the door to tyrannical political abuse.

So no, it is not enough to say one person one vote, as this still gets overridden by manipulating majority rule. The collective organizations with more power than the sum of the individuals, like parties or corporations, must be equally held in check to protect "democratic due process" and "representation/right to petition to redress grievances" similar to the checks and balances we have with government.

I would enforce consent of the governed first, as the spirit of laws and social contracts, and then within that agreed understanding, all the other democratic processes can take place.

 

[emilynghiem]

the leftists will attach to anything

now a typo changes the

declaration of Independence

into

the declaration of dependence

--LOL

how about "co-dependence"?

I guess a distinction should be made between
* reactionary left that draws power from rejecting the right in "politicized" opposition
* inclusionary left that also includes the right within diversity and equality of persons
as I believe in equal inclusion of left, right, middle and everyone's views between.
So that is different from the "reactionary left" that tries to exclude the right.

You are right, that is more "dependent" or "co-dependent" if it becomes
"addiction to enabling" -- a common complaint about the "politicized left."

Maybe the difference is between
* co-dependent and
* interdependent (which requires parties to be independent first, before
they can relate to each other in a healthy balance)

 

[Pogo]

the leftists will attach to anything

now a typo changes the

declaration of Independence

into

the declaration of dependence

--LOL

how about "co-dependence"?

I guess a distinction should be made between
* reactionary left that draws power from rejecting the right in "politicized" opposition
* inclusionary left that also includes the right within diversity and equality of persons
as I believe in equal inclusion of left, right, middle and everyone's views between.
So that is different from the "reactionary left" that tries to exclude the right.

You are right, that is more "dependent" or "co-dependent" if it becomes
"addiction to enabling" -- a common complaint about the "politicized left."

Maybe the difference is between
* co-dependent and
* interdependent (which requires parties to be independent first, before
they can relate to each other in a healthy balance)

I'm sorry but I gotta say it...

Neither this post nor the one it quotes make any coherent sense at all.