Typo in the Declaration of Independence?

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what you think because the rules for grammar were a lot looser back then. Anyone who applies modern rules when reading ancient documents like the Declaration of Independence just demonstrates their ignorance of the history of grammar.

Thanks for joining that exclusive club.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

You're right.

 

[PredFan]

Looks to me like the period is there.

"Princeton Professor"? 'nuff said.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What a bunch of Progressive Hooey.

You're right.

It was the progressives who fought and won the war and the progressives who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatives were too busy spying for the king.

BUT - like it or not, its our history.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Looks to me like the period is there.

"Princeton Professor"? 'nuff said.

Yeppers. Can't have none of that elitist education stuff, right?

Even Santorum said the " elite, smart people would never be on the side of the Repubs and Jindal said the Repubs are the "stupid party".

Your choice and you're welcome to it.

 

[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.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what you think because the rules for grammar were a lot looser back then. Anyone who applies modern rules when reading ancient documents like the Declaration of Independence just demonstrates their ignorance of the history of grammar.

Thanks for joining that exclusive club.

It is not just a matter of grammar, it is a matter of rhetoric. And, btw, it is not an 'ancient document.' It is less than 250 years old; that's not considered ancient.

Matters of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc., may not be in line with what we consider standard English today, but rhetorical technique is the same now as then. It was a series of ideas, concepts, that were linked together in a listing, leading to a final point. Logistically, rhetorically, the relative clauses lead, one to the other, to a final point. It's a matter of style, not just grammar.

 

[Esmeralda]

Rhetoric has been essentially the same since the dawn of humankind. The page you cite deals with the concept of modern versus classical rhetoric, formal debate. Humankind always has and always will use the same methods of persuasion and discourse; it is how we communicate. Formal debate is another thing, but even so, as is noted in the link your provided, scholars do not agree on the concept of a modern rhetoric.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Knock it off.

No personal attacks in the CDZ.

 

[Pogo]

What a bunch of Progressive Hooey.

You're right.

It was the progressives who fought and won the war and the progressives who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatives were too busy spying for the king.

BUT - like it or not, its our history.

Liberals, not "progressives". The latter weren't invented until a century later.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What a bunch of Progressive Hooey.

You're right.

It was the progressives who fought and won the war and the progressives who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatives were too busy spying for the king.

BUT - like it or not, its our history.

Liberals, not "progressives". The latter weren't invented until a century later.

Actually, I used that word on purpose.

I meant lower case progressive as an attitude and life philosophy rather than a political position. But, I believe it was both lower case conservatives AND upper case Conservatives wanting to remain subjects of the king.

But yes, those with progressive ideas and treasonous plans were Liberals.

 

[Pogo]

You're right.

It was the progressives who fought and won the war and the progressives who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatives were too busy spying for the king.

BUT - like it or not, its our history.

Liberals, not "progressives". The latter weren't invented until a century later.

Actually, I used that word on purpose.

I meant lower case progressive as an attitude and life philosophy rather than a political position. But, I believe it was both lower case conservatives AND upper case Conservatives wanting to remain subjects of the king.

But yes, those with progressive ideas and treasonous plans were Liberals.

You meant the adjective, "one who supports progress". I get that. It's just that there are those partisans around here who like to drop the word Progressive (noun) as if it's some kind of slur, yet they can never define what the hell they mean. No point in fueling them further.

Not sure about the distinction between conservative and Conservative though...

 

[peach174]

What a bunch of Progressive Hooey.

You're right.

It was the progressives who fought and won the war and the progressives who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatives were too busy spying for the king.

BUT - like it or not, its our history.

Progressives did not start till Teddy Roosevelt.
Woodrow Wilson really got it going during his term.
Progressive ideology is totally opposite of our Founders.
Progresses turned out nation into social first and individual second.
Our Founders was individual first, social second.
This ideology made it so that government took control over the states and would be able to expand to become bigger and bigger.
Our Founders wanted States control and limited government.
Our Founders were Revolutionaries.
Liberal and Conservative terms did not exist back then.

 

[Pogo]

What a bunch of Progressive Hooey.

You're right.

It was the progressives who fought and won the war and the progressives who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatives were too busy spying for the king.

BUT - like it or not, its our history.

Progressives did not start till Teddy Roosevelt.
Woodrow Wilson really got it going during his term.
Progressive ideology is totally opposite of our Founders.
Progresses turned out nation into social first and individual second.
Our Founders was individual first, social second.
This ideology made it so that government took control over the states and would be able to expand to become bigger and bigger.
Our Founders wanted States control and limited government.
Our Founders were Revolutionaries.
Liberal and Conservative terms did not exist back then.

Of course they did. The Liberalism movement is what founded this country after all. At least one did.

>> With the meaning "free from restraint in speech or action," liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88. << (OED)

>> As a modern political tradition, conservatism traces to Edmund Burke's opposition to the French Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing. It was coined by his French disciples, (such as Chateaubriand, who titled his journal defending clerical and political restoration "Le Conservateur"). << (same source)​

I don't know about the that part in green as regards the growth of federal government; the Industrial Revolution and our own flirtation with constant warfare were more a driver of all that methinks. Starting with McKinley in Cuba (1898).

 

[peach174]

You're right.

It was the progressives who fought and won the war and the progressives who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatives were too busy spying for the king.

BUT - like it or not, its our history.

Progressives did not start till Teddy Roosevelt.
Woodrow Wilson really got it going during his term.
Progressive ideology is totally opposite of our Founders.
Progresses turned out nation into social first and individual second.
Our Founders was individual first, social second.
This ideology made it so that government took control over the states and would be able to expand to become bigger and bigger.
Our Founders wanted States control and limited government.
Our Founders were Revolutionaries.
Liberal and Conservative terms did not exist back then.

Of course they did. The Liberalism movement is what founded this country after all. At least one did.

>> With the meaning "free from restraint in speech or action," liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88. << (OED)

>> As a modern political tradition, conservatism traces to Edmund Burke's opposition to the French Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing. It was coined by his French disciples, (such as Chateaubriand, who titled his journal defending clerical and political restoration "Le Conservateur"). << (same source)​

I don't know about the that part in green as regards the growth of federal government; the Industrial Revolution and our own flirtation with constant warfare were more a driver of all that methinks. Starting with McKinley in Cuba (1898).

If you study the progressives ideology they turned our Founders ideology completely opposite.
President Wilson preferred the British form of government.
The Founders Constitution is Newtonian and the Progressives Constitution is Darwinian.
Wilson was against separation of powers, just like the progressives are today.
Wilson rejected the Foundries Constitution.

 

[Pogo]

There are no "Progressives" today. I thought I just said that. It's nothing but a hack demagogue term.

You'll have to 'splain what you mean by "Newtonian" versus "Darwinian".

 

[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?

Uh - with ballot boxes and Constitutional Amendments...

Not everything has to be about violence.

do you really believe our government works for us, no matter who we elect? do you really believe the working man or the poor are better off under Obama than bush? even the supreme court has become a partisan entity. each side trying to stuff it with liberal or conservative justices.

 

[peach174]

You're right.

It was the progressives who fought and won the war and the progressives who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatives were too busy spying for the king.

BUT - like it or not, its our history.

Classic Liberalism not the liberals of today.
Progressives did not start till Teddy Roosevelt.
Woodrow Wilson really got it going during his term.
Progressive ideology is totally opposite of our Founders.
Progresses turned out nation into social first and individual second.
Our Founders was individual first, social second.
This ideology made it so that government took control over the states and would be able to expand to become bigger and bigger.
Our Founders wanted States control and limited government.
Our Founders were Revolutionaries.
Liberal and Conservative terms did not exist back then.

Of course they did. The Liberalism movement is what founded this country after all. At least one did.

>> With the meaning "free from restraint in speech or action," liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88. << (OED)

>> As a modern political tradition, conservatism traces to Edmund Burke's opposition to the French Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing. It was coined by his French disciples, (such as Chateaubriand, who titled his journal defending clerical and political restoration "Le Conservateur"). << (same source)​

I don't know about the that part in green as regards the growth of federal government; the Industrial Revolution and our own flirtation with constant warfare were more a driver of all that methinks. Starting with McKinley in Cuba (1898).

If you study the progressives ideology they turned our Founders ideology completely opposite.
President Wilson preferred the British form of government.
The Founders Constitution is Newtonian and the Progressives Constitution is Darwinian.
Wilson was against separation of powers, just like the progressives are today.
Wilson rejected the Foundries Constitution.

 

[peach174]

You're right.

It was the progressives who fought and won the war and the progressives who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The conservatives were too busy spying for the king.

BUT - like it or not, its our history.

Progressives did not start till Teddy Roosevelt.
Woodrow Wilson really got it going during his term.
Progressive ideology is totally opposite of our Founders.
Progresses turned out nation into social first and individual second.
Our Founders was individual first, social second.
This ideology made it so that government took control over the states and would be able to expand to become bigger and bigger.
Our Founders wanted States control and limited government.
Our Founders were Revolutionaries.
Liberal and Conservative terms did not exist back then.

Of course they did. The Liberalism movement is what founded this country after all. At least one did.

>> With the meaning "free from restraint in speech or action," liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88. << (OED)

>> As a modern political tradition, conservatism traces to Edmund Burke's opposition to the French Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing. It was coined by his French disciples, (such as Chateaubriand, who titled his journal defending clerical and political restoration "Le Conservateur"). << (same source)​

I don't know about the that part in green as regards the growth of federal government; the Industrial Revolution and our own flirtation with constant warfare were more a driver of all that methinks. Starting with McKinley in Cuba (1898).

Classic Liberalism not the Liberals of today.

If you study the progressives ideology they turned our Founders ideology completely opposite.
President Wilson preferred the British form of government.
The Founders Constitution is Newtonian and the Progressives Constitution is Darwinian.
Wilson was against separation of powers, just like the progressives are today.
Wilson rejected the Foundries Constitution.

 

[Pogo]

OK well now you're just pasting the same thing over and over. I can Google it and see where you got it.

 

[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?

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

one man one vote has gotten us trillions in debt, 47% on some kind of entitlement, a shrinking middle class, high unemployment, a growing divide between the rich and the poor, record corporate profits yet low pay and benefits for employees, high levels of poverty, an out of control immigration problem, faltering educational standards, more divisive than ever public, continuing dissatisfaction with congress and our presidents, involvement in foreign countries and wars, funding rebels and terrorists, rising costs and stagnant wages. government that represents special interests instead of the general public. What is this vote getting us?