On closer inspection, however, it looks like just that -- a cool idea that's too tempting to pass up, even if it doesn't amount to anything.
-mouser
Yeah...I had a "Bircher" neighbor (his characterization, not mine) that could go on and on about that one. He had a bunch of other "proof" things aren't all that they seem to be with the Declaration or Constitution. Or the Bible either for that matter. Too bad he passed away before the
National Treasure movies came out. He would have loved those.
And since we're on the subject, I can't wait from someone to rediscover and reopen the "
unalienable" vs "
inalienable rights" debate.
Why did Jefferson say "inalienable" whereas others referred to these rights as "unalienable?"
This one comes up every ten or so years in conspiracy and self-taught 'expert' historical 'research' circles.
Those who have done genuine research have long ago concluded that the two spellings were commonplace and interchangeable during the times in question, with writers of the period often switching arbitrarily between the two. Sometimes within the same document or letter.
That doesn't stop
some people from reading a whole bit of drama into it despite the overwhelming evidence that clearly establishes either spelling meant the same thing to the framers of the Declaration and Constitution - and that "correct" American-English spelling and punctuation was still very far from being standardized in the 1700s.
It wasn't until well after Webster that word spellings finally started to settle down in the late 1800s. And most scholars of the American language will agree that punctuation usage varied widely until the advent of
The Chicago Manual of Style was published in 1906.