ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

The Declaration of Independance- some scholars say we've been reading it wrong.

<< < (2/8) > >>

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 (July 06, 2014, 04:12 AM)
--- End quote ---

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.

I think it is amusing though that a fuss would be made about it now with the government giving so much scrutiny to every possibility of a way to increase how much authority they have.

Tinfoil hats, but its straight out of 1984. Make a little tweak to history, and suddenly the implications mean that you can do this much more that previously wasn't allowed.

Ok but also let me remind everyone that we try to avoid talking politics on the forum, so let's try to avoid generic political debates here.

I don't think there is a 2nd way to interpret the document, if you consider the context and the events that followed it. It meant only 1 thing.

And if it had been a simple 3 word document, stating merely "F**K You England" it still could not have been interpreted any differently.

It is not a legal document that holds any bearing on modern life in the US. You can't go to court over any perceived violation of rights, citing the Declaration of Independence as granting you any. Nor can it grant the US government any extra authority.

It's just the old declaration of war that lead to the founding of the US. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's just the old declaration of war that lead to the founding of the US. Nothing more, nothing less.
-app103 (July 06, 2014, 11:26 AM)
--- End quote ---

This. :Thmbsup:

(And a helluva good read too!)


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version