TYPO: Declaration of Independence - No Period After "Happiness"

presence

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2011
Messages
19,330
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.
FROM THE OFFICIAL ARCHIVE.GOV VERSION: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

The Official Engraved Version:
lead_large.png


The High Resolution Original:
A7GewcO.png



COLOR LEVEL ENHANCEMENTS ARE MINE:


1st "Pursuit of Happiness"
3wIyIhz.png


2nd "Safety and Happiness"
kLYvSTq.png


Jefferson's Rough Draft:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/images/declarationdraft_large.jpg
hTuRdJD.png



Our unalienable rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" — period. Right?

Wrong says a scholar from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton who has detected a possible punctuation error in the Declaration of Independence.
In 1823, a guy named William Stone engraved what's become the "authoritative text" or our official copy of the Declaration of Independence.

Stone put a period after the word "happiness."

However, in the original parchment signed by the Founding Fathers, professor Danielle Allen said "there's a whole lot of historical evidence that probably it's a comma after pursuit of happiness, not a period."

Allen said a comma changes our understanding of what comes after "happiness."

"The whole sentence moves from the fact that we do have these individual rights through the idea that we use government to secure those rights."

Allen said most people stop reading after the period. However, the comma leads to another interpretation that puts more emphasis on the role of government in protecting those rights.

"That is a very different meaning than if you focus simply on individual rights, my pursuit of happiness, me me me," she said. "Whereas actually the story of the sentence is a story about we, about us, about what we do together."

Allen doesn't expect a punctuation change to settle any national debates about the size and scope of government. But she hopes it will give more Americans a reason to go back and reread the Declaration of Independence — all 1,337 words.


A transcript of the Declaration of Independence contains an error which creates a “serious misunderstanding”, according to a Princeton academic.

The paper is America’s founding charter and one which declared to the world that the thirteen American colonies were separate from Great Britain.



It was signed by the Second Continental Congress in 1776 by Timothy Matlack, according to the New York Historical Society. Mr Matlack was clerk to the secretary of the Congress.



But now Danielle Allen has told the New York Times the official transcript from 1823 of the declaration produced by the National Archives and Records Administration has a full stop where she stresses it is not found in the original parchment.



Ms Allen, professor at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, said the error can be found in the middle of the sentence that begins, “We hold these truths to be self-evident”.




The full sentence in question is: “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.”


Ms Allen, also a contributor to Labour's policy review since 2013, said it created a “routine but serious misunderstanding” of the declaration, the principal author of which was Thomas Jefferson.


The academic told the newspaper: “The period [full stop after ‘Happiness’] creates the impression that the list of self-evident truths ends with the right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.”


However she said that what follows the phrase is as important: the significant role of government to secure the rights of life, liberty and happiness mentioned earlier in the sentence.


Ms Allen argued: “The logic of the sentence moves from the value of individual rights to the importance of government as a tool for protecting those rights. You lose that connection when the period gets added.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-a-serious-error-says-Princeton-academic.html

Thomas Jefferson was 33 years old when he was tasked to write the Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress in 1776, rendering entire generations of Americans slackers by comparison ever since. Jefferson at 33 boldly captured the will of a people frustrated with their absentee king and declared the equality of all men to be a truth powerful enough to abolish an unjust system of government; the rest of us are mostly trying to figure out how to set up our ETrade accounts.


America.


there's a chance we've been reading the Declaration wrong for over 200 years


But there's a chance we've been reading the Declaration wrong for over 200 years. According to Danielle Allen, a professor of social science at the Institute of Advanced Study, the most common reproduction of the Declaration contains an extra period that changes the meaning of Jefferson's original words. "It's the difference between good government and bad government," she says.

Here's the version almost everyone knows:
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.

And here's the version where Allen says the period after "happiness" should actually be a comma:
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.

It's a very small difference, but Allen argues that it changes the construction of Jefferson's argument significantly. In the popular version with the period, there are only two self-evident truths: all men are created equal, and they're endowed with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's the foundation, and everything after that is an argument in service of abolishing British rule and starting over. "A lot of people just stop reading after 'pursuit of happiness,'" says Allen. "What do you lose if you stop reading?"


Change that period to a comma, though, and the list of self-evident truths suddenly grows much longer: all men are created equal; they're endowed with certain unalienable rights; governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed; when government becomes destructive, it's the right of the people to abolish it and create a new system most likely to bring them safety and happiness.


"When you read the whole sentence, all of those points are equally weighted," says Allen. "It moves from the individual to the collective, from me to we. There's a lot more responsibility we all have in building a government. It's not just what do I get, or what's in it for me. It highlights the obligation to participate at all levels." Lose the comma, and we're all just pursuing happiness without any regard for one another.


"It's not just what do I get, or what's in it for me. It highlights the obligation to participate at all levels."



And there's more: the notion that power of government comes from the consent of the governed wasn't necessarily self-evident in 1776. England itself had only undergone the Glorious Revolution and adopted its Bill of Rights in 1689. Louis XIV ruled France as an absolute monarch until 1715; it took the French Revolution in 1789 to fully reject that idea. And Russian tsars ruled as absolute monarchs until the Russian revolution in 1905. The difference between a period and a comma is the difference between Jefferson simply arguing the case for American independence and Jefferson casting the American idea itself as a self-evident truth.


"Self-evident doesn't mean obvious," says Allen. The missing comma is required to create a syllogistic argument that starts with the basic premise of equality and builds into what she calls "the people's right and responsibility to build a government that supports their flourishing."

This is heavy stuff for a typo.


So what happened here? It's hard to say; the original Declaration on display at the National Archives is so faded it's impossible to simply read. But Allen says the period doesn't appear on that version, on Jefferson's rough draft on display at the Library of Congress, nor on any versions produced with approval of the Continental Congress in 1776. There's also no period on the version copied into Congress' official records at the time.


This is heavy stuff for a typo


But the period does appear on a famous copperplate engraving of the Declaration created in 1823 by William Stone. If you've seen a copy of the Declaration of Independence, you've almost certainly seen one created from Stone's engraving, which took him three years to make. (It's also on display at the National Archives.) In her paper on the subject, Allen says the original Declaration was so faded by the time Stone started working that he just made "an honest mistake."


"Two other people tried to do engravings in the 1810s and they kind of made a hash of the punctuation," she says. "The document in all probability was quite illegible."


Two experts consulted by the New York Times agree that there's no period on the original document, although it's now so faded it's nearly impossible to tell with the naked eye alone. But there's hope this will get cleared up: after two years of lobbying from Allen, the National Archives told the Times that considering ways to safely re-examine the original document is a "top priority."


It must be said that this would be an excellent opportunity to examine the back for a treasure map.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/4/5868525...ndependence-have-a-typo-that-makes-us-selfish


If Only Thomas Jefferson Could Settle the Issue

A Period Is Questioned in the Declaration of Independence

By JENNIFER SCHUESSLERJULY 2, 2014






Every Fourth of July, some Americans sit down to read the Declaration of Independence, reacquainting themselves with the nation’s founding charter exactly as it was signed by the Second Continental Congress in 1776.


Or almost exactly? A scholar is now saying that the official transcript of the document produced by the National Archives and Records Administration contains a significant error — smack in the middle of the sentence beginning “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” no less.


The error, according to Danielle Allen, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., concerns a period that appears right after the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the transcript, but almost certainly not, she maintains, on the badly faded parchment original.


That errant spot of ink, she believes, makes a difference, contributing to what she calls a “routine but serious misunderstanding” of the document.


The period creates the impression that the list of self-evident truths ends with the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” she says. But as intended by Thomas Jefferson, she argues, what comes next is just as important: the essential role of governments — “instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” — in securing those rights.

Pursuit of Punctuation

An excerpt from the National Archives’ official transcript of the Declaration of Independence. A scholar is arguing that the period after “the pursuit of happiness” — shown in an 1823 engraving — does not appear on the 1776 parchment original.


DECLARATION-master315.jpg
“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 logic of the sentence moves from the value of individual rights to the importance of government as a tool for protecting those rights,” Ms. Allen said. “You lose that connection when the period gets added.”


Correcting the punctuation, if indeed it is wrong, is unlikely to quell the never-ending debates about the deeper meaning of the Declaration of Independence. But scholars who have reviewed Ms. Allen’s research say she has raised a serious question.


“Are the parts about the importance of government part of one cumulative argument, or — as Americans have tended to read the document — subordinate to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’?” said Jack Rakove, a historian at Stanford and a member of the National Archives’ Founding Fathers Advisory Committee. “You could make the argument without the punctuation, but clarifying it would help.”


Ms. Allen first wondered about the period two years ago, while researching her book “Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality,” published last week by Liveright. The period does not appear on the other known versions produced with Congressional oversight in 1776, or for that matter in most major 20th-century scholarly books on the document. So what was it doing in the National Archives’ transcription?

Ms. Allen wrote to the archives in 2012 raising the question, and received a response saying its researchers would look into the matter, followed by silence.
But over the past several months, she has quietly enlisted a number of scholars and manuscript experts in what the historian Joseph J. Ellis, who supports her efforts to open the question, wryly called “the battle of the period.”


And now the archives, after a meeting last month with Ms. Allen, says it is weighing changes to its online presentation of the Declaration of Independence.
“We want to take advantage of this possible new discovery,” William A. Mayer, the archives’ executive for research services, said in an email.


A discussion of ways to safely re-examine the badly deteriorated parchment, he added, is now “a top priority.”


That parchment, created in late July 1776 and credited to the hand of Timothy Matlack, is visible to anyone. Last year, more than a million people lined up to see the document at the National Archives Museum in Washington, where it is kept in a bulletproof glass case filled with stabilizing argon gas that is lowered each evening into an underground vault.


But that document has faded almost to the point of illegibility, leaving scholars to look to other versions from 1776 to determine the “original” text.
And there, Ms. Allen argues, while those versions show subtle variations in punctuation and capitalization, the founders’ intent is clear: no period after “pursuit of happiness.”


The period does not appear in Jefferson’s so-called original rough draft (held in the Library of Congress), or in the broadside that Congress ordered from the Philadelphia printer John Dunlap on July 4. It also does not appear in the version that was copied into Congress’s official records, known as its “corrected journal,” in mid-July.


According to historical records, the Matlack parchment was signed on Aug. 2 after being compared with official texts — making it unlikely, Ms. Allen argues, that it would have contained a period after “pursuit of happiness.”


Defenders of the period are not without ammunition. The mark does appear in some official and unofficial early printings, including the broadside that Congress commissioned from the Baltimore printer Mary Katherine Goddard in January 1777, for distribution to the states.


Most fatefully, it also clearly appears on the 1823 copperplate created by the engraver William Stone to replicate the original parchment, which was already fading. The copperplate, which Stone took three years to create, has long been presumed to be a precise copy and has become the basis for most modern reproductions, including the one that has appeared every July 4 since 1922 in The New York Times.


Ms. Allen, who has analyzed variations in more than 70 versions of the Declaration of Independence created between 1776 and 1823, argues that the parchment was already “significantly illegible” by the time Stone began his work. When faced with an unreadable passage, she argues, he probably consulted other versions of the document, including some with the errant period. In short, she writes in a draft paper of her research posted on her website, Stone made “an honest mistake.”


Jack P. Greene, a historian of the American Revolution at Brown University, called Ms. Allen’s paper “a remarkably convincing piece of detective work.” But ultimately, the debate over the accuracy of the period all comes down to the faded ink on Matlack’s parchment.


And there, some manuscript experts say, existing high-resolution images show little evidence of a period. In a memo to the National Archives, James P. McClure, general editor of the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, said that the faint mark after “pursuit of happiness” resembles other marks on the parchment that are accepted as commas, rather than the obvious periods at the end of other sentences.


Heather Wolfe, curator of manuscripts at the Folger Shakespeare Library, agrees. With the other periods, “you can tell, the quill was held down and more ink came out,” she said. “That’s not happening after the word ‘happiness.’ ”


There may yet be clearer pictures to ponder. Mr. Mayer of the archives said it was testing the feasibility of doing new types of imaging, including hyperspectral imaging, through the document’s protective glass encasement. “We don’t yet know what’s possible,” he said.
Such imaging may prove inconclusive — or, of course, prove Ms. Allen wrong. But so be it, she said.


“We are having a national conversation about the value of government, and it does get connected to our founding documents,” she said. “We should get right what’s in them.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/u...of-independence.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1

Download High Res:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_downloads.html

We have an unalienable right to Life,
We have an unalienable right to Liberty,
We have an unalienable right to the pursuit of Happiness,

Without the period, it was declared in 1776:

We have a God given, unalienable right to secure these rights by instituting Governments 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

TRUE
ENDOWED
GOD GIVEN
SELF EVIDENT
UNALIENABLE 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.






...did you here that Tito?

 
Last edited:
Mr Franklin should've used his printer's skills to make a more legible copy after it was signed, it seems.
 
What's the current count of the maximum number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin? :p
 
I don't see any justification for reading the text one whit differently, whether that is a period or a comma in that place. The meaning of the text does not change at all, and the allegations that it does are, each and every one, extremely weak arguments.
 
So, if Jefferson used a semi-colon instead of a period, they're claiming that we're still part of Britain or what?

The Declaration isn't even an official government document per se.

Too much ado over nothing at all. Just another attempt to cause Jefferson to roll over in his grave; nothing more.
 
So, if Jefferson used a semi-colon instead of a period, they're claiming that we're still part of Britain or what?

The Declaration isn't even an official government document per se.

Too much ado over nothing at all. Just another attempt to cause Jefferson to roll over in his grave; nothing more.


The claim is that Jefferson understood the right form government and to overthrow an unjust government to be just as "true" "self evident" "endowed by our creator" "unalienable" as is "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

"Forming and Overthrowing" are not logical derived consequences of our unalienable rights, but self evident true rights in and of themselves; they cannot be

"transferrred or assigned".
13nRM1h.png
 
Last edited:
Another effort from the Ministry of Truth to reinvent history. Claiming a punctuation change shifts focus from the individual to the collective is nonsense.
And I don't consent to that monstrosity in DC.
 
Back
Top