NYT: A Period Is Questioned in the Declaration of Independence

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/us/politics/a-period-is-questioned-in-the-declaration-of-independence.html

Even though the US Constitution is the actual basis of law in the United States, the Declaration-especially "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"-arguably holds a considerably larger role in American cultural mythology.

What do you think? If the period was not intended, and Ms. Allen is correct, would that be significant?  

[CatoMinor]

And if you replace the words "dissolve" and "separate" with "enhance" and "move closer to" we'll see that Jefferson actually intended this to be an oddly worded declaration of complaints while continuing the union.

[Antonio the Sixth]

These kinds of contrived exegeses are utterly pointless. We shouldn't give a sh**t about what a bunch of 18th century guys saw fit to establish as the founding principles of the political system. Rather, we should strive to establish our own principles for the 21st century.

[patrick1]

These kinds of contrived exegeses are utterly pointless. We shouldn't give a sh**t about what a bunch of 18th century guys saw fit to establish as the founding principles of the political system. Rather, we should strive to establish our own principles for the 21st century.

21st century politicians and their various mouthpieces in the media are not serious people. I'd rather dig into the distant past than be spoon fed a bunch of empty talking points.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

These kinds of contrived exegeses are utterly pointless. We shouldn't give a sh**t about what a bunch of 18th century guys saw fit to establish as the founding principles of the political system. Rather, we should strive to establish our own principles for the 21st century.

Is that not such a thing as timeless principles?

[Simfan34]

These kinds of contrived exegeses are utterly pointless. We shouldn't give a sh**t about what a bunch of 18th century guys saw fit to establish as the founding principles of the political system. Rather, we should strive to establish our own principles for the 21st century.

21st century politicians and their various mouthpieces in the media are not serious people. I'd rather dig into the distant past than be spoon fed a bunch of empty talking points.

Yes, what makes us inherently superior to the Framers as to make this desirable? It's quite arrogant to think that the founding principles that have served us fairly well for two centuries should be chucked out the window for something else.

[angus]

Interesting.  You can find a scan of the original on pbs.org.  It looks like an upper-case T in the next clause, "That to secure these rights..."  The capital suggests that it was meant to be a new sentence. There are also long underscore lines between the sentences.  Maybe that was an indicator of sentence ending in the 18th century. 

It seems to me also that it might not matter much.  Whether the dependent clause "that to secure..." gets set apart by a period or by a comma, it still simply tells the reader that the inalienable rights can be secured in the way prescribed below, or that the people have the right to secure them in the way prescribed.  I think that professor Allen is saying that the securing the rights via government by consent might be part of the Truths.  She seems to think that is significant.  I guess some of the political philosophers on this forum can argue over that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

These kinds of contrived exegeses are utterly pointless. We shouldn't give a sh**t about what a bunch of 18th century guys saw fit to establish as the founding principles of the political system. Rather, we should strive to establish our own principles for the 21st century.

21st century politicians and their various mouthpieces in the media are not serious people. I'd rather dig into the distant past than be spoon fed a bunch of empty talking points.

Yes, what makes us inherently superior to the Framers as to make this desirable? It's quite arrogant to think that the founding principles that have served us fairly well for two centuries should be chucked out the window for something else.

It's not about being "superior" to the Framers or to anyone, it's about living in a world that bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to the one in which they lived. And yes, of course the material state of the world has a major influence on the prevalent moral principles that are prevalent in it (you know what the obvious example of this is, especially regarding the Framers). While this doesn't say anything about the inherent value of a principle, I think it's pretty obvious that we have made some progresses in the understanding of what is right and what is wrong since the f**king 18th century.

For a modern reformulation of the DoI's principles which preserves the good things while adding much needed corrections, look no further than the 1948 UN declaration.