Danielle Allen, Princeton scholar and author, contends the period after “pursuit of Happiness” in the Declaration of Independence is an error. She believes the thought about the essential nature of government in the following sentence was intended to be included as an unalienable right.
Official transcript of pertinent part of the Declaration:
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 original New York Times article
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.
“The logic of the sentence moves from the value of individual rights to the importance of government as a tool for protecting those rights,” Dr. Allen said. “You lose that connection when the period gets added.”
She says there is no period in other versions of the Declaration and there is no period in Thomas Jefferson’s handwritten draft. That’s true; there is a semicolon (UShistory.org). Semicolons are sometimes used in a list but only a very long list. The use of a semicolon is primarily to connect two independent clauses. The logic here is that individuals have unalienable God-given rights and that governments are established to serve the people in protection of those rights.
Of course the Left thinks government is better than God. It is the preeminence of government over the lives of individuals that is self-evident to them. It is government that gives safety and happiness to people. Indeed, individuals are considered only in the context of laws they must follow for the well-being of the collective.
Dr. Allen’s “discovery” is wishful thinking. She has written a book about the importance of equality and community.
A Typo in the Declaration of Independence?
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.
Allen also restores the astonishing text of the Declaration itself. Its list of self-evident truths does not end, as so many think, with our individual right to the “pursuit of happiness” but with the collective right of the people to reform government so that it will “effect their Safety and Happiness.” The sentence laying out the self-evident truths leads us from the individual to the community—from our individual rights to what we can achieve only together, as a community constituted by bonds of equality. Challenging so much of our conventional political wisdom, Our Declaration boldly makes the case that we cannot have freedom as individuals without equality among us as a people.
Some more about Dr. Allen’s point of view. Video: Danielle Allen on equality and the Declaration of Independence.
There is no question what the Declaration of Independence means: individual liberty and limited government. Period. Exclamation.
UPDATE: I suggest you take the time to watch the interview with Dr. Allen. She is an admirer of the document although her emphasis on the message of equality is probably influenced by contemporary ideology. She tells us a lot about the interesting history of the writing of the Declaration. It is an interesting interview.
Thanks Pat S. Three unalienable rights and a period. Happy Independence Day All!
Thanks Pat S. A great ‘Independence Day’ treat for us. I don’t know how these liberals (if that is what Ms. Allen is) can equate personal liberty & freedom with ‘community equality’. If we were all equally oppressed & subjugated would we consider ourselves possessor of liberty & freedom? I don’t think so. And to think that today’s liberal believe that it is up to government to ‘effect our Safety and Happiness’??? Their liberal ancestors must by turning in their graves.
kwilder,
I added an update suggesting it is worth watching the video of Dr. Allen’s appearance at the National Constitution Center. She isn’t an obnoxious ideologue. I kind of like her. She talks a lot about the fascinating history of the Declaration. I still think she is attempting to squeeze a message about equality out of the document which has more to do with today’s politics than 1776.
I’ll check it out Pat_S… thanx again.
An off-topic note…I saw a report in the paper that Tammy is “a grotesque grab-bag of farting, belching, snoring and sadism“. And I was thinking, yeah, that pretty much covers it, until I realized they were reviewing that new Tammy movie.
The Four Horsemen of the Cineplex.
I don’t get her logic. She’s saying that somehow the importance of government is “diminished” by the period. It isn’t. I mean, the document goes on to say that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…” In other words, the concept of equal rights has no realistic chance of surviving without a government to protect them. She thinks eliminating the period somehow makes that clearer… She sounds a little obsessive about this. I understood the meaning of this from the time I was in Jr. high school. It’s not that hard to figure out.
Secondly, she says: “The period creates the impression that the list of self-evident truths ends with the right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.”
Again, no, it does not. All she’d need to do to understand this is parse the earlier part of that sentence: “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are…” It’s highlighting the most important ones, but does not exclude any others that are not mentioned.
Getting to the last part: “but with the collective right of the people to reform government so that it will ‘effect their Safety and Happiness.'”
I think she needs to look more into the Founders’ thinking on government, and the relationship to the citizen, particularly the Enlightenment philosophers that they used for inspiration. She’s imposing her own view of community and government on Jefferson. She should understand that, for example, when Jefferson used the term “happiness,” he did not mean “joy,” “delight,” “fulfillment,” or any of the meanings that we associate with that word today. In Jefferson’s time, the term meant something akin to “happenstance.” In this light, “the pursuit of happiness” roughly translates to “the pursuit of one’s chance.” This was a declaration against the British class system, the idea that an American can go as far as their ambition will take them.
Secondly, the Declaration, as I understand, does not task government with guaranteeing our safety. What they wanted government to preserve is our natural rights, which includes life, and more broadly domestic tranquility. My understanding is they wanted government to be there to punish incursions or violations of our rights, as a deterrent, not to guarantee them, because that would involve “destroying the village in order to save it.” Realistically, “secure” would just mean “a resort one could go to for a remedy, or civil justice.” As for the confederacy (from the Articles of Confederation), its main job was to create a loose confederation of states that would hold together for the Revolution. Later, the federal government (from the Constitution), was mainly designed to maintain a national currency, have a free trade zone for the states, which had limited autonomy, and conduct foreign policy, and protect the states from invasion.
A critical element she appears to ignore is the Founders’ notion of self-government. The hope was that there would be enough of a civil culture of respect for people’s rights that people would resolve a lot of their disputes peacefully among themselves, with government only dealing with the outliers who were somehow impaired in their ability to govern themselves, and resolve disputes peacefully. We can tell a lot of this from the way the American government behaved once we achieved our independence from Britain.
Just wanted to add that it’s my understanding that the wording and use of punctuation in the Declaration was highly scrutinized in the committee that wrote it up. So I’m not buying this notion she’s advancing that the period was a “mistake.” Since earlier drafts used different punctuation, all it suggests to me is that was rejected in favor of a period. We can derive some valuable information on what Jefferson was thinking as he wrote the Declaration from looking at the earlier drafts, but the reason the few changes were made is that the other committee members (I think particularly from Franklin. John Adams didn’t contribute anything, that I remember) thought they were important. The colonies placed a lot of importance on the Declaration, because it set forth the purpose of their rebellion against England, and I am sure they were thinking about what the rest of the world, and their own countrymen–since there was not unanimity on separating from England–would think of their cause.