Last night, Keith Olbermann’s segment on Countdown’s World’s Worst included a criticism of Newt Gingrich’s misquotation of the Declaration of Independence. Gingrich quoted it (in quotes, mind you) as saying:
We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Olbermann corrected him scathingly, quoting the true text as being,
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.
Perhaps Olbermann didn’t know that there is more than one display copy of the Declaration of Independence, and perhaps he didn’t know that the original Jefferson handwriting draft, as well as at least two other display copies, declared our rights to be “inalienable,” not “unalienable.” That could have been an embarrassing error on his part, and I’m wondering if he actually sent any of his staffers (staffers, interns, himself?) to investigate Gingrich’s text, just to make sure.
Gingrich claimed to be quoting from the National Archives display. Despite my attempt to verify by going to USHistory.org, which has an article on the very inalienable/unalienable distinction, showing that different display copies indeed show different uses, with the final being “unalienable,” the site lacked a reference to the copy on display at the National Archives.
Maneuvering my way through the National Archives website led me to The National Archives Experience: The Digital Vaults site at digitalvaults.org, which has an early (1823) engraving of the Declaration of Independence (that looks a heck of a lot like the one in the movies), which was, appropriately enough, displayed “backwards” (which is rightwards for a print engraving, right?), and caused me some effort to find the text in a “forwards” version to figure out where the backwards in/unalienable would be. I did find it, and, as you can see, fortunately for Olbermann, it’s “unalienable” in this version. I’m wondering if his staffers took the time to do this verification.
Here’s a screenshot from the National Archives website, and, below, a cutout, mirrored for your reading pleasure.
Tags: archives, creator, Declaration of Independence, Gingrich, Jefferson, Olbermann, rights
Three is a subtle difference between the two. “Inalienable” was an English legal term. It referred to inherited rights of title, such as the title of Crown Prince. The title of Crown Prince of the first born son could not be removed by legislation or other actions.
“Unalienable” tended to be a reference in philosophical writings to human rights that could not be removed by legislation or other actions. Specifically, “unalienable” tended to be used in reference to conscience. Conscience cannot be removed by human action.
So when the Founders changed “inalienable” to “unalienable” they changed the sense from the class-centric form to the moral form. This change better supports the idea of “all men are created equal” which means we are without social class, as is implied by “inalienable.” It also better supports the idea of rights as a moral issue as opposed to a legal issue.
That’s quite interesting! Thanks for explaining that distinction.