Celebrate Undependence Day!

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. So says the Declaration of Independence in its second paragraph.

Or does it say inalienable? The inalienable/unalienable issue dogged even Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration.

The website ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable has as in-depth a treatise on the subject as I’ve seen. It explains that even Jefferson wavered between in- and un-, having used the former in several of his drafts of the document, but settling on the latter for the final parchment copy, which is on display in Washington, D.C.

The website quotes a footnote in the book “The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas” by Carl Lotus Becker, which was published in 1922:

The Rough Draft reads "[inherent &] inalienable." There is no indication that Congress changed "inalienable" to "unalienable"; but the latter form appears in the text in the rough Journal, in the corrected Journal, and in the parchment copy. John Adams, in making his copy of the Rough Draft, wrote " unalienable." Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress, and it may have been at his suggestion that the change was made in printing.

So what’s the difference? USHistory.org quotes The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style from Houghton Mifflin Company as saying there is no difference.

Etymonline.com only acknowledges inalienable, saying it was used first in the 1640s. My dictionary doesn’t list unalienable except in the list of un-prefix words. It defines inalienable as that which cannot be taken away. Dictionary.com lists them as synonyms.

According to http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable, which cites chapter and verse of legal precedent:

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

Using substantial legal reference, radio host Alfred Adask writes on his website http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/

Clearly, the words are not synonymous. While “inalienable” rights can’t be “lawfully” transferred “to another,” they might nevertheless be waived by the holder or perhaps “unlawfully” (privately??) “transferred” to someone else. However, those rights which are “unalienable” are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, administratively, privately or by implication or operation of law.

My research online has indicated that the sites making the most vociferous contention that there is a substantial difference are conservative or libertarian (at best). One site had a comment that said it should be un-a-lien-a-ble, with the emphasis of pronunciation on the lien (one syllable as in the claim to property, not lee-en as in alien). Others suggest the difference between the two is a comment on the source – that inalienable rights come from man, unalienable ones come from God. I found a lot that could only be substantiated through other blogs or couldn’t be substantiated at all.

The prefix difference, if you don’t remember, is covered in “Be Ept”, my blog for December 26, 2009.

Is there a difference? It is not the intent of this blog to weigh in politically, only in usage, and whether there was any usage difference in the 18th century I cannot say. It could be that the prefix was changed to be American rather than English, but the best explanations of the difference legally I cite above. It made a difference to the patriots of 1776, and that’s good enough for me. It is unalienable rights in the declaration, and those are what I celebrate today.