I’ve been wondering for some time why the DOI uses the word “unalienable” instead of the “inalienable.”  Jefferson originally used the word “inalienable” in his original draft, but congress changed it to “unalienable.”  After doing some digging I think I now know why, and it turns out to be a little more interesting than I thought.

The word inalienable and unalienable both mean pretty much the same thing.  They refer to rights that cannot be separated from the individual.  

The difference is in the roots of the words.  Inalienable was a legal term of the time that was used for inherited titles such as King or Prince.  The inheritance of one’s title could not be removed.  It was considered absolute. 

Unalienable was used for a different discussion.  It was used in discussions about conscience.  We can’t give up the ability to make decisions regarding right and wrong.  That is part of our nature.

When the founders changed “inalienable” to “unalienable” they were sending small but important messages.  They were not using the term the suggested royal title.  They were trying to break away from royalty.  They used instead the term that suggested conscience. 

I think the Founders intended to use “unalienable” similar to the way “amoral” is used with respect to morality.  There is “morality,” “immorality,” and “amorality.”  ”Amorality is outside of morality.  I think they intended to use “unalienable” to mean something that is outside the concept of alienation.

Stumble it!