During my university years, reading the Declaration of Independence left a deep impression on me. I remember pausing over Thomas Jefferson’s choice of words, especially the line about truths being self-evident, and that all men are created equal. It wasn’t just a noble idea – it was a bold political statement that sparked a 250-year debate. I first assumed the difference between unalienable vs. inalienable was just spelling, but I quickly realized the language pointed to something much deeper. This wasn’t just about words – it was a philosophical and historical journey, rich in nuance, with layers of legal interpretation and a tapestry of beliefs about freedom and rights that are inseparable from who we are.
The article you’re reading now explores the usage, definitions, and history of these two powerful terms. In modern discourse, the contexts where we use them still matter. Over the years, through studying texts and teaching civic theory, I’ve come to see how much these words shape public understanding. Whether it’s liberty, national identity, or foundational tradition, both terms reflect the same ideal – that some rights are beyond government reach. This small variation between them keeps showing up in legal writing and American theory, proving again and again how much power lives in precise language.
Why These Words Still Matter Today
Language isn’t static. And in politics, law, and national identity, the words we choose shape the reality we live in. “Unalienable” and “inalienable” have carried the weight of liberty, personal rights, and government obligations for centuries.
In classrooms, courtrooms, and political speeches, these words aren’t interchangeable buzzwords. They carry different emotional tones, historical fingerprints, and legal consequences. So whether you’re a writer, student, teacher, lawyer, or just curious – this is more than a vocabulary lesson. It’s a journey into the heart of American identity.
Understanding the Terms: Definitions and Origins
What Does “Unalienable” Mean?
Unalienable is defined as something that cannot be taken away, transferred, or surrendered. In its most literal sense, it describes rights that are so fundamental they cannot be separated from the individual, not by law, not by consent, not even by force.
Origin: From Late Latin alienabilis, meaning “able to be transferred to another.”
The prefix un- simply negates it, forming “unalienable” – not able to be transferred.
“Unalienable rights are inherent and non-negotiable – they come with being human.” – Thomas Jefferson, paraphrased
What Does “Inalienable” Mean?
Inalienable means essentially the same thing: rights or properties that cannot legally be surrendered or taken away.
The only real difference is the prefix: in- vs. un-. Both indicate negation, and both are rooted in Latin.
- Inalienable is the more modern, legal form.
- Unalienable is the older, more philosophical form.
While they often appear side by side in definitions, their connotations differ subtly – which we’ll explore shortly.
Quick Comparison Table
| Term | Meaning | Common Usage Context | Root Language | Modern Frequency |
| Unalienable | Cannot be surrendered or transferred | Founding documents, philosophy | Latin | Less common |
| Inalienable | Not subject to being taken away | Legal texts, modern English | Latin | More common |
Origins and Evolution in Language
Both words derive from the Latin alienare, meaning “to transfer ownership.” In legal and philosophical writings from the 1600s onward, variations of the term began to appear in English.
Influence of Enlightenment Thinkers
- John Locke, the British philosopher who influenced Jefferson, used the term “inalienable rights.”
- His 1689 Two Treatises of Government laid the groundwork for ideas about natural rights – life, liberty, and property – that governments can’t violate.
Natural Rights vs. Legal Rights
- “Unalienable” became favored in philosophical contexts (freedom, autonomy).
- “Inalienable” took hold in legal frameworks (contracts, laws, constitutions).
Over time, “inalienable” became the dominant form in legal dictionaries and court language, while “unalienable” remained a symbolic relic of the Revolutionary Era.
The Declaration of Independence Debate
What Jefferson Wrote vs. What Congress Approved
Here’s the key phrase from the Declaration:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But Jefferson’s original draft actually used “inalienable.” It was Congress that edited the final version to say “unalienable.”
So why the switch?
Historians argue that:
- “Unalienable” was the more philosophically loaded term at the time.
- It had been used in earlier political writings by Samuel Adams and James Otis.
- Congress likely chose it to anchor the document in natural law tradition.
John Adams’ Role and Word Choice
John Adams used both terms in his writings but leaned toward “unalienable” in The Rights of the Colonists (1772), which heavily influenced the Declaration.
He wrote:
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly, to property. Together these are unalienable.”
Adams viewed these rights as God-given, beyond legal manipulation – hence “unalienable.”
Constitutional and Legal Contexts
Which Term Do U.S. Legal Documents Use Today?
Interestingly, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t use either word. But the concept of unalienable/inalienable rights is baked into amendments and interpretations, especially:
- The Bill of Rights
- The 14th Amendment
- Supreme Court decisions interpreting due process and equal protection
Legal Opinions: A Snapshot
| Case Name | Term Used | Context |
| Roe v. Wade (1973) | Inalienable | Personal liberty and privacy rights |
| Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) | Inalienable | Marriage as a fundamental right |
| Citizens United v. FEC (2010) | Unalienable | Freedom of speech rights interpreted through natural law lens |
“Inalienable rights are those that cannot be bargained away, not even by contract.” – Justice Louis Brandeis
Frequency and Modern Usage
Which Word Is More Common Today?
Data doesn’t lie. Let’s look at some corpus statistics:
Google Ngram Viewer (1800–2020)
- “Inalienable” overtakes “unalienable” post-1850.
- By 1950, “inalienable” is 4x more common in books and documents.
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA)
- “Inalienable” appears 78 times per million words
- “Unalienable” appears 7 times per million words
Why the Shift?
- Legal Standardization: Modern legal writing prioritizes “inalienable.”
- Education Trends: Textbooks favor “inalienable” for clarity.
- Simplicity Bias: “Inalienable” feels more modern and neutral in tone.
But “unalienable” remains iconic – preserved in historical documents and patriotic rhetoric.
Are They Truly Interchangeable?
Linguistically: Yes, most dictionaries treat them as synonyms.
Legally and Historically: Not always.
Here’s when it matters:
- Historical accuracy: When quoting the Declaration, use “unalienable.”
- Legal clarity: In modern contracts and constitutional law, use “inalienable.”
- Philosophical discourse: Both are acceptable, but “unalienable” carries more symbolic power.
Enlightenment Roots: Philosophy Behind the Words
The Enlightenment era birthed the modern idea of natural rights – those which exist independently of government or law.
Key Philosophers on Unalienable Rights
- John Locke: Life, liberty, and property
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Freedom through social contract
- Thomas Paine: Government as protector, not grantor, of rights
These thinkers influenced the choice of “unalienable” in founding texts to highlight that rights don’t come from governments – they preexist them.
Presidential and Political Usage
Let’s see how different presidents used these terms:
| President | Term Used | Quote |
| Franklin D. Roosevelt | Inalienable | “Inalienable rights of labor…” |
| Ronald Reagan | Unalienable | “Our unalienable rights are under attack…” |
| Barack Obama | Inalienable | “The inalienable right to equality…” |
| Joe Biden | Unalienable | “The unalienable rights promised in our founding…” |
Note: Modern politicians often use “unalienable” to evoke the Declaration, and “inalienable” in policy or legal contexts.
Synonyms and Related Concepts
Sometimes, related words carry similar meanings, but aren’t perfect substitutes.
Similar Terms
- Imprescriptible: Cannot be lost by neglect
- Inviolable: Must not be violated
- Fundamental: Basic and foundational
- God-given: Innate, spiritual basis
These terms are often used alongside “inalienable” or “unalienable,” but each has its own legal and rhetorical nuance.
How to Use Each Word Today
Here’s a quick reference for writers, educators, and professionals:
| Context | Best Term | Example Usage |
| Quoting the Declaration | Unalienable | “Endowed with unalienable rights…” |
| Legal writing | Inalienable | “The inalienable right to due process…” |
| Philosophical essay | Either | “A discussion of inalienable liberties…” |
| Patriotic speech | Unalienable | “Defending our unalienable freedoms…” |
Final Thoughts
The debate between unalienable and inalienable is more than a grammatical quirk – it’s a reflection of how language shapes law, liberty, and national identity. Though both terms describe rights that cannot be taken away or transferred, their usage depends on context, history, and intent. “Unalienable” carries the revolutionary spirit of 1776, echoing Jefferson’s voice and the ideals of the Enlightenment. It appears in America’s founding documents, giving it emotional and philosophical weight.
FAQs
Are unalienable and inalienable truly synonyms?
Yes, they are considered synonyms, both meaning rights that cannot be given away or taken. However, “unalienable” is more historical, while “inalienable” is the modern legal standard.
Why did Jefferson use ‘unalienable’ instead of ‘inalienable’?
Jefferson’s original draft used “inalienable,” but Congress changed it to “unalienable” to match the political tone of the time and reflect earlier colonial writings.
Which word should I use in academic writing?
Use “inalienable” in legal, academic, or scholarly contexts, especially when referring to modern human rights law. Reserve “unalienable” for historical accuracy or rhetorical emphasis.
Is one word more legally correct than the other?
“Inalienable” is more commonly used in legal documents, legislation, and court decisions. It offers greater clarity and aligns with contemporary legal language standards.
How often is ‘unalienable’ used today compared to ‘inalienable’?
“Inalienable” is far more common in modern texts. Corpus data shows it’s used at least four times more often than “unalienable” in contemporary writing and legal discourse.
