+274 (second amendment interpretation 206: Another Argument For Capitalized References- 3: A Citation Support ))

While today's grammar text may not be so careful, this is how this grammar book from 1767 titled "A grammar of the English language" by William Ward, explains proper and common nouns on page 19 (After complementing Google on enabling direct copying of the text, below, I noticed that it is not an exact copy. But it is still good enough for my purpose here):

Noun Substantives are of two Sorts, the Proper, and the Common or Appellative. 

Noun Substantives proper are more usually called Proper Names; being intended each to express one single individual Object to which the Name is appropriated ; as, John N—, Mary M , London, Paris, Greece, Italy. The Thames, The Seine, Sec. 

Common or Appellative Substantives are Names, each of which is common to every Object of a whole Class or Species; as a Man, is a Name common to every Man ; and so of other Instances. 

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=SsQDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&pg=GBS.PA19

(Despite how the text looks like it was just scanned, I was surprised to see that google enables direct copying of the text. Maybe I need to try the same elsewhere before thinking that I would need to copy the text typing)

One can notice how the definition for  proper noun is worded in a subjective sense in the use of the word "intended" and the word "appropriated" while the definition for common nouns expressed things in a more direct form.

Also, like it was mentioned in the earlier talk about "well regulated Militia" here, the capitalization of the word "object" in "individual Object" requires the reference target of that word to be used directly not through seeing it meant an instance of a class. Of course, this is mentioned here to add supporting fit and not for direct support for my capitalized reference argument which I put closer to the root.  
(Never mind the change of text color in my posts. Google's editor seems to have its own mind)