The Declaration's Blueprint for Revolution: Understanding Your Rights Against Tyranny

Dr. Carrese continues to examine the Declaration of Independence's guidance on what citizens can do when facing government abuse of power. We explore how the document establishes the right and duty to overthrow tyrannical regimes under specific circumstances.

• Analysis of the Declaration's second paragraph structure and its four distinct subsections
• Discussion of Harvard scholar Danielle Allen's research on a contested period after "the pursuit of happiness"
• Explanation of how governments are instituted to secure unalienable rights with powers derived from consent
• Clarification of the right to "alter or abolish" destructive governments and establish new ones
• Examination of the Founders' prudent approach to revolution after "a long train of abuses"
• Comparison between despotism and tyranny as interchangeable terms for unchecked rule
• Insight into how the Declaration justifies American resistance to British imperial policies

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, my name is Audrey and I live in Arizona and I'm
in 11th grade.
My question is what does theDeclaration say that people can
do if the government abuses itspower?

Speaker 2 (00:26):
really interesting.
If you've joined us, dr Kreisis back.
For people who have listened toprevious episodes, we are still
in that same paragraph.
If you haven't listened to theprevious episodes, definitely
invite you to do that, becausethey all kind of build up on
each other.
So, dr Kreis, welcome back.

Speaker 1 (00:38):
Thank you very much, liz.
So yes, have your text of theDeclaration of Independence
handy and we are in the secondparagraph.
As I mentioned earlier, thereare really four sections to the
second paragraph and if you lookcarefully in the text you can
see double dashes in the secondparagraph and those sort of

(01:00):
break them out into foursubsections.
And the first subsection endswith pursuit of happiness.
Then I just mentioned, there'sa controversy about this period
and then the double dash.
So a wonderful scholar atHarvard University, danielle
Allen, published a book about adozen years ago called Our

(01:22):
Declaration, and it's her verycareful, intense reading of the
Declaration of Independence thatall Americans should think of
it as their birthright, theirpatrimony, as she says.
And she notices, and shementions it in an appendix

(01:43):
there's a problem with thatperiod because in a way the
first half of the secondparagraph should be seen as one
long sentence and you'll noticeso in the second section that
we're talking about now, that tosecure these rights ends with
the word governed.
Then there's a comma, then adouble dash and then there's

(02:05):
only a period at safety andhappiness later on, and she goes
back and forth.
She actually wrote to people atthe National Archives.
She recounts this in the bookthat first period after pursuit
of happiness shouldn't be thereand it wasn't there in the
original text.
It kind of snuck in later, toocomplicated, but anyway these

(02:27):
are all connected.
I want to make the argument onDanielle's grounds that the next
clause here, the second section, that to secure these rights,
it's all part of theself-evident truths.
We hold these truths to beself-evident All men are created
equal.
Now take a breath.

(02:47):
Comma next self-evident all menare created equal.
Now take a breath.
Comma.
Next self-evident truth that tosecure these rights,
governments are instituted amongmen deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.
Comma.
Then double dash that wheneverany form of government.
So here we are in the secondimportant subsection that to

(03:07):
secure these rights, governmentsare instituting men deriving
their just powers from consentof the governed.
And then we get what?
If a government abuses itspower, they will be abusing
their power if they're notresting it on consent of the
governed.
Now we're going to do.
We've got a separate episode onconsent of the governed.

(03:30):
We get now some details Agovernment is destructive of
these ends when they aresuppressing or abusing these
rights and a form of governmentwould have to be organized

(04:05):
organized.
There's a reference here to aright to overturn a government
and form a new one on suchprinciples and organizing his
powers in such a form as shallseem to them most likely to
affect their safety andhappiness.
There's an argument here aboutright forms of government and
wrong forms of government.
So by the middle of the secondparagraph we get an argument
that the British governmentmaybe not so much in its form

(04:32):
but how that form is beingexercised by the current king
and parliament has given usAmericans no choice but to say
you are destructive of theseends or aims of government.
The whole point or aim ofgovernment is to secure these

(04:55):
unalienable rights, and thenwe'll talk more about consent of
the governed being the way thatyou ensure that right.
So this form of governmentmaybe it's not the British
constitutional monarchy in itsoutlined form, but the way it's
being exercised now it isdestructive of these aims or
proper ends of government.

(05:16):
And then you know what, liz,actually why don't you read, if
you would read that thirdsubsection, that whenever any
form of government to get thatout on the table?
And we'll talk a little bitmore about the details.

Speaker 2 (05:32):
How far should I go?

Speaker 1 (05:34):
Up to safety and happiness.

Speaker 2 (05:36):
Okay that whenever any form of government becomes
destructive of these ends, it isthe right of the people to
alter or abolish it and toinstitute a new government
laying its foundations on suchprinciples and organizing its
power in such forms as to themshall seem the most likely to
affect their safety andhappiness.

Speaker 1 (05:58):
Okay, terrific.
So it rounds out with.
It closes with happiness, whichwe saw earlier was one of the
it's not an exhaustive list ofthree, but one of the three
that's so important has to belisted on alienable rights of
all human beings life, libertyand pursuit of happiness.
So a government that is notdoing what it should do in the

(06:24):
most obvious way has to beresisted, and the final form of
resistance is to alter orabolish it.
It is the right of the peopleto alter or abolish the
oppressive, unjust form ofgovernment and then possibly to
institute new government.
Okay, now, in the remainder ofthe second paragraph, after

(06:45):
happiness, we get a little bitmore complicated reasoning, the
Americans trying to say we'renot doing this.
Just, in some crazy way, wedidn't have a bad night at the
tavern last night and woke upwith a hangover and a bad mood.
We've been arguing about thisfor years with the British
government.
We've been watching things getworse and worse, and the first

(07:08):
line there, the first word inthe next part of this, is
prudence.
It's an English wordtranslating an old Greek and
then Roman philosophical conceptthat can be translated as
practical wisdom, not thehighest sort of metaphysical
wisdom about the ultimatemeaning of everything and the
universe, and such but practicalwisdom about everyday affairs,

(07:34):
of particularly politics, butjust interacting with other
human beings, politics, but justinteracting with other human
beings.
So here the claim is that we'renot impatient, we are being
fair to the British government.
Government is hard but we knowthat we're beyond light and

(07:57):
transient causes of objection,light and transient issues,
problems that we're having withthe British government.
We accept that principle, butwe're beyond the point when
evils are sufferable.
It says in the next sentencePeople get accustomed to forms

(08:23):
of government, people will putup with a lot, we've put up with
a lot and we've reached ourlimit.
Is the argument and part of thereason at the end of this
paragraph that facts will haveto be submitted, ought to be
submitted to a candid world iswe want to prove we're not just
in a bad mood, we're not justgoing off half-cocked about this

(08:44):
.
So the claim made, if you godown to the next sentence but
when?
A long train of abuses andusurpations.
This is what we Americans havelived through From the Stamp Act
crisis of the mid-1760s.
For a decade now we've beenliving through a long train of

(09:07):
abuses and usurpations andthere's evidence now that this
has been pursued invariably bythe imperial government in
London, as having the object ofand a design to reduce we
Americans under an absolutecapital D despotism.

(09:29):
Capital D despotism, that's ourclaim.
So what does a people do whenit's faced with this set of
facts, which we're about to becataloged, and this violation of
the laws of nature, nature'sGod, of the rights endowed in us
by a creator?
Well then, it is their right,it is their duty to throw off

(09:53):
such government and to providenew guards for their future
security.
It's not just a right, it's aduty, as human beings with equal
natural rights, to take thesesteps if a government is

(10:14):
oppressing you, suppressing you,denying rights to this degree,
with such a pattern of practice.

Speaker 2 (10:24):
Dr Kreis.
So in that can you kind ofexplain what is despotism?
Because in that same paragraphis tyranny.
Are those used interchangeablyin this.
So for listeners who may notknow what a despot is or
despotism, can you kind of helpus out with that.

Speaker 1 (10:41):
Great question.
I would say that in generalpolitical argument in the late
18th century, tyranny anddespotism are roughly
interchangeable.
Okay, the important 18thcentury tyranny and despotism
are roughly interchangeable.
Okay, the important 18thcentury philosopher Montesquieu,
who we'll talk about in a laterepisode, french political

(11:01):
philosopher, category of rulerswho are ruling without other
institutions or parts ofgovernment balancing them and
checking them, preventing themfrom going too far, and they

(11:23):
have no regard for rights of thepeople or any claims that the
people might have to object tohow they're ruling.
And despotism can take variousforms, but that tends to be the
way he phrases it.
Tyranny is an older word goingback to the English translation
for tyranny.
It goes all the way back to theGreek and Roman philosophers,

(11:44):
but I would say it'sinterchangeable and it certainly
means government that's notcomplying with the laws of
nature.
Nature's got an equalindividual, the laws of nature,
nature's God and equalindividual, natural rights of
all people and not consent tothe governed, as we've talked
about.

Speaker 2 (12:01):
Wonderful.
Well, thank you again,listeners.
There is so much to unpack here, so please continue to join us
on this journey.
Dr Carice, again thank you.
We will be talking to you moreand we look forward to it.

Speaker 1 (12:16):
Thank you.