July 16, 2025 • 13 mins
Dr. Carrese returns to continue our deep dive into the Declaration of Independence, focusing on the concept of government by consent within the document's crucial second paragraph. We explore the structure of this foundational paragraph, examining how it methodically builds the case for America's independence through careful philosophical reasoning rather than impulsive rebellion.
• Structure of the Declaration's second paragraph contains four distinct sections separated by double dashes
• Harvard scholar Danielle Allen discovered a misplaced period that changes our understanding of the document's flow
• The concept that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" is presented as a self-evident truth
• The Declaration establishes when people have not just the right but the duty to overthrow an unjust government
• "A long train of abuses" shows the founders' emphasis on prudence and patience before taking revolutionary action
• The terms "despotism" and "tyranny" were used almost interchangeably in 18th century political discourse
• Montesquieu's influence on the founders' understanding of despotic government lacking checks and balances
If you haven't listened to our previous episodes on the Declaration, we invite you to do so, as each builds upon the last to provide a comprehensive understanding of this essential founding document.
Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!
School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, my name is McKinley, I'm a junior from Utah
and I want to know how theDeclaration explains the idea of
government by consent.
Welcome back everyone.
We are really diving into theDeclaration of Independence in
kind of this.
You know series of podcasts andit's been really interesting if
(00:21):
you've joined us, been reallyinteresting if you've joined us.
Dr Kreis is back and today weare going to talk about the idea
of government by consent.
So, for people who havelistened to previous episodes,
we are still in that sameparagraph.
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.
(00:43):
Let's talk about government byconsent.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
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
(01:08):
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
(01:31):
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
(01:52):
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'sa comma, then a double dash and
(02:13):
then there's only a period atsafety and happiness 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 there.
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 there.
And it wasn't there In theoriginal text.
(02:34):
It kind of snuck in later, toocomplicated, but anyway these
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, comma.
(02:55):
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 whenever,any form of government, okay.
So here we are in the secondimportant subsection that to
(03:16):
secure these rights, governmentsare instituting among men
deriving their just powers fromconsent of the governed.
And then we get what?
If a government abuses itspower, they would 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.
(03:38):
We get now some details Agovernment is destructive of
these ends, it when they aresuppressing or abusing these
rights and a form of governmentwould have to be organized.
(04:05):
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.
(04:26):
So by the middle of the secondparagraph we get an argument
that the British governmentmaybe not so much in its form
but how that form is beingexercised by the current king
and parliament has given usAmericans no choice but to say
(04:52):
you are destructive of theseends or aims of government.
The whole point or aim ofgovernment is to secure these
unalienable rights.
And then we'll talk more aboutconsent of the governed being
the way that you ensure that.
So this form of governmentmaybe it's not the British
(05:15):
constitutional monarchy in itsoutlined form, but the way it's
being exercised now it isdestructive of these aims or
proper ends of government.
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 on the table and we'll
(05:38):
talk a little bit more about thedetails.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
How far should I go?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Up to safety and happiness.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
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
(06:04):
laying its foundations on suchprinciples and organizing its
power in such forms.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Okay, terrific, which we 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
(06:32):
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.
Now, in the remainder of thesecond paragraph, after
(06:54):
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
(07:17):
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,
(07:42):
of particularly politics, butjust interacting 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
(08:05):
transient causes of objection,light and transient issues,
problems that we're having withthe British government.
We accept that principle butthat we're having with the
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
(08:31):
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?
Is we want to prove we're notjust in a bad mood, we're not
just going off half-cocked aboutthis.
(08:52):
So 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
(09:16):
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.
(09:37):
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
(10:01):
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
(10:23):
oppressing you, suppressing you,denying rights to this degree,
with such a pattern of practice.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
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 2 (10:49):
Great question.
I would say that in generalpolitical argument in the late
18th century, tyranny anddespotism are roughly
interchangeable.
Okay, the important 18thcentury philosopher Montesquieu,
who we'll talk about in a laterepisode.
French political philosopher,he tends to use the word
(11:12):
despotism as a category ofrulers who are ruling without
other institutions or parts ofgovernment balancing them and
checking them, preventing themfrom going too far, and they
have no regard for rights of thepeople or any claims that the
(11:37):
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.
But I would say it'sinterchangeable and it certainly
means government that's notcomplying with the laws of
(12:00):
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 1 (12:10):
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 more,more, and we look forward to it
.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Thank you.
Hi, my name is McKinley, I'm a junior from Utah
and I want to know how theDeclaration explains the idea of
government by consent.
Welcome back everyone.
We are really diving into theDeclaration of Independence in
kind of this.
You know series of podcasts andit's been really interesting if
(00:21):
you've joined us, been reallyinteresting if you've joined us.
Dr Kreis is back and today weare going to talk about the idea
of government by consent.
So, for people who havelistened to previous episodes,
we are still in that sameparagraph.
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.
(00:43):
Let's talk about government byconsent.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
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
(01:08):
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
(01:31):
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
(01:52):
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'sa comma, then a double dash and
(02:13):
then there's only a period atsafety and happiness 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 there.
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 there.
And it wasn't there In theoriginal text.
(02:34):
It kind of snuck in later, toocomplicated, but anyway these
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, comma.
(02:55):
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 whenever,any form of government, okay.
So here we are in the secondimportant subsection that to
(03:16):
secure these rights, governmentsare instituting among men
deriving their just powers fromconsent of the governed.
And then we get what?
If a government abuses itspower, they would 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.
(03:38):
We get now some details Agovernment is destructive of
these ends, it when they aresuppressing or abusing these
rights and a form of governmentwould have to be organized.
(04:05):
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.
(04:26):
So by the middle of the secondparagraph we get an argument
that the British governmentmaybe not so much in its form
but how that form is beingexercised by the current king
and parliament has given usAmericans no choice but to say
(04:52):
you are destructive of theseends or aims of government.
The whole point or aim ofgovernment is to secure these
unalienable rights.
And then we'll talk more aboutconsent of the governed being
the way that you ensure that.
So this form of governmentmaybe it's not the British
(05:15):
constitutional monarchy in itsoutlined form, but the way it's
being exercised now it isdestructive of these aims or
proper ends of government.
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 on the table and we'll
(05:38):
talk a little bit more about thedetails.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
How far should I go?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Up to safety and happiness.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
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
(06:04):
laying its foundations on suchprinciples and organizing its
power in such forms.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Okay, terrific, which we 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
(06:32):
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.
Now, in the remainder of thesecond paragraph, after
(06:54):
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
(07:17):
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,
(07:42):
of particularly politics, butjust interacting 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
(08:05):
transient causes of objection,light and transient issues,
problems that we're having withthe British government.
We accept that principle butthat we're having with the
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
(08:31):
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?
Is we want to prove we're notjust in a bad mood, we're not
just going off half-cocked aboutthis.
(08:52):
So 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
(09:16):
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.
(09:37):
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
(10:01):
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
(10:23):
oppressing you, suppressing you,denying rights to this degree,
with such a pattern of practice.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
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 2 (10:49):
Great question.
I would say that in generalpolitical argument in the late
18th century, tyranny anddespotism are roughly
interchangeable.
Okay, the important 18thcentury philosopher Montesquieu,
who we'll talk about in a laterepisode.
French political philosopher,he tends to use the word
(11:12):
despotism as a category ofrulers who are ruling without
other institutions or parts ofgovernment balancing them and
checking them, preventing themfrom going too far, and they
have no regard for rights of thepeople or any claims that the
(11:37):
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.
But I would say it'sinterchangeable and it certainly
means government that's notcomplying with the laws of
(12:00):
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 1 (12:10):
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 more,more, and we look forward to it
.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.