Main content
Course: The Aspen Institute > Unit 1
Lesson 1: The Declaration of Independence- The American Revolution: 1775
- Background and introduction to the United States Declaration of Independence
- All men are created equal
- Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
- Tyranny and despotism
- First draft of the Declaration of Independence
- Birth of the US Constitution
- The Declaration of Independence
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Tyranny and despotism
In this video, Aspen Institute President and CEO Walter Isaacson talks to Sal about the Declaration of Independence. Created by Sal Khan and Aspen Institute.
Want to join the conversation?
- @1:20Later in American history, many of the slave owning states seceded from the Union. This passage is referring to the government, "It is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." In light of this passage, how could Lincoln say that it was illegal for these states to secede?(32 votes)
- One reason is that the Declaration of Independence is just that, a declaration with no legal standing. Lincoln's rationale was based on the Constitution which is the law of the land. The Constitution is purposefully vague at times and that leads to leaders, such as Lincoln, interpreting it differently than others, such as Jefferson Davis.(33 votes)
- Do we still have the right to alter or abolish our current form of government if it has abused our rights?(12 votes)
- Governments never give you rights, you already have them, they are simply stated so you know you have them, they are human rights. Governments only take away rights, and when they do, they are never given back, to get them back, you must reform the governing powers.(11 votes)
- who was the declaration directed at and why(4 votes)
- The U.S. Declaration of Independence had three main groups as the focus. The first was the King of England and the government of England. The second was the people of the colonies as many of them were still loyal to England at that time. Third, it was directed at countries other than England in an attempt to gain their help in Independence from England.(2 votes)
- At9:03, Walter said Paul Revere was "Riding and saying the British are coming," when actually Paul Revere was "riding and saying the Originals are coming."(2 votes)
- Paul Revere actually said, "The Regulars are out! The Regulars are out!" However, the saying is more widely recognized as "The British are coming! The British are coming!" It basically means the same thing- the Regulars are an official army, which is what the British were. So we still know what he was talking about- the British. He (Revere) just didn't say it that way.(5 votes)
- Why was King George mistreating his colonies so much? How much do we know about him and what he thought of us (the colonies)?(2 votes)
- It was ALL about the taxes. In America today, there are high taxes. Heck, the whole war against ol' Britain was caused by taxes... Aren't you thinking what I'm thinking?(4 votes)
- So what they're saying is we have the right as people to bring down a destructive government .(3 votes)
- yes, they mean that if the goverment is not a good ruler and we have a good reason we can abolish it as we, as people, have that right as so stated my the Declaration of Independence.(2 votes)
- I am not a native english speaker but I find very interesting all this kind of videos. However, it will be very helpful to my english improvement if somebody can explain me why in this text some words are written in majuscules like: Life, Happiness, Despotism, Safety...(2 votes)
- This text is over two hundred years old. The rules of grammar and the usage of the English language change over time. Today, it would be grammatically wrong to capitalise these abstract nouns, such as life, happiness etc.(4 votes)
- What does he mean by absolute despotism?(2 votes)
- Ruled by a ruler who has total power and who often uses that power in cruel and unfair ways with absolute power.(4 votes)
- Why does Walter Issacson say Parliament with such strange accent? Is that the British pronunciation?(2 votes)
- He sounds like he's from the New England region. I'm surprised to learn he was born in Louisiana(1 vote)
- At2:05they say that the Colonies have been part of the hundred year war between England and France, but the hundred Year war was over before Columbus even set sail. Of course France and England have allways been figthing different wars after that up into the 19th century. So is this a mistake or just being a bit careless with the language?(1 vote)
- Regarding the first one, yes. The Second Hundred Year's War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Hundred_Years'_War), no, as it was after.(2 votes)
Video transcript
Man 1: We've been discussing this amazing second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. We've gotten through what passes for the first two sentences. They use all sorts of
weird punctuation here. Now they're going on to
say, "That whenever any form "of government becomes
destructive of these ends, "it's the right of the
people to alter or abolish it "and to institute new
government, laying its foundation "on such principles as
organizing its powers "in such forms as to them
shall seem most likely "to affect their safety and happiness." Man 2: Just to make sure
I, because they're writing in a very - Man 1: They get a bit
ornate in this (crosstalk) They edit that first sentence a whole lot, so it's very clear, but this
sentence is a little bit ornate. Man 2: When they write,
"That whenever any form "of government becomes
destructive of these ends," they're talking again of the
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Man 1: Right. (crosstalk) In other words, if you have
a king who's taken away people's life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. This is, they're talking
about the English government, not just the Parliament,
but the king now has become destructive of these unalienable rights that we're supposed to protect. Man 2: Yeah and that we
then form a new government to affect their safety and happiness. Man 1: Right, but most
importantly, it's the right of the people to alter or abolish it. In other words, they're saying something that has not yet been
quite accepted by history, which is if you're a
people and you don't like your government, you can overthrow it. We hadn't had that many revolutions in the past 200 years leading up to that and this is the beginning
of an age of revolution, where people say, "Oh
yeah, we have the right "to abolish our government." Woah, that's a holy cow. Man 2: It's the people
doing it, not another king, not another ruler. That's most of history, is other kings. Man 1: Exactly, most of
history, for the 100 years leading up to this
document, France and England have been fighting each other. The kings of England have
been trying to supplant the kings of France and
there's been a 100 Years War, it's been ... The American Revolution's
sort of a part of that, but something different happens here. It's not one king trying
to overthrow another king, it's the right of the people
to abolish and institute a new government to
protect their own safety and happiness. The next sentence, "Prudence,
indeed, will dictate "that governments long
established should not "be changed for light
and transient causes." That, basically, is saying
you shouldn't go around doing this all the time. You have to have a really,
really good reason, because it's not as if
just because you're kind of annoyed at your government
you should overthrow it. This is why they have a
pretty long document ahead of them. This is just the first two paragraphs. Man 2: This is important. I guess, from my (unintelligible) of what this whole document is for. This is to communicate
with the rest of the world and as you mentioned,
also France, that look, we're not crazy folks here. We recognize this is a
serious thing we're doing. We don't take this lightly. Man 1: That's what this
sentence says exactly, which is you shouldn't
do it just for light and transient causes. We're going to have to
show you that we've got some real good reasons to do it. That's what it goes on to say. Especially like, "while
evils are sufferable "than to right themselves
by abolishing the forms "to which they are accustomed." In other words, these
are powerful words saying that these are the type
of things you really have to raise up arms against. Then, let's go to this sentence. Oh sorry. Man 2: I find this one really interesting. It's kind of a less famous
part of it, but it says, "and accordingly all experience hath shown "that mankind are more disposed to suffer, "while evils are sufferable
than to right themselves "by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed." It's really saying that, normally, men, even when their rights start
to get imposed, they just - Man 1: Go along with it. Man 2: It's kind of like
a frog in boiling water. They just live with it, but
when it gets too bad ... Man 1: Yeah, that's when
you have to take up arms. You're right, the whole point of that is that experience has shown
we kind of just go along with bad kings, just like
we go along with good kings. This is special, this is
different, what they're saying and that's why they
start the next sentence with the word "But". It's sort of the, "but this
is different," sentence. Why is it different? "But when a long train of
abuses and usurpation ..." Usurpation means they're
taking away our powers. "... Pursuing invariably the
same object evinces a desire "to reduce them under absolute despotism." In other words, what's
happened is the king and his parliament have
decided to reduce it so that they have all the powers. They're taxing without our consent, they're doing all sorts of things. They're quartering troops in our homes. That's when it goes on to
say, "it is their right." In other words, the right of our people. "... it is their duty to
throw off such government "and to provide new guards
for their future security." Think about that. How often had that been happening before? Man 2: Yeah, especially
for the people to do it. Man 1: Right. We very rarely have had
a people-led rebellion to say you've usurped. There's usurpation. You've usurped our rights. There's been a long train
of abuses and you've reduced us to absolute despotism. Actually, Jefferson, when
he writes that phrase, has an even grander
phrases (unintelligible) everything else and Franklin says, "I think we're going a bit overboard here. "Let's just 'say reduce them
under absolute despotism'," which means you've taken
away all our rights. You've become a despot. Man 2: Yeah. Man 1: Then it goes on
to say, "Such has been "the patient sufferance
of these colonies." In other words, we've been
pretty patient up until now. You put on a tea tax,
you put on a paper tax, you put on a stamp act,
taxation without representation. You haven't allowed us to
be part of the Parliament, voting on our own taxes. We've been pretty patient of these things "and such is now the necessity
which constrains them," meaning constrains us, the
people of the United States, "to alter their former
systems of government," and now is when they set up
what is going to be the rest of the document. They attack the king. The history of the present
king of Great Britain. We have him up there,
George III, there he is. Looking kind of nice, like (crosstalk) He looks definitely like a
royal person, but the history of this present king of
Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations. " ... all having in direct
object the establishment "of an absolute tyranny
over these states." You know what? I think they were overstating it a bit. I'm not trying to be
kind to King George here, but what they did is they tax
the tea, they tax the stamp, they were using the tax
revenues to help support the colonies. I think Parliament felt that
you could argue a little bit that we're taxing without
getting your consent, but I think they would say,
"Hey, wait, absolute tyranny? "Repeated injuries and usurpation?" They're going too far and
there was a lot of people, at least half the people in the colonies, that kind of agreed with the English. They were still loyal. So, what they do, Jefferson,
Franklin, and Adams, and the people writing this, is they say, "We're going to have to
show you why we're using "this strong language." It's a wonderful sentence to me. "To prove this, let facts be
submitted to a candid world." That's what this declaration is. We're going to give you all
the facts and try to prove it's been absolute tyranny
that we've been suffering and they worked themselves
up into convincing themselves and probably
the rest of history. Man 2: And to be fair to
them, probably in 1774, or even March of 1775, they
might have felt like that, but there was bloodshed now. People have been killed
and now, of course, people are going to be
much more passionate about the situation. Man 1: I guess you could
sense it in your own sense of history. Once people start fighting,
they get themselves a bit worked up. Man 2: Absolutely and it's British troops on American soil. It's American families,
American fathers who are dying. That's how I can imagine they would start to see these things. Man 1: Right. It starts to get out of hand
without their intention. The continental congress
didn't declare war back in 1775. You have a bunch of
militia people in Lexington and Concord getting all
riled up by Paul Revere, because the British
are coming to take some of the munitions out of
the arsenals in Lexington and Concord. He's riding and saying
the British are coming and then the militiamen
come out and suddenly, up in Massachusetts, this
revolution that even most of the people in the
continental congress weren't quite ready for, has
begun to happen and ... (crosstalk) Man 2: After this, they go on and list. Man 1: That's the rest of the document. The rest of the Declaration
is just line after line of the king has done this,
the king has done that, and most importantly, as you see in this, the history of the present
king of Great Britain, they're revolting now against the king, not just the Parliament
that has voted these taxes, but they're saying it's the king himself that we're rebelling against
and that's what made it a true revolution, rather
than just trying to get rid of the Parliament, which is temporary. Man 2: Fascinating.