PAGE 4 (5 FOR PROFESSOR)

Part 1 – Jefferson’s Opening Statement

“The Declaration of Independence opens with Thomas Jefferson explaining why the
colonies are breaking away from Britain. He writes that ‘when in the course of human
events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands… and to
assume… the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God
entitle them…’ In other words, when people decide to separate from another government,
they have a natural and God-given right to do so. Jefferson also says they should explain
their reasons out of respect for the world’s opinion.”

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, find the phrase ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God’ in the paragraph. Use
the surrounding text to figure out what Jefferson means by it. Then, write a one-sentence
definition in your own words. Share your sentence with your group, then pick the clearest
one to share with the class.”

Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ standpoint—deeply influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John

Locke—the “Laws of Nature” referred to universal moral principles discoverable by human
reason, applying to all people regardless of culture or government. These included rights to
life, liberty, and property, which existed prior to the formation of any political authority. The
“Laws of Nature’s God” affirmed that these rights were not merely philosophical but
divinely ordained, giving them a moral authority higher than any earthly ruler or parliament.
By invoking this phrase, Jefferson and the Continental Congress were grounding the
colonies’ claim to independence in both natural law and divine will, asserting that Britain’s
actions had violated these higher laws and therefore justified separation.
 PAGE 5 (6 and 7 for professor)
Part 1 – Jefferson on Rights and Government

“In one of the most famous passages of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson writes:
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…’ He declares that
certain rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—are unalienable, meaning they
cannot be taken away because they are given by the Creator. He explains that governments
are created to protect these rights and get their just powers from the consent of the
governed. If a government becomes destructive of these rights, the people have the right to
change or abolish it and establish a new one. However, Jefferson also warns that
governments should not be changed for minor or temporary reasons, because people tend
to tolerate suffering rather than disrupt the systems they are used to.”

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, answer the following:

1. How does Jefferson’s description of rights connect to your understanding of the

American system of government?

2. In this context, what does Jefferson mean by liberty?

3. Name one characteristic of government that Jefferson mentions in this paragraph.

4. Explain one claim Jefferson makes about the purpose of government.

Write down your group’s answers and be prepared to share at least one with the
class.”

Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ consensus perspective, Jefferson’s words distilled the Enlightenment
ideal—especially from Locke—that government exists solely to secure preexisting, God-
given rights. Liberty here meant not mere freedom from restraint, but the capacity to live
under just laws that protect personal autonomy and property while preventing arbitrary
rule. The characteristic of government he emphasizes is legitimacy through the consent
of the governed, which requires that authority be accountable to the people it serves. His
claim about the purpose of government is that its only just role is to protect life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness; when it fails in that mission, the people retain the sovereign
right to reform or replace it. This reflects the Founders’ belief that government is a
conditional trust from the people—not a permanent authority above them

PAGE 6 (8 FOR PROFESSOR)

Part 1 – Right and Duty to Resist Tyranny

“Jefferson writes that when a ‘long train of abuses and usurpations’ shows a clear pattern
of trying to reduce people under absolute despotism, it is not only the right—but the duty—
of the people to overthrow that government and establish new protections for their
security. He explains that the colonies have shown ‘patient sufferance’ but can no longer
tolerate the repeated injuries and power grabs of the British king. This section transitions
into the list of grievances that follows, which Jefferson calls ‘Facts… submitted to a candid
world.’ In other words, they are going to prove, point by point, that the king has acted as a
tyrant.”

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, discuss these two questions:

1. According to Jefferson, under what conditions are people justified in throwing off a
government?

2. What does this passage tell us about Jefferson’s overall perspective on government?
Write down your answers. Be ready to share your group’s reasoning, and make sure
to connect it to examples from this text.

Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ consensus perspective, people are justified in overthrowing a

government only when there is a sustained, deliberate pattern of rights violations—not
from isolated mistakes or temporary mismanagement. Jefferson and his colleagues
believed that a government showing a clear intent to impose absolute rule had forfeited its
legitimacy. This reflects their view that legitimate government is conditional, resting entirely
on its protection of natural rights and the consent of the governed. In this passage,
Jefferson frames the Revolution as both lawful and morally necessary, arguing that
enduring tyranny would be a betrayal of the people’s duty to preserve liberty for themselves
and future generations. The tone and structure make clear that this was not an impulsive
rebellion, but a reasoned and justified act grounded in political philosophy and historical
precedent.

PAGE 7 (9 FOR PROFESSOR)

Part 1 – From Grievances to Independence

“Jefferson moves from broad political principles to specific evidence. He lists the King’s
repeated refusals to approve necessary laws, interference with colonial legislatures, and
neglect of urgent matters. Even when the colonies petitioned respectfully for change, the
response was ‘repeated injury.’ Jefferson concludes that a ruler who behaves this way is
‘unfit to be the ruler of a free people.’ Finally, in the name of the people, the Continental
Congress declares the colonies to be ‘Free and Independent States’—absolved of all
allegiance to the British Crown, with all political ties to Britain totally dissolved.”

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, answer the following:

1. How does Jefferson’s list of grievances connect to his earlier points about the nature
and purpose of government?

2. How do these grievances serve as evidence to support his claim that independence
is justified?
Write down your answers, using specific examples from the text. Be ready to share
one with the class.”

Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ perspective, these grievances were the logical proof of the
philosophical argument laid out earlier in the Declaration. Jefferson had already
established that government exists to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. The King’s repeated obstruction
of laws, denial of representation, and disregard for colonial petitions demonstrated a
sustained violation of these principles. By presenting this pattern of abuse, the Declaration
transforms abstract political theory into concrete evidence of tyranny. This structure was
intentional: the Founders were appealing to the “candid world” as a jury, showing that they
had exhausted peaceful remedies and that separation was the only remaining course
consistent with their duty to preserve liberty.

PAGE 8 (10 AND 11 FOR PROFESSOR)

Part 1 – Jefferson’s Political Science Framework

“Jefferson’s writing in the Declaration of Independence isn’t just revolutionary rhetoric—it’s

a structured political argument. He applies certain characteristics to good government: it
must protect natural rights, operate with the consent of the governed, and be accountable
to the people. He also clearly defines bad government: one that violates rights, rules
without consent, and uses its power to impose tyranny. His claim is that the British Crown
has systematically broken the social contract, making independence both justified and
necessary. To prove this, Jefferson offers a detailed list of grievances as evidence.”

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, complete this chart:

1. Two characteristics of good government Jefferson identifies.

2. Traits of bad government according to Jefferson.

3. Jefferson’s main claim in the Declaration.

4. Evidence he uses to support that claim.

5. Identify whether his reasoning is based on causation or comparison—and explain

why.

6. Write one sentence explaining how Jefferson’s evidence supports his claim.
Be ready to share one part of your chart with the class.”

Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ consensus perspective, Jefferson applied two defining traits to
legitimate government: it exists to protect the people’s natural rights and it derives its
power from their consent. In contrast, bad government is characterized by a consistent
pattern of abuses, ruling without consent, and seeking to centralize power for arbitrary
control—traits they saw in the British monarchy’s treatment of the colonies. Jefferson’s
central claim was that Britain’s government had become destructive of the very ends for
which governments are formed, thus forfeiting its legitimacy. His evidence—such as
obstructing colonial laws, dissolving representative bodies, and ignoring petitions—
established a clear cause-and-effect link between these abuses and the need for
independence. The reasoning process here is causation: repeated, deliberate violations of
rights caused the colonies to conclude that separation was necessary. This structure
mirrors Enlightenment political thought, framing the Revolution as the logical and moral
outcome of Britain’s sustained breach of the social contract.

PAGE 9 (12 FOR PROFESSOR)

Part 1 – Locke’s State of Nature

“In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke explains that to truly understand
political power, we have to start from its origin—the natural state of humanity. Locke
describes this state of nature as a condition of perfect freedom. In this state, people can
direct their own actions and manage their own property and lives as they see fit, so long as
they stay within the limits of the law of nature. In other words, individuals are naturally free
and equal, not subject to anyone else’s will, and they don’t need permission from others to
make choices about their lives.”

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, answer this question: According to Locke, what is the natural state of men?
Write a one-sentence answer in your own words. Then, briefly discuss whether you think
people today still enjoy aspects of this ‘state of nature,’ or whether we’ve given most of that
freedom to government in exchange for other benefits.”

Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ consensus perspective, Locke’s state of nature was the philosophical
starting point for understanding rights and political authority. In this state, all individuals
are naturally free and equal, possessing the inherent right to govern themselves and
manage their property without external control—except for the moral constraints of natural
law, which forbid harming others in their life, liberty, or possessions. The Founders
embraced this as the foundation of legitimate government: political authority is not granted
by kings or elites but originates in the people’s natural freedom. Government, therefore,
exists only because free individuals consent to limit some of that liberty in order to protect
their rights more securely. This principle was central to Jefferson’s reasoning in the
Declaration of Independence and to the constitutional system that followed.

PAGE 10 (13 AND 14 FOR PROFESSOR)

Part 1 – Locke on Equality and the Law of Nature

“Locke writes that the state of nature is also a state of equality. All people are born with the
same natural advantages and abilities, so no one naturally has more power or authority
than another. The only way one person could be set above others is if God Himself clearly
gave that authority. Locke also explains that the state of nature is governed by the law of
nature, which is reason. Reason teaches that since all are equal and independent, no one
should harm another’s life, health, liberty, or possessions. People have a duty to preserve
themselves and, when possible, to preserve others—except when punishing an offender to
uphold justice.”

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, answer these questions:

1. Paraphrase Locke’s first paragraph here in your own words—what is he saying about
equality?

2. According to Locke, what could set one person above another?

3. What is Locke’s claim about the state of nature in this passage?

Write your answers and be ready to share at least one with the class.”

Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ consensus perspective, Locke’s point about equality was central to
their rejection of monarchy and inherited privilege. All human beings are equal in rights
because they share the same natural faculties and moral standing, and no one has
legitimate authority over another unless it is expressly granted by God—a standard the
Founders argued kings could not meet. His claim about the state of nature was that it is not
lawless; rather, it is bound by the law of nature—reason—which forbids harming others in
their life, liberty, or property. This concept directly influenced the Declaration of
Independence’s assertion that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights.” For the Founders, Locke’s reasoning provided the
philosophical basis for limiting governmental power, ensuring that it exists to protect, not
violate, the natural equality and rights of every citizen.

PAGE 11 (15 FOR PROFESSOR)

Part 1 – Locke on Consent, Society, and Limits to Power

“Locke argues that all men are naturally free, equal, and independent, and no one can be
subjected to the authority of another without consent. The only way to leave the state of
nature is by voluntarily joining with others to form a political community. People give up
some natural liberty to live together peacefully, protect their property, and secure
themselves from external threats. Once formed, the community operates as a body politic,
where the majority can act on behalf of all. Even so, government power is limited—it exists
only to protect life, liberty, and property, and must be exercised for the common good.
Laws must be enforced by impartial judges, and force can only be used to uphold the law
domestically or to defend against foreign threats.

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, answer the following:

1. Highlight or underline Locke’s reasons for why people give up living in a state of
nature to form a political society.

2. What do people give up when they leave the state of nature and consent to be
governed? What do they gain?

3. What are the limits of governmental power according to Locke? How are those limits
reflected in the U.S. Government today?
Write your answers and be ready to share at least one example with the class.”

Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ consensus perspective, Locke’s reasoning established the

philosophical basis for the American understanding of legitimate government. People give
up absolute individual liberty and the right to enforce the law themselves when they enter
society, but in return they gain the security, stability, and impartial justice that comes from
an organized political system. The limits of governmental power are clear: it exists solely to
protect life, liberty, and property for the common good. Government may not extend its
authority beyond what is necessary for public peace, safety, and security, and it must
operate under laws applied equally to all. The U.S. Constitution reflects these limits
through separation of powers, checks and balances, and enumerated powers—structural
safeguards designed to ensure that political authority remains a servant of the people’s
rights, not a master over them.

PAGE 12 (16 AND 17 FOR PROFESSOR)

Part 1 – Locke on Tyranny and the Dissolution of Government

“In Section 199, Locke defines tyranny as the exercise of power beyond what is right—when
a ruler uses authority not for the benefit of the people, but for personal gain. This happens
when a governor replaces the law with his own will, acting out of ambition, greed, revenge,
or other selfish motives, instead of protecting the people’s property and rights.
In Section 222, Locke explains that the purpose of society and government is to protect
property through laws that limit power. When legislators or rulers try to destroy property or
enslave people under arbitrary power, they break the trust given to them. This breach
places them in a state of war with the people, freeing citizens from any obligation to obey.
The people then have the right to reclaim their original liberty and create a new government
that will ensure their safety and security.

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, do the following:

1. Summarize Locke’s definition of tyranny from Section 199 in your own words.

2. Compare Locke’s view of tyranny to Jefferson’s argument in the Declaration of

Independence—how are they similar?

3. According to Locke, what is the consequence when government threatens the

people’s rights?
Be prepared to share one example from your discussion with the class.”

Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ perspective, Locke’s definition of tyranny was a precise standard for
judging legitimate authority. A government that rules by personal will rather than
established law, and that serves its own interests instead of the people’s rights, is
illegitimate. This parallels Jefferson’s reasoning in the Declaration, where he presents a
“long train of abuses” as proof that the British Crown acted not for colonial welfare but for
its own control and gain. Both Locke and Jefferson see the consequence of such behavior
as the dissolution of the political bond between ruler and people: the breach of trust
returns sovereignty to the people, who may lawfully replace the government. For the
Founders, this was not rebellion without cause but the rightful exercise of self-preservation
under natural law, grounded in both moral philosophy and legal tradition.

PAGE 13 (PAGE 18 FOR PROFESSOR)

Part 1 – Locke’s Equality, Rights, and Social Contract

“John Locke defined equality as the condition in which all people are naturally free and
have the same moral and legal standing—no one is born with the right to rule over another
unless God clearly grants that authority. In the state of nature, all individuals are entitled to
life, liberty, and property, and reason—the law of nature—teaches that no one ought to
harm another in those rights. The social contract occurs when individuals voluntarily
consent to join a political community, giving up some natural freedoms in exchange for the
security, order, and protection that government provides. In return, government is bound to
act only for the common good, protect rights impartially, and operate with the consent of
the governed.”

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, answer these questions:

1. How did Locke conclude that men are equal in a state of nature?

2. How did he reason that governments were formed from that state?

3. Do you find his argument compelling? Why or why not?

4. What evidence in Locke’s Second Treatise best supports his claims about equality
and the formation of government?
Write your answers in your own words, then choose one question to share with the
class.”
Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ consensus perspective, Locke’s conclusion that men are equal in a
state of nature rests on the premise that all human beings share the same natural faculties,
moral obligations, and God-given rights. This equality is self-evident and prior to any
political arrangement. Governments arise, in Locke’s reasoning, when free and equal
individuals consent to unite for the mutual protection of their rights, particularly property,
which he defined broadly to include life, liberty, and possessions. This consent transforms
the dispersed authority of individuals into a centralized legislative and judicial power,
limited to serving the common good. The most persuasive evidence Locke provides is the
logical sequence of his argument: if all are equal and independent, no one may rightfully
rule another without consent, and if government violates this trust, sovereignty reverts to
the people. For the Founders, this framework was both morally compelling and politically
practical—it justified independence from Britain and informed the structure of the U.S.
Constitution.

PAGE 9 (PAGE 12 FOR PROFESSOR)

Part 1 – Locke on the Natural State of Men

“Locke begins his Second Treatise of Government by asking what political power is and
where it originates. He says we must first look at the state of nature—the natural condition
of mankind before government. In this state, all men live in perfect freedom to direct their
own actions and manage their property and lives as they think best. This freedom is limited
only by the law of nature, which means individuals cannot harm others in their rights. In
short, people are naturally free and independent, not subject to the authority of any other
person.”

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, answer the question: According to Locke, what is the natural state of men?
Write your answer in one clear sentence, in your own words. Then, discuss briefly: Do you
think people today still experience aspects of this natural freedom, or has government
absorbed nearly all of it? Be ready to share one idea with the class.”
Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ consensus perspective, Locke’s definition of the state of nature was
foundational: men are naturally free, equal, and independent, possessing inherent rights
that exist prior to and above any government. The state of nature is not lawless anarchy but
guided by the law of reason, which obliges every person to respect the life, liberty, and
property of others. The Founders embraced this as the philosophical starting point for the
American experiment—if rights exist before government, then government can only be
legitimate if it is created by consent and designed to secure those rights. This principle
directly informed Jefferson’s claim in the Declaration of Independence that people are
“endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

PAGE 10 (PAGE 13 and 14 FOR PROFESSOR)

Part 1 – Locke on Equality and the Law of Nature

“Locke explains that in the state of nature, all people are in a condition of equality. No one
has more natural power or authority than another, since all are born with the same
advantages of nature and the same faculties of reason. The only way one person could
rightfully be placed above others is if God Himself were to clearly appoint it. Locke adds
that the state of nature is not lawless—it is governed by the law of nature, which is reason.
Reason teaches that because all are equal and independent, no one ought to harm another
in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. People are obligated to preserve themselves and,
when possible, to preserve the rest of mankind.”

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, answer these questions:

1. According to Locke, what could set one man above another?

2. What is Locke’s claim about the state of nature in this paragraph?

Write your answers in one or two sentences. Then, discuss: Do you think Locke’s
idea that all men are naturally equal matches reality in society today? Why or why
not?”
Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ perspective, Locke’s argument about equality and natural law provided
a direct challenge to monarchy and inherited privilege. Since no one is born with authority
over another, government cannot be justified by birthright or tradition; it must rest on
consent. The state of nature is not anarchy but a moral order governed by reason,
obligating all people to respect each other’s life, liberty, and property. This claim directly
shaped Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence: “all men are created equal”
and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The Founders saw Locke’s
teaching as the bedrock principle of legitimate government—human equality as the
starting point, with political power derived only through the consent of the governed.

PAGE 11 (PAGE 15 FOR PROFESSOR)

Part 1 – Locke on Leaving the State of Nature

“Locke explains that all men are naturally free, equal, and independent, and no one can be
subjected to another’s political authority without consent. The only way people leave the
state of nature is by agreeing together to form a political community. In doing so, they give
up part of their natural liberty—the absolute freedom to act and enforce natural law on
their own—in exchange for the benefits of civil society: peace, safety, and secure
enjoyment of property. Once they consent to form a body politic, the majority has the
authority to act on behalf of the whole community. Even so, the power of government is
limited: it exists only to protect life, liberty, and property, through impartial laws, upright
judges, and the common defense.”

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, discuss the following:

1. According to Locke, what do people give up when they leave the state of nature and
consent to be governed? What do they gain?

2. What are the limits of governmental power according to Locke?

3. How are those limits reflected in the U.S. Government today?

Write down your answers, then share one example of how Locke’s ideas show up in
our Constitution or government structure.”
Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ perspective, Locke’s social contract was the cornerstone of legitimate
government. Men give up the unrestricted liberty of the state of nature—the ability to act as
judge, jury, and enforcer in their own cause. What they gain is far more valuable: a stable
system of law, impartial judges, and the collective force of the community to protect their
rights more effectively than individuals could on their own. The limits of governmental
power, Locke insists, are strict: it must never extend beyond the common good and must
always secure life, liberty, and property. The Founders institutionalized these limits through
separation of powers, checks and balances, and written constitutional guarantees of
rights. In their view, government is a trust granted by the people, and when it exceeds these
boundaries, it ceases to be legitimate.

PAGE 12 (PAGE 16 and 17 FOR PROFESSOR)

Part 1 – Locke on Tyranny and Dissolution of Government

“In Section 199, Locke defines tyranny as the use of power beyond right, for selfish
purposes rather than for the good of the people. A ruler becomes a tyrant when his will, not
the law, is the rule—when ambition, greed, or revenge guide his actions instead of the
preservation of the people’s property and rights.
In Section 222, Locke reminds us that the purpose of society and government is the
protection of property broadly understood—life, liberty, and possessions. When lawmakers
or rulers try to destroy property or enslave the people under arbitrary power, they violate
the trust placed in them. This betrayal puts the government in a state of war with the
people, releasing citizens from obedience and restoring their right to reclaim liberty and
form a new government for their safety and security.”

Part 2 – Student Interaction & Activity

“At your tables, discuss the following:

1. How does Locke’s argument about tyranny compare to Jefferson’s argument in the
Declaration of Independence?

2. What does Locke argue is the consequence when government threatens the rights
of the people?
 Write down your answers, and be prepared to share one example that connects
Locke’s philosophy with Jefferson’s words in 1776.”

Part 3 – Academic/Founders’ Perspective

From the Founders’ consensus perspective, Locke and Jefferson were in close agreement:
government exists to secure natural rights, and when it becomes destructive of those ends,
it loses legitimacy. Both describe tyranny not as a single abuse, but as a sustained pattern
of violations driven by ambition and arbitrary power. For Locke, the consequence of such
tyranny is clear—government enters into a state of war with the people, breaking the social
contract. At that moment, sovereignty reverts to the people, who have both the right and
the duty to establish a new political order that protects their rights. Jefferson echoed this
reasoning in the Declaration of Independence, where he listed the King’s repeated injuries
and usurpations as proof of tyranny, and declared that Americans were therefore absolved
of allegiance to Britain. For both Locke and the Founders, revolution was not lawlessness,
but the lawful remedy when government betrayed its purpose.