The following is the complete transcription of the Declaration of Independence as preserved by the U.S. National Archives. Spelling, punctuation, and capitalization have been retained as in the original.
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the 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. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New York
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Maryland
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
North Carolina
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Georgia
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Understanding the Declaration of Independence
Historical Context
The Declaration of Independence did not appear in a vacuum. It emerged from a long chain of political disputes, philosophical influences, and practical frustrations that had been building for more than a decade before 1776. When we read the document today, it is easy to treat it as a sudden and dramatic break with the British Empire, spoken into existence on a single summer day in Philadelphia. The truth is more complicated, and far more interesting, because the Declaration represents a point where political theory, colonial experience, and Enlightenment ideals all converged.
The trouble began after the French and Indian War, when Britain found itself deeply in debt and looked to its American colonies for new revenue. The Stamp Act of 1765 was the first major spark. It required colonists to pay taxes on printed materials, legal documents, and newspapers. The colonists had no representation in Parliament, and the principle that taxation required representation had been central to English political identity for generations. This was not just a financial problem, it was a constitutional problem, and the reaction was fierce.
When Britain repealed the Stamp Act but immediately passed the Declaratory Act, asserting complete authority to legislate for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever,” the fundamental conflict became clear. Parliament believed it held absolute sovereignty over the colonies. The colonists believed their rights as Englishmen prevented that kind of unchecked authority.
More tensions followed. The Townshend Acts placed duties on common imports like glass and tea. The Tea Act of 1773 attempted to rescue the struggling East India Company but also undercut colonial merchants. The destruction of tea in Boston’s harbor was a dramatic protest, but it was the response that radicalized the colonies. Britain closed Boston’s port, altered Massachusetts governance, allowed royal officials accused of crimes to be tried elsewhere, and permitted soldiers to be quartered in private buildings when necessary. These “Intolerable Acts,” as colonists called them, convinced many that Britain was abandoning the norms of self-government that had defined colonial life for decades.
In 1774, the First Continental Congress convened to coordinate a unified response. The colonies were not yet seeking independence. They wanted rights restored, not separation. Even after fighting broke out at Lexington and Concord in 1775, many hoped for reconciliation. The Olive Branch Petition was a final attempt to avoid a permanent break. King George rejected it and declared the colonies in rebellion. At that moment, it became clear that the political relationship was no longer repairable.
Underneath the immediate conflicts lay deeper intellectual currents. Enlightenment thinkers had offered a new foundation for political legitimacy. John Locke, in particular, argued that governments exist to protect natural rights. Authority comes from the consent of the governed. When a government behaves arbitrarily or becomes destructive of those rights, people have not only a right but a duty to alter or abolish it. These ideas were widely read and discussed in the colonies. Newspapers and pamphlets spread them far beyond the educated elite.
By the time Congress met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776, the colonies had endured years of economic pressure, military confrontation, and political dismissal from the Crown. Public sentiment had shifted. A common identity was forming, and so was a common grievance. Independence was no longer a fringe idea. It was a logical conclusion drawn from both lived experience and philosophical conviction.
The Declaration of Independence is the product of that moment. It is a statement of political separation, but also a distillation of the ideals that shaped the emerging American character. It speaks to practical injuries and moral principles at the same time. Understanding the world that produced it allows us to understand why its authors saw revolution not as a reckless gamble but as the necessary act of a people who believed their rights had been fundamentally violated.
How the Document Was Written
Although the Declaration of Independence carries the aura of inevitability today, the document itself was the product of committee work, political negotiation, and revision. It did not emerge from the mind of one person in finished form. It was shaped through a careful drafting process that reflected the varied interests and temperaments of the Continental Congress.
In June 1776, as the push for independence gained momentum, Congress appointed a group now known as the Committee of Five. Its members were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston. Jefferson, at thirty-three, was the youngest. He was widely admired for his writing, so the other members selected him to prepare the initial draft.
Jefferson wrote quickly. He drew from Enlightenment philosophy, earlier colonial declarations, and the long tradition of English political rights. He also relied heavily on his own notes about the grievances that had accumulated across the previous decade. In a matter of days he produced a draft that laid out the case for independence in three parts: a statement of general political principles, a list of injuries committed by the Crown, and a formal declaration that the colonies were dissolving their ties with Britain.
Once Jefferson finished, he presented the draft to Adams and Franklin for suggested changes. Both men made edits, some minor and some substantive. Franklin softened a few phrases and removed a theological reference that he found unnecessary. Adams strengthened some of the legal language. These edits improved clarity and tone without altering the core ideas. Together, the three produced a polished version that they brought back to the full committee.
The Committee of Five approved the revised text and delivered it to Congress on June 28. What followed was a long and sometimes heated debate in which delegates proposed modifications. Congress removed about a quarter of Jefferson’s original draft. The most significant deletion was a passage condemning the British Crown for protecting the slave trade. Southern colonies, as well as some northern merchants, rejected this language. The final version therefore omitted any direct criticism of slavery despite Jefferson’s desire to include it.
This editing process is important because it reveals the Declaration as a political document shaped by the realities of coalition building. Jefferson had his ideals, but Congress had to produce a statement that all thirteen colonies could endorse. The final text reflects those compromises without diminishing the power of its central ideas.
On July 2, Congress voted for independence. On July 4, it approved the final wording of the Declaration. Printed copies, known as broadsides, were distributed throughout the colonies. The famous parchment version, written in large, clear script and signed by delegates, was prepared later. Most signatures were added on August 2 in Philadelphia. A few were added after that date as delegates returned or received permission to sign.
What emerges from this history is a picture of collaboration grounded in shared conviction. Jefferson provided the voice, but Congress gave the document its final shape. The Declaration is the product of discussion, editing, and compromise, which makes its clarity and force all the more remarkable.
Key Ideas in the Text
The Declaration of Independence is often remembered for its most famous phrases, yet the power of the document lies in the full structure of its argument. It begins with a statement of political philosophy, moves to a list of specific grievances, and then arrives at the conclusion that separation from Britain is both justified and necessary. Each part serves a purpose. Together, they form a clear chain of reasoning that explains not only what the colonies intended to do, but why they believed they had the moral and legal right to do it.
The preamble, which includes the line “all men are created equal,” sets out the philosophical foundation. This section draws heavily from Enlightenment thought. Jefferson’s language reflects the belief that human beings possess inherent rights, not because a government grants them, but because they belong to people by virtue of their existence. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are presented as natural rights, and governments exist to secure those rights. This is a radical shift from older ideas that saw power as something bestowed by tradition or divine right.
Another key idea in the preamble is the concept of consent. Governments are legitimate only when the people agree to them. This idea reaches back to Locke and the broader Enlightenment tradition, where political authority must be grounded in agreement rather than force. If a government becomes destructive of the very rights it is supposed to protect, the people may alter or abolish it. The Declaration does not treat this as an impulsive or casual option. It acknowledges that long-established governments should not be changed for light or transient causes. The right of revolution is a serious undertaking, justified only when abuses become systemic.
After establishing the philosophical groundwork, the Declaration moves into a detailed list of grievances. These grievances are not rhetorical flourishes. They serve as evidence. Jefferson and the Congress intended to demonstrate that the British Crown had violated the principles laid out in the preamble. The charges include interference with colonial legislatures, imposition of taxes without consent, obstruction of justice, standing armies placed among the population in peacetime, and repeated attempts to override local governance. Each item is meant to show a pattern of actions that undermined the colonists’ rights and left no peaceful remedy.
The final section declares that the colonies are now “free and independent states.” This is the conclusion of the argument. The colonies had tried petitions and negotiations for years, and those efforts had failed. According to the Declaration’s logic, independence was not an act of rebellion for its own sake, but the necessary step that followed from the evidence presented. The document dissolves political ties with Britain and asserts the powers of a sovereign nation, such as making treaties, raising armies, and engaging in commerce.
These ideas continue to resonate because they express a universal claim about human dignity and the responsibilities of government. The Declaration is not a legal framework, and it was never meant to serve as one. It is a statement of principles meant to justify a political separation. Its power lies in the clarity with which it explains those principles, and in the commitment to the idea that legitimate government must safeguard the rights of the people it serves.
Common Misinterpretations
The Declaration of Independence is one of the most quoted documents in American political life, and that popularity brings frequent misunderstandings. Some come from genuine confusion, others from selective readings that serve modern political goals. Sorting out what the document actually says from what people often claim it says helps protect the historical integrity of the text and encourages a more honest national conversation.
One common mistake is treating the Declaration as if it were a legal authority. It is not. The Declaration has no binding legal power, and it is not part of the Constitution. Courts do not rely on it to determine the meaning of American law. Its purpose was to justify a political separation and to articulate the philosophical principles behind that decision. When modern arguments present it as a legal foundation for specific policies, they give it a role it was never meant to play.
Another misunderstanding comes from attempts to frame the United States as a Christian nation based on the Declaration’s language. The text does refer to a “Creator” and “Nature’s God,” but these phrases reflect the deist vocabulary of the Enlightenment. The founders used broad, philosophical terms that emphasized a source of natural rights rather than endorsing any specific religious tradition. The Declaration contains no reference to Jesus, no appeal to biblical authority, and no establishment of a Christian identity. Claims that it sets the United States on a religious foundation simply do not align with the document’s language or intent.
The line “all men are created equal” is also frequently misinterpreted. Taken in isolation, it can be presented as evidence that the founders believed fully in universal equality. The historical reality is more complicated. Many of the men who signed the Declaration owned enslaved people, and the original draft included a passage condemning the slave trade that Congress removed under pressure from colonies whose economies depended on it. The phrase in the final document expresses an ideal, not a description of the society that produced it. It is a standard that Americans have struggled to reach rather than a reflection of lived equality in 1776.
Another frequent distortion involves the idea of “small government.” The Declaration criticizes the British Crown for abuses of power, but it does not outline a preference for minimal government in the modern sense. Its grievances concern unrepresentative authority, not the size of government itself. The colonists objected to being governed without consent, not to government action as such. When contemporary arguments treat the Declaration as a manifesto against regulation or government programs, they rely on a meaning the text does not support.
Finally, the grievances themselves are often cherry-picked. Some modern commentators highlight specific complaints, such as taxation without consent, while ignoring others that reflect broader concerns about justice, military authority, and representative government. The list is meant to be read as a whole. It demonstrates a pattern of actions that convinced the colonies that peaceful remedies were exhausted. Using individual grievances as stand-alone claims tends to distort the reasoning that the document presents.
These misunderstandings matter because the Declaration is frequently invoked in debates about American identity. Preserving its actual meaning allows it to remain what it is: a powerful statement about the rights of people and the responsibilities of governments. Treating it as a source of modern partisan talking points obscures its purpose and diminishes the clarity with which it speaks to human dignity and political legitimacy.
Why the Declaration Still Matters
The Declaration of Independence remains influential not because of its age, but because of the ideas it sets in motion. When people return to the text today, they often come seeking answers to modern political disputes. The document cannot provide those answers directly, yet it continues to shape the national conversation by grounding it in a set of principles that reach beyond the events of 1776. The Declaration tells us what the founders believed a just government ought to be, and it challenges each generation to examine whether its institutions are living up to that standard.
The heart of the Declaration lies in its insistence that rights are inherent and that governments are created to secure them. This idea has guided countless movements for equality and reform. Abolitionists, women’s suffrage advocates, civil rights organizers, and many others have pointed to the Declaration to show that the promise of equality was larger than the society that first proclaimed it. They saw in its language a call to complete unfinished work, not a certificate stating that the work was already done.
The Declaration also offers a reminder that legitimacy depends on consent, reason, and accountability. The founders did not imagine that governments are self-correcting by nature. They believed that free societies require vigilance, discussion, and mechanisms for peaceful change. The right to challenge authority, which the Declaration frames as a moral responsibility when abuses become intolerable, helps explain why Americans often speak of their political system as an ongoing project rather than a fixed inheritance.
The document’s continued relevance can also be seen in its approach to political disagreement. It presents a clear argument supported by evidence drawn from lived experience. It does not rely on divine command, royal privilege, or the coercive weight of tradition. Instead, it invites the reader to consider whether the claims are justified. This approach reflects a commitment to reason and open debate, which remains essential for any society that wants to govern itself without fear or intimidation.
Finally, the Declaration matters because it expresses an aspiration. Its most famous words describe a world that the founders themselves did not create, yet they gave us a vocabulary for imagining one. The gaps between their ideals and their actions are real and important, but the ideals endure because they speak to universal human needs: dignity, fairness, security, and a voice in shaping the future. The Declaration reminds us that progress begins when people refuse to accept injustice as the natural order of things.
To read the Declaration today is to encounter both the origins of the nation and a challenge directed at the present. It asks whether we still believe in the principles it lays out, and whether we are willing to extend those principles to all people, not just to the few. Its meaning is not fixed in the eighteenth century. It belongs to anyone who takes seriously the idea that a just government must answer to the people it serves.