This idea was considered to be logical and reasonable, in contrast to ideas such as the Divine Right of Kings, which stressed that a king was ordained by God to be the ruler, and thus could not be opposed by his subjects. Jefferson suggests that there is a social contract between the ruled and the ruler, and when the ruler is abusive and transgresses the right of the ruled, the ruled should be able to throw off that yolk, regardless of custom and historical precedent.

While it is true that Jefferson does call the King a "tyrant," when he does so he immediately lists practical grievances, to show that this abuse is not hurled without some justification (Jefferson 118). For example: "He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly and continually for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people" (Jefferson 118). Rather than dealing with the colonists,...
[ View Full Essay]