July 4, 2026 ยท 250th Anniversary

Self-Evident

An interactive look at the most famous sentence in American history, and the idea at its heart: the consent of the governed.

"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."

The Sentence, Annotated

Tap a phrase to unpack it

Thomas Jefferson packed an entire theory of government into two sentences. Tap each highlighted phrase to see what it means, with special attention to where the people's power comes from.

Tap a highlighted phrase above to read what it means.
The handwritten Declaration of Independence, William J. Stone engraving of 1823
The handwritten Declaration (Stone engraving, 1823). Opens the full, annotated text.
Explore the whole Declaration Every word, annotated. Tap any highlighted phrase to unpack it. Open the full text →

The Core Idea

What is "just power"?

The Declaration says governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." Everything on this site turns on one word: just. Here is what it means.

Power vs. just power

A government can hold raw power, the ability to make people obey through force, without holding any just power. "Just" means rightful, or legitimate: the moral authority to govern, not merely the muscle to compel.

Consent is the source

Consent is what turns raw power into rightful authority. No consent, no just power, however many soldiers or dollars a regime commands. That is the whole claim of the sentence.

When it runs out

A regime can sit at high raw power but low just power when few consent. That is exactly the case the Declaration says justifies the people in altering or abolishing the government.

Two tools below make this concrete: the math of many shows why pooled consent can be trusted, and the Consent Engine lets you watch just power rise and fall as consent changes.

The Math of Many

Why trust the consent of the governed?

If legitimate power comes from the people, a fair question follows: are the people any good at deciding? In 1785 the Marquis de Condorcet gave a reassuring answer. His Jury Theorem shows that when a group decides by majority and each member is even slightly more likely than not to be right, the group grows more reliable as it gets larger, approaching near-certainty. The same math runs in reverse: if each member is worse than a coin flip, bigger crowds get it more wrong. Consent works best when the governed are informed.

The setup

Put one yes-or-no question to a group. Each person decides independently and is correct with some probability p. The group's answer is whatever the majority picks.

The result

If p is over 50%, the probability the majority is correct climbs toward 100% as the group grows. If p is under 50%, it falls toward 0%. More heads help only when the heads are better than a coin flip.

Why it matters here

This is the quiet case for government by consent: the pooled judgment of many can beat the decree of one. It also explains why a free press, open debate, and education are not luxuries, they are what keep each citizen above that coin-flip line.

Try it

If each person is right 55% of the time and they decide by majority, the chance the group is right is 88% for a group of 99.

Source: the Condorcet Jury Theorem, from the Marquis de Condorcet, Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions (1785).

The counterintuitive flip: when more voices make it worse

But the theorem has a catch. If each person is worse than a coin flip, say they get it right only 40% of the time, then a majority vote does not cancel the mistake, it makes it worse. Try it: set the slider to 40% with a group of 11, and the majority lands on the right answer only about 25% of the time, worse than a single coin flip. The whole crowd ends up confidently and reliably wrong.

So why does adding more people make it worse? A majority just magnifies whatever the group already leans toward. When people are right more than half the time, that lean points toward the truth, and adding voters pushes the group closer to being right. When people are wrong more than half the time, the lean points away from the truth, and adding voters pushes the group deeper into the mistake. That is how mobs, propaganda, and rigged elections work. And it is why a free press, open debate, and education are not just extras: they keep each citizen above the coin-flip line, the line that decides whether the consent of the governed is wisdom or folly. The founders understood this, which is a big reason they fought for a free press and protected it in the First Amendment. An informed public is not a bonus for self-government, it is what makes self-government work in the first place.

The STEM

The Consent Engine

"Governments... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This is a claim you can model. Below, a hundred citizens make up "the governed." Move the slider to change how many consent, and watch a government's just powers respond.

The Governed

61 of 100 consent

How is "just power" earned?

Just Powers

61 / 100 legitimacy

Contested

With a clear share of the governed consenting, the government holds real but partial authority.


The math of many, applied

If each citizen judges correctly 55% of the time, a majority of 99 is right 88% of the time.

The Pulse

Get a pulse on what you know

Twenty questions drawn from across the whole site, including the historical grievances. Pick a wrong answer and you will see exactly which part is wrong, and why. No peeking.

Ready?

You will get your score at the end, plus the option to add your name to the leaderboard.

The Board

Leaderboard

# Name School / State Score
Loading the board...