Skip to Main Content

Grievance #6 of the Declaration of Independence

What happens when a government disappears completely?

In Grievance 6 of the Declaration of Independence, Dr. Mathew Goetz of the White House Historical Association breaks down what it meant when King George III dissolved colonial governments and left the colonies without leadership.

Without functioning governments, colonists were left to defend themselves from both external threats and internal instability. This wasn’t just disorder, it challenged the very purpose of government.

The Founders were influenced by the idea of the social contract, the belief that government exists to protect the people. When that protection fails, the agreement between the people and the government is broken.

By shutting down colonial governments, Jefferson argued that the king violated that contract. And once that happened, the colonists believed they had the right to do something radical: form a new government.

This is Part 6 of our 27-part series breaking down every grievance that led to the American Revolution, building toward Independence Day.

0:00 I’m Dr. Matthew Getz. And today we’re

0:01 talking [clears throat] about the sixth

0:02 grievance in the Declaration of

0:04 Independence. Now, the sixth grievance

0:06 is long, so let’s break it down into

0:07 sections.

0:08 The first half basically reiterates the

0:11 fifth grievance. King George dissolved

0:13 or abolished the governments in each of

0:15 the various American colonies since he

0:17 saw them as hotbeds of rebellion and

0:19 treason.

0:21 When Jefferson says that, quote,

0:22 "Legislative powers have returned to the

0:24 people," what he means is there is no

0:26 longer any legal government in the

0:28 colonies. It’s almost an anarchy

0:30 situation where the colonists are left

0:31 to defend themselves on their own.

0:34 In the second half of the grievance,

0:36 Jefferson explains why this is such a

0:37 bad thing.

0:39 Because the king dissolved the colonial

0:40 governments, each colony has, in

0:42 Jefferson’s words, been exposed to all

0:45 the dangers of invasion from without and

0:48 convulsions within.

0:50 Without a government in each colony, the

0:52 Americans were now forced to protect

0:53 themselves from threats. Jefferson and

0:55 his fellow Americans in the 18th century

0:58 believed in the idea of the social

0:59 contract, a notion from the

1:01 Enlightenment popularized by such

1:03 political thinkers as John Locke,

1:05 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and other

1:07 political philosophers that you probably

1:08 heard mentioned in school.

1:10 The social contract theory said that

1:12 there was an unwritten agreement between

1:14 the government and the people.

1:16 The people agreed to obey the

1:17 government, but in exchange the

1:19 government had to protect the people and

1:21 look out for their interests. And if the

1:23 government stopped doing this, then it

1:24 was the right of the people to rebel and

1:26 form a new government that would look

1:28 out for their interests. So, by accusing

1:30 the British king of dissolving colonial

1:32 governments and leaving Americans

1:33 vulnerable to internal and external

1:35 threats, Jefferson is pointing out that

1:37 the king violated his half of the social

1:39 contract.

1:41 With the contract dissolved, the

1:42 colonists had the right to not only

1:44 rebel, but to form a new government that

1:46 would protect the American people.

1:48 Hence, the Declaration of Independence.

Related Resources

Portrait of Maj. Zachary Deibel, Assistant Professor at Virginia Military Institute, set against a constitutional backdrop.Video

Grievance #3 of the Declaration of Independence

2 Min

Why did the colonists start calling King George III a tyrant? It came down to one thing: representation. In Grievance 3 of the Declaration of Independence, the colonists push back against British policies that blocked westward expansion and limited representation in colonial governments. Even when new districts were created, they weren’t allowed a voice. For colonists, this wasn’t just about land, it was about power. More land should mean more representation. Without it, they believed their rights were being ignored. Thomas Jefferson made it clear: without representation, the people were subject to the unchecked will of the king. That idea helped transform “Farmer George” into something else entirely, the Tyrant King. This is Part 3 of our 27-part series breaking down every grievance that led to the American Revolution, building toward Independence Day.

A portrait of Savannah Eccles Johnston, Assistant Professor at Utah Valley University, for Constitution Day 2026 event.Video

Grievance #4 of the Declaration of Independence

2 Min

What if your government made it harder for leaders to even meet? In Grievance 4 of the Declaration of Independence, @SavyPolitics from Utah Valley University explains how royal governors sometimes required colonial legislatures to meet in remote locations instead of their usual capitals. On the surface, it might seem minor. But the impact was real. Meeting far from population centers made it harder to access records, communicate with constituents, and even gather enough members to function. Colonists believed this wasn’t random. They saw it as a tactic to pressure legislatures into going along with British policies, especially during moments of political tension. Even if it didn’t happen often, it revealed something bigger: a distant government could manipulate how local power operated. This is Part 4 of our 27-part series breaking down every grievance that led to the American Revolution, building toward Independence Day.

C. David Carlson speaking at the Constitution Day 2023 event for the Bill of Rights Institute.Video

Grievance #5 of the Declaration of Independence

2 Min

What happens when a government shuts down your representatives entirely? In Grievance #5 of the Declaration of Independence, C. David Carlson of Trinity Academy South Bend explains how King George III dissolved colonial legislatures when they pushed back against British policies. Colonial assemblies had a long history of self-government, managing local affairs and representing the people. But as tensions grew in the late 1760s and 1770s, those assemblies began coordinating resistance to British taxes. The response from the Crown was clear: shut them down. Massachusetts was one of the first, but it didn’t stop there. Other colonies faced the same fate, especially as they moved toward unified action through the Continental Congress. This wasn’t just a political disagreement anymore. Dissolving representative governments signaled something bigger: a shift from conflict over policy to a crisis over power and self-rule. This is Part 5 of our 27-part series breaking down every grievance that led to the American Revolution, building toward Independence Day.