Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789)¶

Author: National Constituent Assembly of France (principal drafters: Lafayette, Sieyès) Type: Primary Source · Historical Document Source: Avalon Project, Yale Law School — public domain Era/Period: Era 3 — Age of Revolutions WH Standards: WH.6_12.4 · WH.6_12.3

What This Text Is About¶

Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, 1789 Displayed at the Assemblée Nationale. Adopted by the National Constituent Assembly of France, August 26, 1789.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was adopted by France's National Constituent Assembly on August 26, 1789, during the early phase of the French Revolution. It declared that all men are born free and equal in rights, that sovereignty belongs to the nation (not the king), and that government exists only to protect natural rights. It drew directly from Enlightenment philosophy and the American Declaration of Independence — but went further in applying these principles to a monarchy already in crisis.

Read It¶

Full text — public domain. Adopted by the National Constituent Assembly of France, August 26, 1789.

Preamble

The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected; and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all.

Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:

Article 1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

Article 2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

Article 3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

Article 4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

Article 5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

Article 6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

Article 7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

Article 8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

Article 9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.

Article 10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

Article 11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

Article 12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

Article 13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

Article 14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

Article 15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.

Article 16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

Article 17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

ELA Standards This Connects To¶

R.9 — Students can compare this document directly with the U.S. Declaration of Independence, analyzing how two documents with similar arguments structure their claims differently for different audiences and political contexts.
R.7 — The phrase "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression" vs. Jefferson's "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" — close reading of word choice reveals political philosophy differences.
W.4 — Argumentative writing prompt: "Which declaration — American or French — more fully embodied Enlightenment ideals?"

WH.6_12.4 — The Declaration is a founding document of the French Revolution. It represents the most direct application of Enlightenment natural rights philosophy to political action in European history.
WH.6_12.3 — Article 3 ("The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation") directly redefines political legitimacy from divine right to popular sovereignty — a fundamental shift in how political systems justify themselves.

Key Vocabulary¶

Term	Definition
Natural rights	Rights that all humans have by nature, regardless of government — life, liberty, property
Popular sovereignty	The idea that political power comes from the people, not from a king or god
Inalienable	Cannot be taken away or given up
Estate	One of the three social classes of pre-Revolutionary France: clergy (First), nobility (Second), everyone else (Third)
Enlightenment	18th-century intellectual movement that emphasized reason, science, and individual rights over tradition and religious authority

Key Passage¶

The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation. — Article 3

Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law. — Article 4

Article 3 ends divine right monarchy as a legitimate political theory. Article 4 defines liberty as bounded by others' liberty — the classic liberal political framework that still underlies modern democratic theory.

Studio Ideas¶

"From Versailles to Revolution" — EQ: What ideas are powerful enough to topple a monarchy? · Standard: WH.6_12.4 + Era 3 · Demo Mode: Written Assessment (analyze how the Declaration's ideas caused the French Revolution to radicalize)
"Liberty, Property, or Security — What Matters Most?" — EQ: If rights conflict, which takes priority? · Standard: WH.6_12.3 + Era 3 · Demo Mode: Verbal Conversation (structured debate using the Declaration's article framework)
"Two Declarations, Two Revolutions" — EQ: Why did the French Revolution end so differently from the American Revolution? · Standard: WH.6_12.4 + Era 3, R.9 (ELA) · Demo Mode: Extended Writing (W.4 comparative argument using both documents as primary sources)

Why This Is Relevant Today?¶

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen proclaimed universal rights — and then defined "citizen" in ways that excluded women, enslaved people, Jews, and colonized peoples. That gap between "universal" and the actual scope of who counted was the political work of the next two centuries, and it is not finished. Every argument about who deserves citizenship, who the law protects, and whose rights are taken seriously at the border is an argument about where the line gets drawn on "universal." The Declaration is also the source of the concept that rights are inherent to persons, not granted by rulers — which is the philosophical foundation of every human rights framework since. When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written in 1948, it was explicitly building on this tradition. And when governments today argue that their sovereignty gives them the right to treat their own citizens however they choose, they're arguing against this tradition. The debate between state sovereignty and universal human rights is still the central tension in international law.