By contrast, Paine goes into much more detail.  As one example of this, he sets out reasons why the British system fails to provide adequate checks on the king.  He simply can go into much more depth than the Declaration can.

Common Sense also serves as much more of a detailed call to action.  The Declaration does list supposed abuses by the king.  However, Paine’s work goes into great detail about why this particular point in history is a good time to rebel.

There is no real difference in the messages of these two works.  The main difference is really that Common Sense is much longer and therefore more detailed than the Declaration.

The most obvious comparison is that the Declaration and Common Sense have the same core message, namely that the American colonies, in the words of the Declaration, "are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States." The Declaration bases this claim on Lockean natural rights, which, it argued, governments were established to preserve. When governments ceased to do so, they lost their legitimacy, and could be replaced by governments founded upon the consent of the people. Paine made the same case in Common Sense, a pamphlet that explicitly made the case for independence. Paine, indeed, went further, arguing that the English constitution itself was illegitimate, as it was ultimately founded on neither the consent of the people nor reason. Monarchy was ultimately not reasonable, as, Paine memorably wrote, the "FOOLISH, the WICKED, and the IMPROPER" might succeed to the throne through no virtue of their own. The chief differences between the Declaration and Common Sense, published early in 1776, before independence was declared, are in many ways stylistic. Whatever it became in American memory, the Declaration was intended to be, among other things, a sort of legal and philosophical brief for independence, and as such its language is steeped in soaring, sweeping philosophical statements. Common Sense, on the other hand, was in many ways a work of propaganda, with a broad appeal. It was written in the plain, acerbic, borderline earthy style for which Paine would be renowned. Paine did not mince words in excoriating the "King and his parasites." Along with appeals to reason, Common Sense is full of pathos, asking the ordinary American whose "wife and children" whom the British Army made "destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on" whether they still felt loyalty to the Crown. "The blood of the slain," Paine intoned, cried "'TIS TIME TO PART." Paine also argued along economic lines that the colonies were held back by their association with the British. In short, Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence made a very similar case, but in different ways and using very different language.

The ideas of Common Sense can be found throughout the Declaration of Independence. Remember, of course, that Common Sense was in effect a call for a declaration of independence. Paine argued, among a great many other things, that the colonies had grown apart from the mother country, and that, as he said, "'tis time to part." The Declaration of Independence brought about Paine's desired goal. The Declaration also repeats many of the charges brought by Paine in a long series of indictments against King George III. Paine had characterized King George as a "royal brute," and the Declaration in essence repeated these charges, accusing him of inciting Native American and slave insurrections, ignoring the will of the American people, and imposing harsh taxes and sending standing armies amongst them to violate their liberties. The Declaration also shared fundamental assumptions about the role of government and the rights of the man. The Declaration famously stated that the role of government was to "secure" certain "unalienable rights," and that any government which became "destructive" of these rights should be altered or abolished. Paine had argued along exactly the same lines, even going so far as to proclaim that a hereditary monarchy could never really be representative of the will, or protective of the liberties, of the people.