This is Part 2 of 3 in the TTP Podcast series on the Declaration of Independence. In it, we consider the “long train of abuses” that Jefferson articulates as being the justification for American independence.
Listen to the podcast on Anchor and Apple Podcasts.
The transcript below is edited for clarity.
Overview of Episode 5: “…a long train of abuses.”
Not going to lie, this is a very hard segment to research without pretty much paraphrasing or copying what others have said. So before we get started, let me read off a great resource to understand the list of abuses/facts that Jefferson is submitting to a “candid world” to justify America’s DOI.
The National Humanities Center put together a fantastic annotated Declaration of Independence as a downloadable PDF, which I draw on extensively here. Get it, read it, use it in the classroom. It clarifies the context of the DOI quite a bit.
I’ll be relying on this document a lot as we go through, while adding a few comments on my own. If Jefferson was writing a clickbait headline for the Huffington Post, he might have titled this segment of the declaration “26 Facts About British Politics That Will Make Your Blood Boil.” It’s really the 18th century equivalent of a listicle, but far more eloquently worded. There’s 26 of these suckers, so let’s dive in.
Main topic: The Declaration of Independence, Part 2
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
Colonial law had to go through the king and his people in London. Unfortunately, this meant that laws took forever to be passed, and could easily be ignored, leaving the colonies to struggle through whatever problem their laws were trying to address. The NHC notes two examples:
“the king blocked several colonies’ attempts to tax the slave trade, and Parliament banned colonies from printing their own paper money.”
National Humanities Center, Annotated Declaration of Independence
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
The royally appointed governors of each colony were understood to be a natural solution to the problem of stalled legislative efforts. However, King George III consistently forbade them from passing legislation from the colonial assemblies.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
The American Revolution could be said to have started with the motto “No taxation without representation,” and that’s what Jefferson is getting at here. Jefferson’s reasoning is that only a power-hungry tyrant would prevent a population from enjoying representation, which was denied to the colonies in the British Parliament.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
Again, from the National Humanities Center:
“In retribution for their resistance to British authority, the assemblies of MA, VA and SC were ordered for periods of time to convene at a site other than their normal meeting places where all their critical papers and records were kept.”
National Humanities Center, Annotated Declaration of Independence
How could one reasonably expect to pass good legislation, or organize cooperative action removed from centers of power? If you’re a monarchist, this move would seem quite judicial given the tumultuous colonials behavior, but Jefferson clearly is interpreting this as a violation of the rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
In the run up the American Revolution, colonial assemblies were frequently divested of their rights and powers on account of their opposition to royal decrees. It’d be like the president dismissing your Congressional representative simply because she opposed a presidential budget.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
Now if your city council was dissolved and your congressional representatives and state legislatures prevented from passing any laws, what would happen? If you’re getting visions of “The Purge” or some other anarchic outcome, you wouldn’t be far off. Jefferson’s point here is that shutting down local government threatens those inalienable rights he outlined earlier. The security vacuum threatens life, the legal vacuum threatens liberty, and the uncertainty prevents the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson again channels John Locke to suggest that in such a political vacuum, the social contract is voided as authority reverts back to the people.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
When we say America is a nation of immigrants, we’re not kidding. Immigration and emigration were as deeply contentious then as they are now. Only, in this case, King George placed a lot of limits on westward movement by colonists as well as limitations on people moving to the New World. While this may not have been a bad thing if you were Native Americans who resided on land that colonists wanted to move to, Jefferson’s argument here is that the King is not trying to prevent settlement out of concern for natives, but out of a desire to undercut the growth and prosperity of the colonies.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
I’m combining these two together because they add up to something we Americans still consider to be anathema: A politicized, compromised judiciary. These concerns about judges more concerned with executive favor than justice would eventually find its way into our Constitution in the form of the Supreme Court and Congressionally controlled courts system, as well as in the form of the 5th Amendment, which ensures rights of the accused.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
The decade following the French and Indian War of 1758-1763 saw several taxation measures levied on the American colonies that stoked the winds of war that eventually erupted into the American Revolution. So it should be no surprise that Jefferson cites these taxations and their accompanying policies are examples of British tyranny. In this case, these new offices and officers were essentially tax collectors and enforcement officers to crack down on illicit trade and ensure taxes were collected.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
Of course, those tax collectors, after a few nasty tar and featherings, needed armed protection which brought down the might of the British army to enforce the measures. Civil law was replaced by martial law, British troops were quartered in private homes, and the colonies were generally made to feel as an occupied country, not as an integral part of the British empire. Coupled with the persistent problem of a lack of parliamentary representation, this real political ostracizing of the colonies feeds Jefferson’s overall argument that the British monarchy has abandoned its responsibility to govern, thereby releasing the colonies to form their own government, according to the social contract theory Locke is basing this on.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
What follows is a sublist of specific legislative acts that Jefferson alleges to have struck at the legal, political, economic and security of the American colonies.
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
No surprise that many of these acts find their way into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If you want a list of specific pieces that the Founders could point to as “a government should not do this” here it is. If one could sum it all up: A disconnected, central power limiting the movement, liberty and self-government of communities is seen as illegitimate. This is a particularly helpful thought when reading through the Constitution and considering just how strong a central government ought to be in this kind of American context. When in doubt: err on the side of “do less.”
We can debate whether or not this is the best form of government, or if it’s up to the challenges of the modern world, but Jefferson plants an important seed here in terms of American political thought and development: The less interference in society of a governing body, the better. While we may rush to the right in thinking about who embodies this concept today, bear in mind that this sentiment is shared by both the right and the left in American politics. Whether you’re wishing the government would let you enjoy your guns, or marry your partner, there is a decided bent towards individual autonomy with less, not more government interference. This is the bedrock of what we today refer to as classical liberal thought.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
Jefferson is building to this finale now. He started with the legal and political offenses of the king, but has steadily built towards this point of laying the heaviest of charges on the British crown: Willful destruction of life. Remember the core values of the intro: “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In a kind of reverse order, Jefferson’s previously listed abuses were focused on actions that reduced areas of “liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Now, Jefferson articulates the threat to life posed by the king.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
For a seagoing nation with the bulk of its population living on the coastlines and major rivers, this is a devastating point. The British government had closed the port of Boston prior to the outbreak of hostilities and would take New York and Philadelphia in the year following the signing of the DOI, in addition to other coastal cities. British ships were largely uncontested in their control of the seas, effectively blockading the colonies and shutting them off from the international trade that was their livelihood. Throughout the war, the British would send raiders ashore to pillage and burn coastal towns as well.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation.
This is Jefferson accusing the king of crimes against humanity kind of stuff. Here, he’s referencing the coming Hessian mercenaries, who would play a decisive role in the coming battle for Long Island and New York. The Hessian brutality, to the extent of murdering Americans in the act of surrender would become the stuff of legend. So while Jefferson’s words might sound hyperbolic here, events would prove him prescient.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
Jefferson refers here to the loathsome British practice of impressment. For much of its maritime history, the British navy was built on the practice. “Press gangs” would go ashore at towns and villages in British dominions and “press” men into naval service. The men got paid, but it was really a rung up from enslavement. When the Revolution began, the British took to forcing captured American seamen to serve on British ships and fight against their own people.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Both in this war, and later in the War of 1812, British agents would foment warfare between Native Americans and settlers in the Ohio River Valley, the strategic western frontier region at the time. The frontier wars were noted for their violence and the barbarity on both sides. Slaves in the southern colonies were promised their freedom if they would join the British army as well.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
Crucial to Jefferson’s argument of a king who has not just abdicated his role, but turned it on its head by attacking his own people is this line right here. As Jefferson closes this middle section of the declaration, he sums up his list of abuses with his mic drop: “Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” And he adds the only logical conclusion:
A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Jefferson casts the Americans in the role of the oppressed here and has the historical precedent to back it up: The Olive Branch Petition was the last attempt, just prior to this declaration, of the Continental Congress to end the escalating conflict and restore the colonies to their prior standing in the British Empire. This is an important point to remember. Up to the point of the rejected Olive Branch Petition, independence was not an end goal for many of the Founders. Indeed, it was arguably a minority opinion. It was only when the King rejected the Olive Branch Petition and went a step further to condemn all rebellion as treason, thereby removing the possibility of amnesty that opinion in the congress swung in favor of independence. It was the only option left.
Conversation starters
There’s a real concern with distance in many of these abuses. Both the distance of the king from the colonies as such and his alleged use of that distance as a political weapon.
In our information age, does physical distance still matter for good and just government? Is there an ideal distance beyond which a governing entity cannot be relied on to make good decisions? How do we address and overcome these problems of distance?
The spoken and written word (podcasts, reading, and film)
NPR has a cool tradition of producing a recording every 4th of July of their journalists reading the Declaration.
If you like the idea of a more notable person reading the Declaration, you can check out John F. Kennedy’s reading of it.
Danielle Allen’s Our Declaration is a fabulous commentary on the Declaration. Beyond just being a superb book of readable political philosophy, it’s a master class in how to teach a great book/document.
For a dramatization of the politics and editorial process surrounding the Declaration, you can’t get a better depiction than Episode 2 of HBO’s excellent miniseries, John Adams.
The last word
At this point, we’ve gone through the DOI’s introduction and body where Jefferson argues for the cause of an independent America and lays out his evidence justifying such an action. Next time, on TimTalksPolitics, we’ll conclude this short series by reading through Jefferson’s stirring conclusion to America’s founding document.