The Declaration and when to have a Revolution

Barrett and Alex discuss the principles the Declaration of Independence gives for when it is appropriate to take up arms to defend liberty.

Transcript

SPEAKER_03 0:02

To understand the foundations of America, we need to dig into the key texts and thinkers who've helped define our nation. I'm Barrett Randall, and I'm not an academic, but I'm also not afraid to talk to one. On the Foundations of a Nation podcast, I have conversations with my friend Alex Tuckness, Chair of the Political Science Department at Iowa State University, about the ideas that have shaped America. Welcome to the Foundations of a Nation podcast. I'm Barrett Randall and I run a golf course. And I'm Alex Tuckness, and I'm a political science professor. And we're going to be your hosts. In season one, we're looking at the Declaration of Independence. And in this episode, we look at how you know when it's time to have a revolution.

SPEAKER_00 0:49

Yeah. No, yeah. How do you know, like, you know, so if we go back to the original text, right, of the of the declaration, there's a lot of language saying that although the people have the right to overthrow government when it's no longer protecting their rights, uh, you don't want to rush into this, right? This is not something that should be done lightly or hastily. So uh, you know, the next sentence says, prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. And accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Right. So in other words, it's saying like prudence or wisdom dictates that uh this is not something you should do over minor grievances. It's kind of a swanky way of saying grass is not always greedy. Yeah, the grass is not, yeah, like you start a revolution, you don't know how this thing's gonna end, people are gonna die, right? This is this is a big deal. But then they say, but when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. So, in other words, they're saying uh if there is this like a sequence of events that indicates like a clear intent, you know, I think that's what they mean by pursuing invariably the same object. Like there's like an intent here, uh, which is to reduce people under absolute despotism. Like when when when the series of events that's happened indicates if we don't act now, we're gonna find ourselves under despotism, then it's both a right and a duty, right, for the people to rise up and to try to um put a new government in place. So that's that's kind of the criteria. But then there's the question, well, this is wisdom and prudence. Like, how do you know uh when you've reached that point? So I'm gonna I'm gonna give a a real historical example uh from uh you know about oh man, it's about close to 30 years now. Um so uh Bear, you and I are old enough. You remember the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building? Yes. Terrible, terrible event. Yep. One of the interesting things, I did a little bit of research on this. Uh, you know, and for my younger listeners out there, uh, this was an act of basically domestic terrorism uh that took place in the United States uh back in 1995, uh where uh this guy named Timothy McVeigh blows up a federal building. He's basically declaring war on the federal government, right? And and a whole bunch of people end up uh end up dying. So uh I'm gonna read a couple of clips here or sections from uh these were just newspaper associated press uh reports uh about uh Timothy McVeigh when they when they captured him. Uh the first one says this it says, uh the sealed envelope that he had was labeled with the handwritten message, obey the Constitution of the United States and we won't shoot you. And inside also were quotations from Samuel Adams and John Locke about the dangers of overzealous government, uh, according to FBI agent William Eppright. So Timothy McVeigh is actually carrying around uh like quotations from John Locke as he's planning uh the bombing, and then it continues. It says, for McVeigh and others on the far right fringe, uh, three events had confirmed their view of a runaway government out to take their guns. Right? So remember the the language of the declaration is when a series of events indicates an intention to take away the liberty of the people, that's when you act. Right? And and they were claiming like a series of events. Yeah, they were claiming a long, you know, a long train of abuses had happened.

SPEAKER_03 4:58

What would those have I mean, obviously I think I can think of a few of what they used to think, but Waco would have been would have come to mind. Yep. Yeah, that's right. The branch Davidian um, yeah, yeah, yeah, you good memory on this.

SPEAKER_00 5:10

So I I'll I'll read the rest of my quote here. Uh yeah. But you're yeah, you're spot on. The first was a raid August 22nd, 1992. Oh, Ruby Ridge. By federal agents on a white supremacist cabin in Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Uh the second was another federal raid in Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993, that left more than 80 branch dividians dead in a fire that consumed their compound. And the third event occurred uh November 1993, uh, when Congress passed the Brady Bill, which mandates a five-day waiting period for the purchase of guns. In a letter expressing his rage over these events, McVeigh often enclosed a favorite passage from John Locke's second treatise of government. I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who's put himself into a state of war against me. Uh, you know, we've been talking about John Locke, uh, we've been talking about the way some of his ideas are embedded in the Declaration of Independence. And this is like an interesting uh study of realizing, like in the real world, when you proclaim this doctrine, some people may look at this and they may come to the conclusion. I I mean, I think, you know, McVeigh was like, well, uh, the right to bear arms is a fundamental liberty. Here's a series of events indicating the government has this clear design to take away our right to bear arms. And once they do that, they're gonna take away the rest of our liberties too. So we've got to act now, right? Uh and so I'm justified, kind of like the colonists were with King George, in viewing myself as being in a state of war with the American government.

SPEAKER_03 6:59

Um I'm just thinking about the children that were in that. Oh, yeah. Yeah, no, like, yeah. It's hard because you're right. I mean, you sit at you think about this. He may have had these esoterical sort of rationalizations, but the the truth is so messy and uh sad. But what did the declaration really say then? I mean, if it's not giving voice to somebody who's piecemealing it.

SPEAKER_00 7:27

Right. So so so what I would say is, I mean, I I think McVeigh is misusing the Declaration of Independence, right? I Yes. Yes. Um but it's I part of the reason for telling that story, a lot of people don't know it, is it's a reminder of how radical the Declaration of Independence really is. Right? You know, so does that make sense? Like for us, so if I'm sitting in England reading this, I'm like, what are they talking about? Right. Yeah, so as so as Americans, we're like, this is part of our historical tradition. Sure. And for us, when we proclaim the Declaration of Independence, we're often like celebrating the stability of 250 years of American independence, right? For us, we associate the Declaration with stability and the celebration of like long-standing institutions. But when it was originally written, it was a call by some people to take up arms, to overthrow a government and institute a new government where lives were going to be lost, right? And and so there is something radical into in the declaration, but I think the authors of the declaration were aware of that, which is why they included those sections I just read. Right. I mean, prudence dictates you don't do this over small, uh, you know, over small things. There needs to be, you know, a long train of abuses. There also needs to be like sufficient magnitude. I mean, that's part of it. By the way, one of the other things to say is as you keep reading the declaration, we'll talk about this uh maybe a little bit in uh in a later episode. When you get to the list of specific grievances that the colonists had against England, one of them was they felt like England was not abiding by the principles of just war, right? That that some of the things England was doing uh in fighting them were, you know, contrary to the law of nations, uh, you know, the principles of how uh war is supposed to be conducted. And so the most obvious thing to say about somebody like Timothy McVeigh, just as you were thinking about children, right, is his decision to attack a building filled with uh, you know, non-combatants is a clear violation of um you know the rules of war. So even if he were right, which I don't think he was, yeah, right, even if he were right that he was like in a state of war, um, that doesn't justify terrorism. Yeah. Right? That that doesn't involve attacks on on innocent people. So so uh that's the most obvious way it goes wrong. Um but it's also the case, you know, that as you you know, as you look at some of these examples, um one of the questions, right, is who put you know who's putting themselves into a state of war first? Right?

SPEAKER_03 10:21

Does that make sense? Yes, because I'm sitting here thinking about I mean, if we're using the McVeigh example, because his at least, and I'm not well versed enough in this, but I know like he's obviously known for his violent act. Right. Boom. I don't know that I mean, yeah, was the United States declaring independence from Britain and their and their first thing was just a purely violent act. Well, it doesn't I mean this is political. Right. Not physical, you know. I don't know. Like you're saying, like positions of war. Like, I don't know. Yeah, what does that look like?

SPEAKER_00 11:00

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 11:00

Well and well, and and and part of what I'm I'm getting at is you know, we're remembered the United States have said we're we're fine, we're just separating, but we we don't need to fight over it. We're just done, we're done.

SPEAKER_00 11:11

Yeah, so yeah, so so think about this. Like, so individually, right? And in in our last episode, we were talking about this, right? You can you can interpret the declaration purely in an individualistic way, right? Have I individually consented to this?

SPEAKER_02 11:24

Right.

SPEAKER_00 11:24

And if not, you don't have a right to impose it upon me. And if you do, you could say you're now like you know, in a sense, declaring war upon me and we're in a state of war. But there's a a different way of looking at it, which is say, well, no, actually, we have established laws. Yeah. And if you declare that you are, you know, not abiding by those laws, you're the one who's putting yourself into a state of war with the American. You know, so so like if you think of what happened and in Waco, there were people who were like in defiance of the United States government, right? And it still may be the case, you know, it turned out tragically. Maybe there's ways ways the government could have handled it better.

SPEAKER_02 12:05

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 12:06

But for a group of people in an armed compound to say, well, basically, we are defying the law. Who started it? Right. You know, you know, even the American colonists, right? The question is who started it? And the Americans are going to have a story about here's all the things the British did that led to this conflict. The British may tell a different version of the story where the Americans are the ones responsible for starting it. Um and at some level, it's not uncommon, right, to have those sorts of disagreements uh when wars break out. Yeah. Um at a certain level, because the declaration says that the people get to judge whether or not the government is like usurping its rights, there is a danger that the people will sometimes misuse their right in the same way that a government sometimes misuses its rights. Whatever system of we have is going to be a system for fallible people who are sometimes just mistaken, uh sometimes deluded, uh, sometimes evil, right? I mean, so like all of those, like all of those kinds of things can happen. So one version of this can be like the tyrannical government oppressing people, but a different version is people who decide to resort to violence when they shouldn't. That's also a way for things to be broken and things to go wrong. Like both of those can happen. But I I think the declaration says in a broken world with fallible people, judgment has to be placed somewhere. And on the whole, we would rather place judgment with the people than the people not have any sort of uh uh recourse when government becomes uh tyrannical. Right. So it's it's supposed to be sobering, and you're supposed to feel like the weight of responsibility if, in fact, uh the government has done these things. Maybe one other thing to say here is like the whole declaration is intended to be submitting facts to a candid world that the American colonists think show that this is not like Timothy McVeigh, right? That this is not just, you know, overstated, you know, overreactions to minor infractions. Uh, but the the list of grievances is supposed to indicate there really are fundamental matters of liberty and political principle here that are at stake uh that make this legitimate. And so we are making public to the world uh what our justifications are and also know that ultimately we stand accountable for uh what we uh what we've done.

SPEAKER_03 14:49

Yeah, and I think honestly, what's complicated for me just listening to this is the idea of it almost seems like they're trying to put some legalese in place that says, like basically, do as I say, not as I do, or you know, like we understand that what we're doing is setting a precedent, but I don't know. Like I can understand why people would read the declaration and try to put it in their own independent life, where the truth is it's gotta be a little bit more I I don't know.

SPEAKER_00 15:20

No, yeah, it it it it's difficult. Well, let me let me let's go back to the text for a second here, right? So uh let me let me pick up where I left off. It says, you know, it's just been saying, like, um, you know, when there's this long train of abuses, uh, you've got to set up a new government. It says, such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. Right. And so what we're gonna we're gonna get is uh is you know kind of the list of here are the specific grievances. But notice that the colonist one up front are like announcing here are the set of grievances we think justify the course of action that we're taking. Okay. Um secondly, I think they did see themselves as under obligations to engage in the conflict in according to the established rules of just war, you know, and uh international law, right? Uh, you know, which which terrorists don't. Right. Um you know, there there really is a difference between uh uniformed soldiers shooting at each other, yes, right, and just blowing up a building that has lots of civilians in it. Yes. I think we can even say beyond that, there is a recognition, I think, that because government is fallible, they can't guarantee that the new government they create will never become oppressive. And because they can't, on the one hand, future generations would still have the same liberty, sure, right, of having a revolution the same way they did, but they're wanting to counsel, please. Like we thought about this a lot. We did not rush into this. There were multiple attempts of petitioning England to change policies, right, over a period of years. Um, and and these were being done through like more formal channels, right? There's a difference between, you know, random guy, uh Timothy McVeigh, writing, you know, an incoherent letter to the government versus like, no, like actual state legislatures or the Continental Congress has been like presenting formal grievances uh to the English government asking for redress. Sure. Right. So there's a lot more process. But then the last thing I think we could say is there's this idea that goes back to Locke, and we'll see this when we get to the end of the declaration, that you know, the same idea is here, uh, that at some level, when you take up arms to overthrow the government, it's an appeal to heaven. Right. So they had this idea that God is the ultimate judge and authority. All of us have to give an account to God uh for what we did and why we did it. And if we're wrong, right, we, you know, we're answerable to God for our wrong, right? So that was that was intended to like indicate how weighty a decision it is to take up arms. But because human beings are foul, the reason it's called an appeal to heaven is because they're assuming that, you know, when they say, uh, you know, before God, we believe we are in the right and having this uh revolution, that the English may be saying, well, we believe before God that you're wrong. Right, correct. Right? So, so so both sides think they're right. And so, in a sense, both sides are appealing to heaven, right, as they, you know, as they engage in the war. But what that also means is if a terrorist misuses the language of the Declaration of Independence, there is a bit of a sense in which they have now put themselves into a state of war with the United States, and the United States can respond in kind. Um now, uh I I still think the protection of civil liberties and and and all of that is important, but the government should have some way of protecting itself, right, and protecting its people from those who appeal to heaven and are wrong. Right. I mean, so that that's how I like Timothy McVeigh is appealing to heaven and he's wrong. Uh and so the American government is like is justified in arresting him, you know, and punishing him. And at a certain level, if you if you accept this idea of an appeal to heaven, it means there are gonna be these instances where both sides think they're right and both have to act on their best judgment about what you know justice and the public good requires.

SPEAKER_03 20:04

Yeah. So next what, neck uh next episodes the United States brings the receipts as the key.

SPEAKER_00 20:09

That's right. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah. So in our next episode, we're actually we're gonna talk about this list of grievances uh the American colonists had and what it is that they thought justified having a revolution.

SPEAKER_03 20:20

Aaron Powell Oh, excellent. Looking forward to it.

SPEAKER_00 20:25

The views expressed on this podcast are those of the speakers and not necessarily those of Iowa State University. Thank you for listening.