Foundations of a Nation
To understand the foundations of America, we need to dig into the key texts and thinkers who have helped define our nation. On the "Foundations of a Nation" podcast Alex Tuckness, Chair of the Political Science Department at Iowa State University, talks with his friend, Barrett Randall, about the ideas that have shaped America. Season 1 looks at the Declaration of Independence."
Foundations of a Nation
The Reasons for Independence
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Barrett and Alex talk about the list of grievances that the colonists thought justified independence and the underlying political theory behind them.
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. 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 the specific grievances that the colonists listed in the document. So, Alex. What had England done?
SPEAKER_01Well, lots of things. So I think it's a it's a pretty long, uh, it's a pretty long list. And so one of the things to say, like, is there is actually a little bit of a logic to the way these are set up. So let me say a little bit about how they they organize the grievances. Uh so the first twelve are going to be like specific to the king, right? And they they've kind of got the same pattern. They begin with the word he. You know, he has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good, right? That's the like the first one. So you get 12 that are like singling out things the king has done. Okay. And then when you get to uh number 13, it says he has combined with others to subject us to a foreign jurisdiction, to uh to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. And what he's talking about there is Parliament, right? So when he says he's combined with others, he means he has like worked with Parliament to subject us to jurisdictions that are contrary to our constitution. Um and he's given his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. In other words, they're they're saying the British Parliament does not actually have the right to legislate for us, but the King of England keeps like giving his approval to these laws they pass, right, as if they did apply to it. Right authority. Right. And so then you then you get uh, and it's it's technically, I think, all one really long sentence, nine different um uh things that are examples of laws passed by Parliament uh that the colonists believe they are uh that are unjust. Like the first one is for courting large bodies of armed troops among us, right? So the they're saying that's not just the king. Parliament and king are both, you know, uh, you know, complicit here, yeah, right, in in this. Uh, and then we get to the 14th grievance, um, and now it starts like focusing a little bit more like on the laws of war. We mentioned this a little bit in the in the last episode. That like one of the things that's really interesting about the declaration that people don't always notice is it really is concerned about international law and just war and and and some of those kinds of things. Uh so like uh the 14th grievance says uh he has abdicated government here by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us, right? So their point is the king decided at a certain point, I'm gonna wage war against these colonies. Now, the king would have said it's because you started fighting first, right? That would I mean that would have been but from their perspective, when he says Would they have called it war or just policing? Uh that's a good question. I I I think they might have called it some. I mean, I I think they would have said the American colonists were rebelling. Okay. I think they would have used the language of rebellion. Okay. Um and would have said they wouldn't have called it a war.
SPEAKER_00They would have yeah, it would have been a rebellion. It's a rebellion.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. So policing. Right. And so, yeah, you get other things like uh, you know, number 15. Uh he has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people, right? So that that's just kind of describing like war crimes, right? And and and like, you know, things that uh shouldn't have been done. Man, what a terrible king. Uh you know. That's kind of the the structure. Yeah. And then uh, you know, the the last one, right, uh at the end of the grievances, we get uh him saying, look, in every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Uh our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. 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. So that's their conclusion. Their conclusion is there's this long list of grievances. We have repeatedly um petitioned for redress of these grievances, and our petitions have been repeatedly ignored. And I think that's also part of the accusation, right? It's not just that you did these things. It's you've done these things and you also have not, you know, answered our uh answered our petitions. That is uh a kind of like big picture overview of how this list of grievances is is constructed.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. And so this is this is an important part, obviously.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, this is this is the longest part of the document.
SPEAKER_00So what they're doing is basically giving their evidence for this is the point of their argument. So how did they how did they come up with this list? Because we're dealing now with the meat, shall we say.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. Yeah. So um, you know, so Pauline Meyer, who who wrote this book called American Scripture, it's all about the Declaration of Independence, she she describes a little bit how how this happened. So uh remember, Jefferson writes the first draft, and then Jefferson's draft gets revised uh a little bit by the committee and then more by the uh by the Continental Congress. So Jefferson is having there's a war going on, he's got a lot of things on his plate, so he's having to work quickly. So he doesn't just sit down and write all of this from scratch. Uh so he had a couple of different sources that he is uh he's relying on. So one is he had written himself a draft of grievances for a constitution for Virginia. So this hadn't been adopted yet. It was still like in draft form. But uh, you know, the state of Virginia had been thinking we're independent, yeah. So we're gonna, you know, write a new constitution for Virginia, and the beginning of this is gonna justify why we're justified in doing it. So remember we talked about this in an earlier episode.
SPEAKER_00Was that intended for England then?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. Yeah. That would have yeah. Yeah. So so there were many declarations of independence. Like this is actually in in her book, this is one of her one of her points, is the Declaration of Independence. It's not the only declaration of independence. There were there were states that were declaring independence. There were like localities that were declaring independence. Lots of people were like writing documents indicating you know their reasons. And so uh Jefferson had been working on one for Virginia.
SPEAKER_00Yep.
SPEAKER_01And so he could kind of take some of that language, rewrite it a little bit, uh, and apply it to the United States as a whole. Yeah. Um, and at a certain level, from his perspective, anything done to one of the colonies, you know, is fair game, right, for inclusion on the list. And then there was also um uh another um American, George Mason, who had been working on a draft for Virginia's Declaration of Rights. So this is also still in draft form, but Jefferson has a copy of the draft, right? And you know, and Virginia's of Virginia, yeah. So these are both Virginia documents. And so uh Jefferson is like pulling from both of these documents, right, as he's putting uh as he's putting the list together. And you know, I think we talked about George Mason a little bit earlier. Yeah. Because some of the earlier stuff in the Declaration 2 also draws on uh George Mason. Like even the, you know, life, liberty, and property, consent of the governed, a lot of that that language uh is in George Mason as well. So Jefferson kind of puts together his first draft, and then it goes to the committee, and they make a few changes, it goes to the Continental Congress, and you know, we talked about this before, like they do this like marathon editing session uh where they're going through and like rewriting things, rewording things. So they they they do several things. So one is there's a lot of just uh rewriting, improving the language. Sometimes they're toning it down a little bit. Uh so you know, you said like this is this these are the receipts. Yeah. Uh what you don't want is someone to start going through the receipts and say, well, this isn't right and this isn't right. Like, so in other words, if you overstate the uh the grievances, then somebody can go and say, Well, that's false, right? They can start fact-checking you, right? Oh, sure, sure. So so they're trying to write this in a way that fact-checkers aren't going to be able to easily say, hey, you know, a little ambiguous. Right. So yeah. And and the and and we'll see. Like uh, they actually kind of like ambiguous language. It's a little bit a little bit abstract. So there's a fair amount of editing uh that happens to the list. Um, but there's also one of the grievances that's just completely taken out. And we we talked about this also in an earlier episode. So there's there's the there's the original draft had something about how the king was uh you know uh unjustly um continuing the importation of slaves into the colonies, yep, and was also inciting slaves to rebel. And like, you know, these these are terrible things. And you know, and as we talked about, the the drafting committee, uh well, I'm sorry, the the Continental Congress are like this is a tough sell. One, not all of us are against slavery, but two, if we really disliked slavery so much, we could free the slaves, yeah, and we're not doing it. Um, and so I think they decided like uh this was gonna be too easy for other people to ridicule, right? You know, that we're we're criticizing the importation of slaves but unwilling to free the slaves. There wasn't consensus on it, so they they they took that part out. After that, editing is when we finally get to this uh this list that we have in the final version of the document. Okay. Yeah, it sucks. Okay. Yeah, yeah. So so so one of the things you you mentioned, I'll just I'll just say like one of the things that I think is really interesting is it's not just a statement of facts. It's it's a statement of grievances that I think has a kind of political theory built into it, such that how persuasive you think the grievances are depends on how persuaded you are by the political theory that was already articulated in the first part of the document. I think this is one of the ways the two parts of the documents really create a kind of unified whole.
SPEAKER_00So would this have been Okay, and forgive me for asking these, because I get a little confused. There's a part of me that reads the declaration as a person. Okay. Right? Just as a guy. And I'm like, okay, I get that. Right. But then there's a the part of me that's like, actually, this was written for, you know, a government to a government. So it's gonna be different. They're gonna leave out stuff I wish they hadn't, they're going to have legalese or they're gonna have ambiguity because it's actually kind of a PR piece. But is it also that they're writing it for the people in the I mean, are people are the citizens of America going to have an opportunity to to see this? Or are other governments besides England going to have an opportunity to see this? So like they're they're kind of making their pitch for like why they're doing this. It's not just for England, though, right? I mean, this is a broader audience than I'm thinking, or yeah, no, that no, that's right.
SPEAKER_01So so one, it is it is really important to to remember what you just said, which is this is not just one individual sitting down saying, here's what I think.
SPEAKER_00Right. Because I think if I read that, like I'd be like, why are you taking that stuff? Like, why are you taking, you know, because but it's annoyingly uh compromised. That's not my that's maybe not even fair.
SPEAKER_01Well well so one thing to say is, you know, if we if we start with Jefferson's original draft, even when Jefferson wrote the original draft, he knew as he was writing it, I have to write something that I can get other people to sign off on. Right? If if if it's just here's what Thomas Jefferson as an individual thinks about England politics. Yeah, no, like he's he's he's got he's gotta he's gotta write something that sufficiently resonates with, you know, kind of the the the common point of view of the other members of the Continental Congress and and you know the American people as a whole, that they're gonna be like, oh yeah, yeah, that's kind of what we think. So he's already written it, the first draft already had that hurdle in mind. Okay. Right? So he was all he knew he was writing for a group when he writes the first draft. But then when we get to the actual editing, uh we have talked about this, from from what we know, Thomas Jefferson was like silent and sulky uh for most of the uh day when the Declaration of Independence was being debated, because he felt like I got this right the first time and you guys are messing up my masterpiece. Okay. Um but his his original version wasn't gonna get uh all of the colonies on board.
SPEAKER_00And the intention of it wasn't an exhaustive list.
SPEAKER_01Right. And and and so from a different standpoint, I mean, you know, as as we've talked about, it is like there is a way in which Jefferson's views on slavery are coherent, right? If if you believe, on the one hand, uh slavery is wrong. Historically, slaves should not have been imported into the United States, but then once they're there, he thinks uh you've got to be really careful about how you go about emancipation. You can't just free all the staves, slaves at once, or it's gonna create chaos. You've got to do it very carefully under all these permutations, right? So so he's he's got a coherent story, but it's a really complicated one. And it is easy for people to say, you know, as a slave owner, you find a lot of reasons to kick the can down the road and not do anything.
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Right?
SPEAKER_00And so I think that's my point is like I'm reading this going, well, it's one thing for like uh an individual to read this and be like, well, what about you know, but what we're you know, I lose sight, I guess, of the sometimes it's hard to look at it and go, well, this is actually kind of a PR piece for a lot of different Yeah.
SPEAKER_01And and and that's right. And and and to your earlier point, they absolutely have to worry about both international and domestic audiences. Right. Uh and so the goal is they're trying to come up with a way of stating their grievances that will unify the colonies. And so I mean, the the whole history of early America does involve these points in time where there is division over the con over slavery. You've got some people who are in favor of it, some people who are opposed, and they end up coming up with compromises that didn't leave any of them completely happy for the sake of uh creating a unified government, uh, being unified and in and fighting the war. But you know, th those who are opposed to slavery can point out that the document that was adopted does include those earlier sentences that say all men are created equal. Uh that, you know, all of them, right, have these rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And so I I think for there were there were a number of founders, uh, and I think Jefferson was even one of them, who really did think slavery was unjust and could see this document as announcing principles of what the nation was aspiring to, even though it's not what the nation was living up to at that point.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell So then we have a list now of of the perceived slights. Some of them are tangible, but maybe not all of them.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. Right.
SPEAKER_00And and and so they are Yeah, some of them seem a little bit less.
SPEAKER_01They're abstract, right? Or if I can put it another way, they're grievances that assume that you've kind of accepted the political theory that they have been putting forward. So so let me let me give some examples. Right? So uh the very first uh uh grievance that they give, you know, he has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. Says who? Right? So so, in other words, tacitly, they are claiming we don't think these laws are for the public good, and you don't have the authority to impose laws against us if we have not given our consent because we agree that for they're for the public good. Okay. A lot of them, you know, the next one, you know, he's forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance. Once again, these are disagreements about what the law should be. And if you peel it back, these are different ways of saying their legislature is imposing laws we don't agree with, and it's refusing and getting the way of our legislators' ability to pass laws that we think need to happen. So so the the deeper question about the right of the colonies to choose their own representatives. Um, if you don't accept that premise, the list loses uh most of its uh authority. Punch. Right. Uh and so there there's there's a whole list of things uh that are are included here, and a lot of them are different variations on actions that are preventing the colonial legislatures from acting as the appropriate legislature, and uh of you know, overreach by English Parliament and the king uh to act against them. So uh, you know, there's laws the king has refused to sign, like the colonial legislature passes a law, the king won't sign off on it. Um in some cases the king dissolves a state legislature. Uh one of the things interestingly they're upset is the England is limiting immigration, uh, limiting how many people uh can immigrate into the United States. And the colonists are like, no, we want more people, we want to settle this country. Sure. Um, and so they're they're uh objecting to that. They're objecting to standing armies that the English are keeping um requirements that they have to quarter them, right? So so like there's there's a whole cluster of these grievances, a lot of them boiled down to uh like how much authority does the British Parliament actually have? And if you start from the assumption the British Parliament has full authority to legislate for the colonies, uh then a lot of this list doesn't like seem very persuasive. But if if you've accepted the argument from the earlier paragraphs that the people get, you know, government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and if the American people don't consent to the British government, right, uh then they're within their rights uh to demand more uh political independence.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. It's a list that I can't imagine the king of England going, yeah, that makes sense. Right. Right. Uh I I see your point. No.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. And and and so, you know, like we were saying, like what promotes the public good is exactly the kind of question governments are there to answer. And so the king of England would have said, well, I get to make my judgments about what is for the public good. Right. And I get to refuse consent. I have a veto. Um, and so I get to refuse consent if I think there is a law for the public good. I'm sorry, a law that's contrary to the public good. And so what what what's really going on here is you know, this kind of deeper question about the true sources of political authority and whether or not the uh you know the specific actions that are been are taken are approved of by the right people, right? Who who is it that gets to decide, you know, is this for the public good or not? You know, and and let me let me give another example, right? So I will say, like, there are like if you go through some of the the grievances, you can see how from England's perspective, uh, they seem maybe still a little bit overstated and like unfair. Like, so I'll point to number 10 here. He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance, right? So he's, you know, the the colonists are describing uh British customs officials as a swarm of locusts that are like eating them out of uh out of house and home. And uh I think there was something like maybe 50 for the whole country. You know, it's a it's a that's a lot of coastline, yeah, and that's not a huge number of customs officials. And I and so I think at a certain level, if you accept the right of the British government to regulate trade and impose tariffs, having customs officials here to collect the tariffs isn't unjust. But from the colonist perspective, they're rejecting the right of the British to impose those tariffs. Right. Right. And so if you if you reject the right of the British to impose those tariffs, right, if you you know tariffs are supposed to be uh by the consent of the people, then that provides a way of saying, like, however much it is. And however many of them there are, you don't have the right to be taking like you're taking from us what isn't rightfully yours. And so it's that underlying political theory that provides the explanation for why it is that they they have the list of grievances that they do.
SPEAKER_00So this seems and this is off topic again. I do this, but this seems like an argument I've had with some of my children at any point during their lives. You know, it's like they'll say, well, this isn't fair and this isn't that. And you know, I listen very intently-ish, and then I feel like I just get to say, well, sorry, you don't like it. Right. I'm your dad. Right. I I you know, there there just feels like there's a part of this that just feels like Yeah, there's no way that that their sides will ever agree because one is the declaration is written in a way that's basically saying, we don't like who you are. And England's saying, okay. Am I wrong?
SPEAKER_01Well, no, I so I mean I think I think your analogy I think your analogy actually helps to bring out a point. So let me let me let me let me try this. So so when you are interacting, you know, when when you and your wife are interacting with your kids, yeah, uh, what you don't do is say, okay, kids, it's been four years. We would like to know, like, do you consent to us continuing in the role of parent for four more years? You know, you it it's it's it's you know, you're you would say our basis of authority does not actually derive from the consent of the children.
SPEAKER_00Correct.
SPEAKER_01Our our our basis of authority is because we're the parents, right? Right. And and you know, there's a kind of larger story about why parents have kind of rightful authority over children. And if your kids, you know, came up and said, you know, dad, we don't really consent to all this father business you're doing. Right.
SPEAKER_00So until you get our consent, you better they have said that. Right.
SPEAKER_01You know, maybe American teenagers, you know, maybe every generation of American teenagers like reenacts the American Revolution, right? Okay, yeah. Right. But uh, but not justly, right? Not justly. And so, but that gets into different bases of authority. And so I think the king of England would say something like, I don't need your consent to have authority over you. And the American colonists are saying, you know, actually you do. And it's it's getting into like different bases of authority, right? Sometimes authority is based in tradition. Uh, sometimes authority is based in like the personal charisma of the leader. Or sometimes people kind of give reasoned consent to a set of institutions because they believe those institutions are going to protect their rights, promote the public good, and so forth. And and the American Declaration is saying we're committed to creating a government based on that type of authority, right? The people are submitting to the government in a sense because they they they've looked at the Constitution. They they've they've thought about their rights, and they've said, no, we think this political structure we have created, we should submit to, not because it goes back, you know, centuries into time immemorial, uh, but because, you know, we reasonably believe that by consenting to this, we will protect our rights, we'll promote the public good, and promote the public safety, right? The the different kinds of language that we see used here in the Declaration.
SPEAKER_00Okay. Well, thank you, Alex. And what are we gonna be, what's the next step in this process? What are you doing with next?
SPEAKER_01Okay, so uh next step is gonna be our last episode of the season, and we're gonna be looking at the conclusion to the Declaration of Independence and also just kind of reflecting a little bit on the document as a whole.
SPEAKER_00Very good.
SPEAKER_01The views expressed on this podcast are those of the speakers and not necessarily those of Iowa State University. Thank you for listening.