What reasons did Thomas Jefferson give to justify revolt by the colonies?

Answer 1

I'm writing a paper on if the Rebellion was justified form the view-point of john Locke and or Thomas Hobbes. Its generally unfinished, but I thought it may help with the development of a few of your ideas. Justified Rebellion The Age of Enlightenment philosophers brought many new and unheard of ideas to the palate of the people. During the Enlightenment, the importance of the individual was stressed. People were pushed to question previous belief in order to challenge authority, being a ruler, or the church. Standing up to ‘the man’ became of great significance in society. Specifically, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes particularly, introduced influential and arguable ideas. Locke’s general statement was that men had the natural right to certain possessions, those being life, liberty and property; also he proposed that man should have the right to overthrow an unfit or tyrannical ruler. In contrast, Hobbes philosophy stated that humans were naturally greedy, and only acted with concerns of self-survival, doing whatever means thought necessary to continue to exist. The actions of the colonists of America during the Revolutionary War have in the past been questioned. In the eyes of Locke and Hobbes, would the rebellion against England have been justified? Could the uprising of Americans have been supported by the philosophy of Hobbes or Locke? But what justifies a rebellion? How can one be sure that a revolution can be supported? John Locke’s ideas state that rebellion can be justified when the natural rights of man are being taken advantage of. In addition, Locke’s philosophy introduced a new idea, one of incredible importance, that man should have influence in their ruler, and if they choose wrongly, they should have the right to overthrow a ruler. In Locke’s perspective, either of these points would justify a rebellion. Additionally, how would Hobbes’s philosophical ideas support and justify a rebellion or uprising? Hobbes’s theory expresses the idea that naturally man is war-driven. From his viewpoint, there would not necessarily be a need to justify a rebellion, simply because a rebellion could occur without great reason, due to human nature, although his philosophy supports it. Locke’s theory that man should have the right to property, being all that the earth has to offer, created controversy in the European government during his time. Government consisted of absolute monarchs often turned tyrannical during the Enlightenment, therefore Locke’s philosophy stirred the population in a way unfavorable to the government. In his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke states that ‘…consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence: or revelation… as King David says, has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common.’ (Locke) In his treatise, Locke’s beliefs state that taking advantage of the natural right of property is completely unreasonable. During the Quartering Act of 1765, it was a requirement of the colonies to give up their property, in order to house the troops of the motherland. By imposing this on the colonists, the government was interfering with what Locke referred to as ‘natural rights’ including life, liberty and property. In Morgan’s The Birth of The Republic, he states the idea that ‘property and liberty were one and inseparable, without them, life is not worth living.’ (Morgan, pg 16) The idea that taking away a person’s property is equivalent to taking away their liberty supports the idea that King George was unjust in using the personal property of the colonists for his troops. Using this to support their argument, one could say that King George of England was taking away the colonists natural right to property, therefore justifying colonial rebellion in the eyes of John Locke. In addition to the issue of property, Locke also clearly states that one of the rights of man is to be able to overthrow an unfit or tyrannical ruler. In his Second Treatise of Civil Government he states, “As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.” (Locke) In this case, many colonists, about two thirds of the population, thought that King George was tyrannical, because he exercised his power beyond his right, according to the guidelines of Locke. The original draft of the constitution conveys that ‘The history of his present majesty, is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations…all of which have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.’ (Original draft of constitution) King George, in the mind of many of the influential writers and leaders of the time, was a tyrant. Locke’s theory about overthrowing a tyrannical ruler would have justified the rebellion that led to war, against King George III. Hobbes’s theory of human nature was that men are generally inclined to start war. His philosophy was that if men have an issue, war is their natural tendency. In his book Leviathan, Hobbes states ‘So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.’ (Hobbes) Although Americans were trying to successfully get their point across to parliament, unfortunately, the way they found most effective was violence. For example, the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party exemplified extreme acts of violence by the Americans. Hobbes’s indication of human nature suggests that the rebellion could have been justified, simply because it is human nature to recede to barbaric or war-like tendencies. In contrast, Hobbes also stated that there was reason to strive for peace. His philosophy was that only when peace failed, should men resort to war. In chapter XIV of the Leviathan, Hobbes states ‘…And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves.’ (Hobbes) In this situation, man (the colonists) did initially try for peace. When English parliament imposed the Stamp Act of 1765 upon the Americans, attempts to settle the matter peacefully failed. By 1766, due to the boycott and rebellion the Stamp Act was finally repealed. When peaceful rebellion against parliament failed, boycotts were the action that the colonists took to get the Act repealed. These actions paralleled the philosophy of Hobbes in that men should strive for peace, and only when that fails, should they fall to their natural tendencies of war-like behavior. Because the American colonists did try for peace, their actions could be supported and justified by the theory of Thomas Hobbes. Contrasting that, Hobbes may not have agreed with the way the revolution turned out. His philosophy on the most effective form of government states that because of human nature, the only way to effectively stop rebellion would be to have an absolute monarch. Quite obviously, that is not the way that the founding fathers wanted the newly independent country to be run. The constitution calls for 3 braches of government, something more along the lines of Locke’s philosophy, which almost directly parallels the ideas the founding fathers used as a basis for the consitution. Hobbes saw this as something that may lead to civil war. Contrary to Hobbes’s belief, the system of government that was created by the founding fathers worked well. So, if John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were looking back on the war, would they have agreed that the rebellion of the American colonists against the English parliament was justified, due to the natural tendencies of humans and their nature? John Locke would most likely have agreed with that statement. His ideas about human nature, and what is naturally endowed to man, laid the foundation for the documents that helped create the United States, as we know it today. His philosophy supports the rebellion that helped us create the country to grow into the one we know as our own. Hobbes’s philosophy on human nature also supported the actions of the American colonists, although his policy on government seemed to have fallen short to Locke’s when the founding fathers were taking into consideration philosophy in writing the constitution. Both influential philosophers would have generally supported the rebellion, but Locke’s overall philosophy supports the rebellion and justifies it more accurately than Hobbes’s philosophy. One could also think that one way Locke’s philosophy could be used to support the rebellion is because many of his ideas parallel statements in the documents used to found the nation, after the war was over. ‘It is…significant that Jefferson considered Locke to be one of "the…greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences." It is also significant that Jefferson declared that the Second Treatise… provides the "general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society… approved by our fellow citizens of… the United States." (Braman) Braman expresses the idea that Locke’s philosophy was largely taken into consideration while the founding fathers were writing the documents that built the nation. His ideas of three branches of government, natural rights, and separation of church and state were all included in the constitution. John Locke’s influence on the founding fathers and their writings support the idea that the American rebellion was completely just.