What would Jefferson Say?

I was watching the HBO special about John Adams, and in the course of the story he finds himself in Philadelphia talking to Thomas Jefferson, who we all know was the principle author behind the Declaration of Independence. That turned my mind to the great document itself. I wondered how many of the charges leveled against King George III would be equally fitting if leveled against the current United States Government?

I have heard others state that, if you take the list of offenses in the document and look at the US government of today you will see many of the same offenses.

I extracted the large list of offenses from the document and see how our current government stacks up. I choose the middle section of the document, which is a list of offenses, but left out the other charges in the opening and conclusion areas.

To make it more proper I have replaced the pronouns He and Him with [Our government] and [it] respectively.

[Our government] has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

I don't think that has happened often, and when it does it is usually at the state level. More than once state voters have adopted resolutions, or even attempted to amend their constitutions, only to have an out of control court over turn the will of the people. But on the whole I think we're safe on this score, at least as it was in comparison to what Mr. Jefferson witnessed.

[Our government] 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, [It] has utterly neglected to attend to them.

This has not been an issue, and indeed is not likely to ever be as it reflects the form of government. There is no King from which assent is required, and thus no possibility of Royal neglect.

[Our government] 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.

Again, this is a throwback to the form of government faced by the colonists.

[Our government] 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.

This has not been a problem, at any level that I'm aware of. Congress meets at the same place as always and on a regular schedule known well in advance. No complaints there.

[Our government] has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

We have not seen this happen.

[Our government] 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.

No dissolutions, no way for this to happen.

[Our government] has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

Well, I suspect we have the exact opposite issue now! Our government seems to be completely at ease allowing anyone into the country without any process what-so-ever, and then even defending their status here.

[Our government] has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing [its] assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

Not a problem thus far.

[Our government] has made judges dependent on [its] will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

Not a problem in that the legislatures set the salaries, but they are elected, and no single government authority asserts its will over judges directly. The higher courts, of course, and properly, influence the lower courts by overturning those rulings that do not meet their standards, but on the whole the courts are not on an iron grip other than its own.

[Our government] has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Now this is beyond true! George Washington had 4 cabinet members, President Barrack Obama will have 15! The size of the federal, state and local governments has swollen out of all proportion with the size of the population, and a good many of these officers "harass our people, and eat out their substance".

[Our government] has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

This has not been a problem, in that it is our legislature that might keep a standing army, and thus it cannot be without our consent. And in a broader scope neither has the government sought to quarter such troops without our consent in out private homes.

[Our government] has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

This has not happened. The military is still subserviant to the President.

[Our government] has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving [its] assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

This is actually starting to happen. With the UN, and the WTO and so on the government has, in some limited cases, asserted that foreign authorities were higher than our own constitution.

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

Again, our troops, and not in our houses.

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

No problem here. Anyone in uniform that commits a crime can expect to be prosecuted for it.

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

If anything the exact opposite is true. The government seems to be rushing head long into all sorts of "free trade" agreements.

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

I believe this has happened in some rare cases, but not nearly to the extent that Mr. Jefferson witnessed. I also believe that, in most or even all of the cases, they were later repealed or confirmed by vote.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

This looked like it might have started happening except that it was beaten back, specifically the denial of Habius Corpus was a problem that we seem to either have resolved or in the process of resolving.

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

Guantanamo Bay anyone? Not on a large scale, but such things begin small. This looks like it might soon be undone.

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring 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 in these colonies:

This does not seem to be a problem.

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

Not a problem.

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

This has been a slow process where states rights have been usurped by the federal government, and the counties and cities usurped by the states. Power has been collecting in fewer hands.

[Our government] has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of [its] protection and waging war against us.

The government has not waged a shooting war to be sure, but it has done some things to intentionally reduce our abilities to resist it should the need arise.

[Our government] has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

No, this has not happened.

[Our government] 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 and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

Not yet, but I do not put it beyond the government to call on NATO or UN troops to assist should an internal conflict break out.

[Our government] 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.

This has not happened

[Our government] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Not so much armed conflicts, as playing one group off another, but that's to be expected.


In my conclusion, while some things are similar, Thomas Jefferson would not write the document as he wrote this one if he were doing it today.