Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" Quote in Context
by Brad Hart

Over the past few weeks we have witness how the debate over healthcare has ignited the fires of political partisanship on both sides of the conservative/liberal spectrum. Whether taking the form of intense town hall meetings or fervent public protests -- in which some even chose to carry automatic weapons in public -- the debate over healthcare has caused scores of Americans to yet again invoke the founding principles of America to support their respective take on the issue.

In the wake of this public discourse one infamous and stirring quote has made its way onto the public stage: enter none other than Thomas Jefferson.

In 1787, Thomas Jefferson -- who was then living in France -- wrote a letter to his friend William Smith. In the letter Jefferson wrote the following words, which have, from time-to-time, been quoted to affirm the right of the people to rebel against one's government:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Simple enough, right? Well, not quite. And while Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote has become a favorite of many who oppose the current direction being taken by the Obama Administration, the quote has an important and often forgotten context.

As mentioned before, Jefferson was still living and working in France in 1787. At the time, Jefferson was deeply concerned about some of the proposals for the new United States Constitution -- particularly the role of the executive branch, which he saw as being far too powerful. In addition, Jefferson believed that the recent rebellion in Massachusetts -- which became known as Shays' Rebellion -- had heightened the fears of the American elite, causing them to throw their weight behind a stronger executive government. Shays' Rebellion was essentially an armed rebellion against taxes being levied at Massachusetts farmers. It's leader, Daniel Shays -- who had served as a soldier during the American Revolution -- used the legacy of the American Revolution to garner support for his cause. As a result, scores of patriotic Massachusetts men, most of whom were farmers themselves, resurrected the legacy of the "liberty tree" to fight the perceived injustices of the newly created government. As a result, America's governing class -- and yes, it was a class -- believed that a strong centralized government was the only surefire way to ensure America's future security.

For Jefferson, this was a textbook example of how passions could cloud judgement, creating an atmosphere of panic and fear. As Jefferson states in his letter to William Smith:

Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms

Simply put, Jefferson understood Shays' Rebellion to be a common and important component of republican government. Without it, the people could not be effectively represented and the communal "lethargy" would eventually destroy the nation. On the flip side, however, Jefferson also notes that the people are rarely if ever well informed on all issues. It is this communal ignorance -- Jefferson emphasises ignorance and not wickedness -- that Jefferson believes the government must endeavor to remedy. He continues:

The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.

The remedy is not suppression or rejection of public discontent, rather persuasion and public discourse.

So would Jefferson support the current public dialogue on healthcare? There's a good chance that he would. We can debate whether or not he would like the current rhetoric of the conservatives/liberals but I think it's hard to deny that Jefferson would be pleased to see the outpouring of public interest.

With that said, I doubt Jefferson would support actual blood being shed on the proverbial "Tree of Liberty." After all, enough blood has been lost thanks in part to this often misunderstood quote. It was Timothy McVeigh, the convicted Oklahoma City bomber, who was so very misguided by his poor understanding of Jefferson's words. On the day he chose to murder 168 of his fellow Americans, McVeigh was wearing a shirt that carried Jefferson's infamous words:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Problems immediately arise when words are removed from the context in which they were uttered or written, especially when they are embraced -- as Jefferson's have been recently -- by ignorant loons.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."

Well, what are you waiting for, peachfuzz?

Get yer gun and start "refreshing".

So.

Does that mean 47 million people uninsured is a legitimate number to use during the health care debate?

Obama?

Libs?

rwd

Problems immediately arise when words are removed from the context in which they were uttered or written, especially when they are embraced -- as Jefferson's have been recently -- by ignorant loons.

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

The context is pretty plain Doc.

"what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

Jefferson was not merely reflecting on the Massachusetts uprising but dictating what it takes to keep a republic free. Of course a Progressive liberal will twist it to mean whatever suits their agenda. Just like they twist 2nd amendment.

Of course a Regressive rtard will twist it to mean whatever suits their agenda. Just like they twist 2nd amendment.

#6 | Posted by Beachbuzz

Ther ya go-fixed it for ya......

No charge!

Ther ya go-fixed it for ya......

No charge!

Proof of the old adage: You get what you pay for

Of course a Regressive rtard will twist it to mean whatever suits their agenda

Frankfurter - it is what it WAS without your stupid slant.

It has just not occurred to BEACHBUZZ that he is defending the status quo, the benefit for the rich as opposed to the working class. Yes, Jefferson was right, a revolution is necessary from time to time, Barack Obama was elected to be that revolution. Congress is the battle field. Obama's "troops" just don't seem to realize why they were put into the "battle." We may eventually lose the "battle" but it won't be because our cause wasn't right, it will be because the other side had more money.
BEachbuzz is just stupid enough to think that those with that money give a crap if he lives or dies. It's one thing to lose a battle, it's another to fight for those who wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire.

It's one thing to lose a battle, it's another to fight for those who wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire.

Posted by danni

Nice try, Danni, but the fingerbiters think they're important to their masters.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2009-09-03 10:18 PM

So you are an ANTI-CAPITALIST? aka Communist? Good to know where everyone stands out here. Hate the rich because they have more ambition or success than the next guy?

You are a spread the wealth kinda gal and we don't want your fucking socialism! Burn at the stake witch!!!

That mind frame is the EXACT reason why America was founded...to rid ourselves from the chains of the British so we could be free to chose our OWN destinys.

Some historical numbers to ponder:

In 1929, the Soviet Union (Russia) established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 MILLION dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 MILLION Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 MILLION people who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 MILLION political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 CHRISTIANS, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one MILLION educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

They didn't think it could happen to them, and it did.