The Tree of Liberty

Lexington Minuteman
Sculpted by Henry Hudson Kitson
(Source)

Yesterday the Tree of Liberty came up in the comments, I had mentioned that it needed watering from time to time with the blood of tyrants (preferably). Boat Guy, good and learned man that he is, reminded me that the original quote also included the blood of Patriots. I knew that, but, as is my wont, I went further afield.

Now Thomas Jefferson, learned man himself and much maligned for his ownership of "enslaved persons"¹ coined the phrase we're talking about in a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith, the son-in-law of John Adams. (Not to drop names, but there you go ...) The letter, in its historical fullness (with spelling from the original), is as follows:

I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a 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 can not be all, and 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 independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And 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. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted. (Source)

 

There is a lot of good stuff in the letter but this bit really jumped out at me -

The people can not be all, and 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. (Ibid)

Sound familiar?

I often wonder if Mr. Jefferson would have been willing to shoulder his own musket to water the tree if such a thing had proven necessary. I like to think that he would have, however I seem to recall one of the Founders protesting that he was too fragile to go to war (not Jefferson, one of the Adamses as I recall). Can't find the quote or who said it, maybe I misremember, which is getting all too frequent at my age.

Something else I found in my research for this post was over at heritage.org -

Armed revolution can be a political community’s use of lethal force to collectively defend its members from an oppressive government. Like acts of individual self-defense against criminals, acts of collective defense against tyranny must be guided by certain universally applicable principles, including necessity and proportionality. Armed revolution is a last resort warranted only under dire circumstances, where a government’s egregious and widespread abuses threaten to inflict serious harm on the natural rights of its citizens and the normal democratic processes for addressing these threats reasonably appear to be foreclosed.

It is just as unwise and reckless to view armed revolution as a solution to every perceived injustice as it is to take a “shoot first, ask questions later” approach to individual self-defense. And, just as those who use lethal force against criminals must be capable of justifying their actions in criminal or civil court, those who would use guns against their government should remember that their actions will be judged by both their contemporaries and by posterity—if not also in a court of law. (Source)

Something to keep in mind for those keyboard commandos out there who constantly cry for armed rebellion at the drop of a hat. Pick up thy musket and lead the way sonny boy. Or sit the f**k down and be quiet. But that's just me. I know war, I've seen war, and believe me, I want no part in it if I can avoid it.

But if push comes to shove, who is willing to die?

"Face down in a pile of warm brass surrounded by the bodies of my enemies sounds a lot better than cancer in the old folks home."

Like Boat Guy said, you gotta die of something, right?

One of those things which gets closer as one ages, death that is. While I'd like to hold off on that for a bit yet, if push comes to shove, I might hazard all.

Author's Note: Why yes, I am in a bit of a funk this week. Hopefully things will get better soon. Perhaps this day being the 14th anniversary of my father's passing has something to do with it.

¹ Apparently it is now considered rude to refer to such people as "slaves." If someone would care to enlighten me as to the difference, I would be obliged. I am, you must know by now, not "woke." (Though I am very much wide awake as to what's happening in the world.)