The Declaration of Independence is often misunderstood, which I wrote about here. One of the most important, yet overlooked, sections of the document is the list of indictments against King George III. The indictments are further evidence that the Declaration was never meant to be a revolutionary statement. From the Magna Carta to the colonial constitutions, George III was indicted for violating existing laws. Jefferson listed a total of 27 indictments against the King. Throughout February, we’re going to look at one indictment a day, why it was levied, and why it is still relevant.
Indictment #1 reads as follows:
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
Why was the indictment levied: The latter half of the 18th century was a period of tremendous economic growth in the colonies. With this growth came the need for further self-governance to meet the direct needs of the people. The colonial assemblies passed laws in favor of colonial currencies and greater representation in Parliament, but these were ignored by the King (and his royal governors and deputies). There were also disputes around how to pardon those who protested The Stamp Act of 1765 (The Stamp Act will be further detailed in a future indictment).
By refusing to ratify any legislation passed by the colonies, King George III was directly opposing American principles of self-determination. These principles had been seeded for some time, but during this period, they truly grow into the American spirit that we recognize today. The King is over 3,000 miles removed from the colonies. He and his governors are incapable of recognizing which laws are “wholesome and necessary.” Casually dismissing these laws is a direct attack on liberty.
Each colony also had a unique culture. Laws that were “wholesome” to Massachusetts may not be “necessary” to Virginia. The royal government was too disconnected from colonial life to recognize the distinctions. Further indictments will get into specifics, but indictment #1 is important because it’s a catch-all accusation that best captures the frustrations that came with the denial of self-determination.
Why is this important today: This applies to almost everything the Federal Government does. We are far removed from self-determination. Today, everyone expects a solution to be handed down from “a king” in Washington D.C. A good example of this is our approach to education.
For 200 years, the United States did not have a Federal Department of Education (the department is also unconstitutional). You have a greater investment in what is “wholesome and necessary” for your own child’s education and community than a bureaucrat 1,000 miles away does. Yet, schools still submit to mandates and regulations from D.C.
However, we did see some pushback against this top-down approach in the recent Virginia gubernatorial elections where education was front and center. The results of the race were a referendum on the incumbent denying Virginians a say in their government. Mandates from D.C. were rejected by the electorate in favor of local control over education. Wholesome and necessary, as determined by those affected most.
This is a good parallel to indictment #1. While a king no longer rules from across the ocean, we still place too much faith in rule from those distant to our “wholesome and necessary” interests. But those faraway interests can be rebuked by the strength of the local. You have far more say in your local government than you realize. Americans should keep that in mind going forward. Local government and self-determination are essential to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.