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 #24 reads as follows:
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
Why was the indictment levied: This indictment is the first that confronts the King for acts of physical violence. We have covered the impressment of ships under indictments that dealt with the Navigation Acts. In addition to economic damages, naval officers made threats against the colonists. Officers in Bristol, Rhode Island demanded they be provided with 300 sheep. When the colonists refused, their village was razed.
Similar assaults were carried out across all of New England’s coastal towns. Captain Mowatt was ordered to set fire to all towns from Boston to Halifax. Southern coastal hubs like Norfolk and Charleston were also reduced to cinders. War was now officially on as Great Britain “ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.”
Why is this important today: Insurrections specifically will be covered in a later indictment. For this indictment, we’re going to look at the “burning our towns” aspect. Reducing towns to ash is something that happened throughout the summer riots of 2020, and it has a lot more in common with Jefferson’s 24th indictment against King George than appears on first glance.
Antifa and Black Lives Matter groups set government buildings, private businesses and residences on fire throughout the summer 2020 riots. They caused over $2 billion in damage and killed dozens. Normally, arson and rioting can be attributed to standard criminal behavior. It would have nothing to do with government denying rights, like in the indictments of the Declaration. But in this case, government is responsible for the damage.
When damage is this widespread and coordinated, it is because it has been allowed to happen. The mayors and district attorneys of cities like Chicago, Portland and Kenosha ordered their police forces to stand down and allow the riots to happen on “free speech” grounds. If a rioter was arrested, politicians paid their bail the next day. Those whose private property happened to be caught in the crossfire had their concerns casually mocked by politicians: “You have insurance.” Today the government oversteps its enumerated powers in many ways, but protection of property is their legitimate duty.
When a government abdicates its responsibilities, that leaves protection in the hands of private citizens. Those that were confronted with riots were left with two options, defend their property or let it burn. Those that chose the first option were prosecuted by the same DAs who allowed the violence to happen in the first place. That is a massive conflict of interest. While government was not lighting the fires directly, they were certainly allowing them to burn. These cities eventually received bailouts from the Federal Government in the form of “disaster relief,” creating further conflicts of interest.
Outside of law enforcement, government enacting direct violence against citizens does not happen in the United States. That’s a characteristic of third world dictatorships. But here, they do not need to engage in direct violence. They can stand down and have others do it for them, outside of government, but with the blessing of government. By their inaction and approval, they have “burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.”