Jefferson’s most important arguments for independence revolved around the Crown’s impositions on taxes and trade restraints onto the Colonies. He was also clear about the issue being not the severity but the fact that Crown had overstepped lines line of mutual respect.
Although it could be considered a declaration of War, the Declaration of Independence shouldn’t be. This is mostly semantics. To be considered a declaration, one must make it explicit or threaten violence. India, Costa Rica, South Africa, and possibly others all had declarations of independence. But they never fought wars or suffered widespread violence in their time of independence. It is clear that declaring independence and declaring war are distinct entities. Jefferson said that government’s role is very limited. Its duties include protecting our rights and defending the nation. He also stated that the government should be accountable for the people’s wishes. He makes the strongest argument by arguing that rights are God given and not granted to the state. Jefferson also asserts that governments are only responsible for the wishes of the people. He adds that Americans would be no more free if the government exceeded these limits.
A confederation made up of small republics is more likely than a single country to protect individual liberty. First, because elections are easier to win for small groups of people, they can also be more familiar with their subjects. Confederacy is also restricted in scope. A confederacy cannot impose laws to citizens without the consent or smaller state governments. This effectively renders it impotent.
Inherently, a larger republic will not be able to protect individual liberties forever. Even though it may be successful, such liberties are impossible to maintain, regardless of how long they last. The federal government today is strong because it has the consent of the governed. But if this were true, there wouldn’t be parties and we wouldn’t see Clinton or other unpopular candidates being elected to different offices. A federal government can lead to oligarchy, or Soviet-like tyranny, at best. However, their history is fascinating as it shows how individual freedoms were somewhat protected before the Soviet councils became subservient to central government. Although the Constitution does provide some protection in America, many Americans find it difficult to enforce. However, the majority will remain content with the status-quo. This means that the notion of the “consent to be governed,” which is interpreted to include the consent by the majority, has no meaning and is only used as a way of enforcing the existing state.
Without their consent, the Federal government shouldn’t be allowed to impose laws “promoting the general welfare” on states. Amendment 10 clearly defines this: “The powers not delegated or prohibited to US by the Constitution are reserved to States respectively or to people.” All Federal government actions, except in times of national emergency is inherently rigid and ineffective in responding to the local needs. While a tax on blue collar manufacturing jobs would have minimal effect in states like Washington and California, it could have a devastating impact on Appalachia and large parts of flyover America. Every increase in federal power is irreversible. It is therefore crucial to draw the line as soon possible.
Brutus brings up a valid point.
Modern governments have two options to address this issue: suppress dissent or choose a Parliamentary government. But a better solution is a confederation, which each has its own set of responsible states. Brutus claims that similar-mindedness within government is essential. However, it is dangerous to extrapolate large federal governments.