Phan 1
Sam Phan
Professor Tucker
English 205
3 April 2023
The Cost of Freedom
Freedom is a word that is often one of, if not, the first values associated with the great
nation of the United States. This only makes sense when one considers that America was
essentially founded upon the original colonies’ vehement yearning for freedom—for
independence—from their British progenitors. However, multitudes of peaceful solutions passed
to no avail; it appeared only one recourse remained for the American founding fathers. Thomas
Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence is a letter not only against the stranglehold of the British
Crown but against the oppression of freedom of all forms in which it may have manifested. More
than just a simple letter, however, this document and the words laid on it heralded hostile actions
that changed the course of history forever. America followed down the warring path and forsook
any of peace, all seemingly to achieve a peace of their own. This ostensibly contradictory
approach boils down to one controversial question: do the ends justify the means? Machiavelli,
infamous for his cynical and mercenary perspective on matters of ruling and governance,
believes they do: “for in order to maintain the state he (the prince) is often obliged to act against
his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion” (Machiavelli par. 23).
Examining the Declaration under a Machiavellian lens provides deeper insight into the minds of
both Jefferson and Machiavelli, as well as creates an interesting discourse about the nature of
freedom as it pertains to social order.
To understand how the Declaration may invoke Machivelli’s ideas in its writing, one
must begin to analyze the document’s argument. More specifically, how the Declaration asserts
Phan 2
that the means of rebellion is absolutely redeemable to achieve the ends of independence. I
believe this is laid out most transparently in the second paragraph: “That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government,” (Jefferson). Although Jefferson does not make any mention
of how the people ought to proceed with the alteration or abolishment of a defective government,
he clearly promotes those outcomes and deems them desirable. Applying Machiavelli’s
framework to this statement, one can interpret the lack of specific instructions to connote
Jefferson’s full commitment toward independence, or in other words, his readiness to violate the
virtue of peace for the sake of ideal independence. It is reasonable to assume that Jefferson and
his fellow founding fathers were privy to the procedures and consequences of rebellion.
Therefore, when rephrased from this standpoint, a Machiavellian aspect of the Declaration is
revealed. While reading through the document finds no explicit intention of waging war per se, it
is crucial to remember the document’s purpose and its contents, particularly the numerous causes
listed throughout the lines. The Declaration of Independence is written, as suggested by its title
and first paragraph, to explain to American citizens and the rest of the world why the colonies
benefit from the rejection of the British Crown and its forces: “decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”
(Jefferson). The document’s length itself primarily comprises the enumeration of iniquities
committed by British personnel unto the early citizens of the United States of America. From
this, one can infer that the authoring nation seeks no absolution for its decision; it is
unapologetic, opting for a subtly hostile, albeit elegant and classy tone. Jefferson and his brethren
intend to wholly see their way toward the ultimate goal of independence, even if it means
Phan 3
overcoming the pain and turbulence of rebellion, and their words in the Declaration reflect this
ambition.
Jefferson and his colleagues clearly advocated against the abuses of the British
government, stating their clear desire for independence within the Declaration. As previously
mentioned one can certainly ascertain a degree of acceptance of the likely horrific procedure and
acts of rebellion from the author. However, it is still ambiguous as to whether or not Jefferson
does wholeheartedly believe that the processes of rebellion, including war, civil disorder, and
death, are justifiable via the end of independence. An inference can be derived by comparing the
texts of the Declaration of Independence and Machiavelli’s The Qualities of the Prince, which
theoretically reflect both of their authors’ characters. One notable difference is within how both
texts view integrity and honesty. Jefferson introduces the Declaration with the intention of
appealing to the natural goodness within humans and explains the reason for his writing’s
existence (par. 1). Whereas Machiavelli quite explicitly advocates the opposite: “the princes who
have accomplished great deeds are those who have cared little for keeping their promises and
who have known to manipulate the minds of men by shrewdness,” (par. 19). There is a lucid
disconnect behind the morality of both of these thinkers. One maintains it; the other forgoes it.
Another point of difference falls upon the topic of religion. The Declaration invokes notions of
faith, while The Qualities of the Prince remains relatively secular, even recommending the
Prince consider sinful behavior. Still, it is not as if these two do not share any commonalities.
One subtle common trait lies in how both authors define a government’s role to its people. In
essence, both believe that a government serves to protect its people and their well-being. This is
evident in the opening lines of the Declaration and the emphasis on military prowess in The
Prince. One can summarize that both Jefferson and Machiavelli share in what a government’s
Phan 4
purpose is, but differ in how it ought to achieve said purpose. After examination, it is logical to
conclude that had Jefferson been offered Machiavelli’s advice, as written in The Prince,
Jefferson would have certainly disregarded a decent chunk of his guidance on grounds of moral
infringement. It is also crucial to weigh evils in one’s justification. One can reasonably surmise
that although Jefferson does not condone the means of rebellion, he justifies them as a lesser of
two evils; the other being a concession of independence. Jefferson was a right-minded man, but
drastic times call for drastic measures. Rebellion is not so much a cause as it is a symptom of
hard times, and hard times they were for the young colonies which Jefferson called home.
Briefly, I preface that I make no claim that rebellion was the definitively correct or
incorrect choice available in this context; my argument solely pertains to the definition of
morality within this specific context. Rebellion is seldom a peaceful process, more often
associated with violent excursions and a certain French historical movement as opposed to any
peaceful imagery. Rebellion bears such a violent connotation that non-violent acts aiming to
achieve the same effects are categorized with entirely different terms, such as civil disobedience.
It can be reasonably said that rebellion is by no means a moral or virtuous course of action.
However, an argument arises surrounding a rebellion's long-term impacts: is it not morally
acceptable, or even good, for rebellion to improve the state and the lives of its people? This
question is difficult because of the nature of morality as a concept; I believe that moral values
vary from person to person, meaning that morality becomes subjective. With this in mind, I pose
a new question, a rephrased derivative of the aforementioned argument: would it be moral to
dismiss the option of rebellion and concede to British oppression a people’s happiness and
posterity? Worded as such, I assert that it would be immoral for Jefferson, and the other
figureheads of the original colonies, to have remained expendable subjects in the eyes of the
Phan 5
British government, and that the ends justify the means. Consider the Declaration’s implications
on the function of government:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed… it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Jefferson
par. 2)
There are two key takeaways in this statement: (1) governments rely on the consent of the
subjects over which they rule and (2) governments serve to maintain and preserve the people’s
security and well-being, among a host of other values such as freedom. What the British
government was historically doing unto the colonies violates these two ideas, and as such, incited
actions against the injustices which Jefferson and his fellow colleagues perceived. I believe it
would have been unjustifiable, or immoral, had they remained complicit. One may argue that the
death and bloodshed involved with rebellion are counterintuitive to these very values and that
there are fewer macabre tragedies without rebellion. However, complicity does not compel
change, and eternity under such circumstances only leads to more injustice and mistreatment.
Rebellion, while grim up front, is an out to this endless suffering. I believe that life comprises the
experiences and choices any individual undertakes and makes, which relates to the concept of
freedom in a sense. Given that a rebellion does provide freedom in a society that locks it away, I
stand that the means of rebellion, in all of its horrific potential, can be justified by the ends of
independence, for a life without control—without independence—is not a life at all.
Lastly, on a quick note, this discussion on independence as a justification for certain
actions raises an interesting point. Independence and freedom are seemingly contradictory to
Phan 6
social order. Every rule or law is one more chain against a people, and one action made in the
name of freedom may cause chaos. Note that these facets are not binary but rather exist on a
spectrum. Successful governments do not opt for one over the other but tread fine lines to
balance them out. It is then beautifully apt that the path of rebellion, a considerably chaotic
approach, is taken to reforge and reform an institution to arbitrate and legislate.
In conclusion, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence marks a shift in early American
history—a moment when independence was forever engraved into this country’s values and
foundation. Independence, however, comes at a cost. A cost of partial humanity expended for the
sake of preserving what little remained of it and the dignity that remained of the young colonies.
Left with few options, the choice became clear and Jefferson birthed a document that has since
been echoed against tyranny for its elegance and eloquence. Unlike Machiavelli, Jefferson placed
faith in the people to better the government and that is what makes this document and discussion
special. Actions that invite inhumane consequences do not pardon nor permiss inhumanity. That
is to say that it is important to try to remain virtuous and good in the face of perils that endanger
and exploit such virtues. With the right combination of intent and circumstance, one can most
certainly admit that the ends do justify the means. The young colonies of America knew this, and
it is an important lesson that the people of today know when or when not to employ the same.
Phan 7
Works Cited
Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Translated by George Bull, Penguin Classics, 2003.