Our founding fathers did not begin the American revolution with bombs or bullets. They began with words. Waging a war against a more established and experienced military is not a decision most will take lightly. People aren't willing to give their only life for a frivolous cause. When drafting the Declaration, Jefferson didn't try to re-invent the wheel; most of our founders political philosophy came directly from “conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.” (Letter, pg 12, lines 1-2). The foundation was set, someone just had to put things in clear enough terms for people to get mad enough to do something about it.
John Locke describes in “Politics” some examples in which citizens are justified to revolt: First, when the government (whether King or Legislature,) creates laws which invade the lives, liberties and / or properties of the citizens. Locke also asserts that government acts contrary to the trust of the public when it:
...employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society, to corrupt the representatives, and gain them to his purposes; or openly pre-engages the electors, and prescribes to their choice, such, whom he has, by solicitations, threats, promised, or otherwise, won to his designs: and employs them to bring in such, who have promised beforehand, what to vote, and what to enact. (Locke, pg 40, lines 28-32.)
The main function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. When the government acts contrary to those functions, according to Locke, they “put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience...,” (Locke, pg. 40, lines 14-15). At this point, “it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.” (Locke, pg 40, lines 20-23.) Locke is asserting here that our right to revolt and replace the corrupt legislators is inherent in the relationship between the elected and the citizens.
One of the arguments against this premise of allowing citizens to revolt and institute new rulers “as they see fit” is that it may allow the constant overthrow of government at any minor transgression, leading to perpetual instability and conflict. Locke counters this assertion by stating “People are not so easily got out of their old forms as some are apt to suggest. They are hardly to be prevailed with to amend the acknowledged faults in the frame they have been accustomed to.” (Locke, pg. 40, lines 37-39, page 41, line 1). Put simple, Locke is stating that most people will tolerate the status quo, and are only compelled to take action when the transgressions become so great, and so obvious to everyone, they cannot be ignored. Locke also maintains that, when the public is always willing to assert its inherent right to revolt, this will act as a “check” to whatever government is currently in power. In theory, at least.
Upon reviewing the Declaration of Independence, one can draw parallels between the older writings of Locke, and the main author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson begins by laying a foundation, rooted in the wisdom of Locke, in order to convince citizens that we need to take action. For what is the purpose of the Declaration of Independence if the masses are not willing to give it teeth? People need to be convinced to stand up and openly rebel against an oppressor, especially in the face of grave danger. Any attempted justification would clearly have to be compelling, our founding fathers must have known Britain wouldn't give up these great lands without a fight. Enormous amounts of blood would have to be shed in order for this to work. So much was at stake with this document, if it failed, so conceivably would our American experiment.
After the introduction, Jefferson is ruthless in describing Britain's transgressions against us: The King's refusal to allow us to govern as we see fit, the King dissolving any legislatures we create, his stationing large numbers of troops among us, his calling of legislative meetings impractically far away, his depriving citizens of the right to fair trials, taxation without consent, inciting warfare among and against the Citizens, etc. (Declaration, pages 6-8). The list goes on and on.
Towards the end of the Declaration, Jefferson states:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” (Declaration, page 8, lines 7-11).
Jefferson justifies action by drawing from the words of Locke. The issues he wrote about were grave transgressions of power, which had been going on for a long time. They are not frivolous, spur of the moment issues. We could not live in this fashion, and action had to be taken. We petitioned the King numerous times with no positive results, only continued oppression.
Therefore, the only thing we could do is dissolve the bonds between the British and our Independent States, in order to shake off the chains of oppression which bound us to the King and his continued injustice. The Declaration ends with representatives of the 13 colonies “mutually pledg(ing) to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (Declaration, page 8, lines 33-34). - unknown