“Unconditional submission” or “resistance by force.”
Thomas Jefferson, John Dickinson, and the Second Continental Congress said those were their two terrible options less than three months after the battles of Lexington and Concord and the “shot heard ‘round the world.”
This is the story of the forgotten declaration in which they explained why they fought back.
THE DECLARATION
It’s July 6, 1775 – the Second Continental congress just unanimously passed a resolution written by Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson – the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.
They explained that the legislature of Great Britain “attempted to effect their cruel and impolitick purpose of enslaving these Colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms.”
Despite this, they felt morally bound to tell the world exactly what was going on.
“Yet, however blinded that Assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to slight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound, by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause.”
The primary issue?
They told us in the first paragraph. Parliament claimed the right to unlimited power over the colonies – in all situations, for all time.
“If it was possible for men who exercise their reason, to believe that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these Colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them has been granted to that body.”
This was, of course, a clear reference to the Declaratory Act of 1766, where the British claimed power over the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.”
Of course – Jefferson, Dickinson and the entire Congress vehemently rejected the notion that even the unwritten British constitution authorized such a power.
“The Legislature of Great Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power, not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very Constitution of that Kingdom”
GUN CONTROL
That brings us to the fateful day – the “shot heard ‘round the world” on April 19, 1775. Jefferson and Dickinson called out the British as violent aggressors, starting first with Lexington.
“General Gage, who, in the course of the last year had taken possession of the Town of Boston, in the Province of Massachusetts-Bay, and still occupied it as a garrison, on the 19th day of April sent out from that place a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the inhabitants of the said Province, at the Town of Lexington, as appears by the affidavits of a great number of persons, some of whom were officers and soldiers of that detachment, murdered eight of the inhabitants, and wounded many others.”
That wasn’t enough for Gage. The British kept pushing for more and marched on Concord.
“From thence the troops proceeded in warlike array to the Town of Concord, where they set upon another party of the inhabitants of the same Province, killing several and wounding more, until compelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression. Hostilities, thus commenced by the British Troops, have been since prosecuted by them without regard to faith or reputation.”
But the redcoats didn’t march on Lexington and Concord to collect taxes. They were there to confiscate guns and powder so they could better enforce obedience to a series of laws implemented to assert the power of the Declaratory Act.
This October, 1774 “suggestion” from Lord Dartmouth to Gen. Gage is a powerful example of their total gun control mindset and strategy.
“Amongst other things which have occurred on the present occasion as likely to prevent the fatal consequence of having recourse to the sword, that of disarming the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut and Rhode Island, has been Suggested”
Backed by an almost complete ban on the importation of arms and ammunition to America issued by King George III just two days after Dartmouth’s recommendation, Gage took that suggestion and ran with it.
Broad searches for arms and ammunition quickly ramped up in the Boston area. And the British didn’t hold back on taking them, either. An account published in April 1775 showed the scale of the seizures.
“The Neck Guard seized 13,425 musket cartridges with ball, (we suppose through the information of some dirty scoundrel, of which we have now many among us) and about 300 lb. of ball, which we were carrying into the country–this was private property.–The owner applied to the General first, but he absolutely refused to deliver it.”
This gun control program continued even after the fighting started on April 19th. Jefferson and Dickinson described it in detail.
“The inhabitants of Boston, being confined within that Town by the General, their Governour, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants, having deposited their arms with their own Magistrates, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects.”
But this was just a dirty trick, something gun grabbers have always been known for.
“They accordingly delivered up their arms; but in open violation of honour, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the Governour ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the Town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind.”
This is what we’d call today a war crime. For them, it was the lowest of the low – the crime of perfidy – a deliberate betrayal of trust.
“By this perfidy, wives are separated from their husbands, children from their parents, the aged and the sick from their relations and friends, who wish to attend and comfort them; and those who have been used to live in plenty, and even elegance, are reduced to deplorable distress.”
The moral and legal criminality of perfidy traces its roots back to ancient Rome and Greece – and later the medieval rules of chivalry. But few captured how repulsive this treachery was seen as better than Jean Jacques Burlamaqui.
“We likewise observe, that, without any great thought or reasoning, a child, or untutored peasant, is sensible that ingratitude is a vice, and exclaims against perfidy, as a black and unjust action, which highly shocks him, and is absolutely repugnant to his nature.”
ROOT CAUSE
In the Declaration of the Causes, Jefferson and Dickinson again pointed to the Declaratory Act as the source of the problem.
“Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project; and assuming a new power over them, have, in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it.”
They included a long list of British acts to show the consequences of this unlimited power, including:
- Take money without consent
- Expand courts of admiralty beyond their limits
- Deprived them of trial by jury
- Suspending legislatures
- Blocking commerce
- Protecting government agents from standing trial
- Standing army
- Quartering soldiers
And that was just a partial list, intentionally too. Because the Declaratory act meant unlimited power, they didn’t even see the point in listing out every single one of the abuses and usurpations.
“But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared that Parliament can “of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever.” What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power?”
PATIENCE
They made it clear that fighting back was not a rash decision. They were patient – for years.
“We saw the misery to which such despotism would reduce us. We, for ten years, incessantly and ineffectually besieged the Throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with Parliament, in the most mild and decent language.”
Pointing to the First Continental Congress in September 1774, it’s clear they were working their way up an escalation ladder very intentionally – sticking to peaceful measures, like boycotts.
“We have pursued every temperate, every respectful measure; we have even proceeded to break off our commercial intercourse with our fellow-subjects, as the last peaceable admonition”
Even this was considered pretty extreme because they wanted to remain friends in peace. But liberty was more important.
“Our attachment to no Nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty.”
At the time, they thought the boycott would be the last step required. But with hindsight, they realized it had no chance – because tyrants don’t care.
“This, we flattered ourselves, was the ultimate step of the controversy; but subsequent events have shown how vain was this hope of finding moderation in our enemies.”
The British response to this “peaceable” final effort? The empire did what empires do: more troops.
“Large re-enforcements of ships and troops were immediately sent over to General Gage.”
It was at this point that Jefferson and Dickinson acknowledged that all their protests, petitions, and peaceful boycotts were like running face first into a brick wall.
“Fruitless were all the entreaties, arguments, and eloquence of an illustrious band of the most distinguished Peers and Commoners, who nobly and strenuously asserted the justice of our cause, to stay, or even to mitigate the heedless fury with which these accumulated and unexampled outrages were hurried on.”
THE “OFFER”
Back to General Gage – Jefferson and Dickinson made it clear they weren’t too fond of his tactics.
“The General, further emulating his Ministerial masters, by a Proclamation, bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these Colonies, proceeds to “declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors; to supersede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial.”
This was in reference to the General’s proclamation of June 12, 1775, where he had the audacity to make the Americans an offer he thought they couldn’t refuse:
Give up your guns. Give up your friends. And we’ll give you “peace.”
“Do hereby in his Majesty’s name, offer and promise, his most gracious pardon in all who shall forthwith lay down their arms, and return to the duties of peaceable subjects, excepting only from the benefit of such pardon, Samuel Adams and John Hancock, whose offences are of too flagitious a nature to admit of any other consideration about that of condign punishments.”
Strategically, Gage was trying to overpower them – scare them into submission by burning and murdering.
“His troops have butchered our countrymen; have wantonly burnt Charlestown, besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him.”
THE RESPONSE
They knew they only had two options: Live on their knees, or fight back.
“We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated Ministers, or resistance by force.”
Their response? NO DEAL.
“The latter is our choice.”
Despite the great danger in that response, they had strong moral standards – and backbone – that would allow no other path forward.
“We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us.”
Echoing Samuel Adams’ 1772 warning that compliance meant tyranny for “millions yet unborn” – they also knew that submission meant never-ending tyranny – not just for themselves, but for generations to come.
“We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.”
SELF-DEFENSE
Jefferson and Dickinson then reiterated two key principles: The right of self-defense is a gift of our creator, and when violence is used against you – you use it back.
“With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume”
“Liberty or death” was no mere slogan for the American revolutionaries. It was a way of life – no matter how difficult or dangerous the situation might be.
“We will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being, with one mind, resolved to die freemen rather than live slaves.”
They wanted everyone to know – despite not yet fighting for independence, they were giving an example to the whole world: A free people will never live on their knees.
“We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.”
The self-defense principle was so important that Jefferson and Dickinson again drove the point home: They were fighting back in defense of natural rights – life, liberty and property.
“In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birth-right, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it; for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms.”
Just in case the empire was hard of hearing, they closed out the Declaration with one more response to that offer from Gen. Gage.
NO DEAL
“We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.”
- Forgotten Declaration: Why they were Fighting Back - June 17, 2026
- Shots Fired, Ship Burned: The Sons of Liberty vs the HMS Gaspee - June 10, 2026
- Ignorance and Vice: The One-Two Punch for Tyranny - June 3, 2026