The Tree of Liberty and the cost of Revolution

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

This famous line, attributed to Thomas Jefferson, has returned to public discourse amid protests against ICE and Donald Trump.

It is not usually spoken by elected leaders, who understandably avoid revolutionary language, but it has clearly reemerged among protesters, organizers, and online commentators. I have even seen posts from some of my more liberal friends, who once rejected guns outright, now talking about arming themselves out of a perceived necessity to protect against tyranny. At the same time, these same voices accuse conservatives of hypocrisy, defending Kyle Rittenhouse’s Second Amendment rights while condemning Alex Pretti’s.

We are bickering over human lives. Tribalism has become so entrenched that when someone is killed, we are immediately expected to take sides — to mourn or to excuse, to justify or to condemn.

When I teach my Civil War class, before we ever reach the battles, I show my students the clip of Sullivan Ballou’s letter from Ken Burns’ “The Civil War.” It is a deeply moving letter written by a man to his wife on the eve of his death. I want my students to understand that casualty numbers are not abstractions; they are people with families. I feel the same way about modern political violence. These are real deaths, real losses. But because we have become politicized, discussion seems unavoidable.

The Second Amendment states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Our Founders’ intent in writing the Second Amendment was twofold, and those two purposes are represented by Rittenhouse and Pretti.

The first purpose was national defense. In a nation without a standing army, ordinary citizens were expected to form the militia in times of crisis. From this perspective, Rittenhouse’s actions in 2020 can be seen as constitutionally protected. During the protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, he joined others who claimed they were protecting businesses from destruction by mobs. In that instance, he aligned himself with law enforcement and, ultimately, was acquitted of all charges.

Pretti’s situation is different, but it draws from the second purpose of the Second Amendment: resistance to tyranny. Pretti was killed by ICE agents last month in Minneapolis, Minnesota, while he was protesting the federal government’s actions.

Our Founders also believed that the citizenry must remain armed so that, if the government itself became tyrannical, the people would retain the ability to resist. If Pretti believed he was resisting tyranny, then — at least in theory — his actions could be framed within that constitutional logic. Yet there is a catch.

As a thought experiment, let’s assume for a moment that ICE agents and the federal government are acting tyrannically. If we overlay the present situation onto 1775, one could argue that ICE becomes the modern equivalent of the redcoats, and protesters become the modern minutemen. Under that framework, armed resistance could be seen as morally justified. But that raises a far more serious question: What does that actually mean in practice?

America is unique in that its founding document, the Declaration of Independence, is built on the principle that the people have the right to rebel against tyrannical government. It functions almost like a national self-destruct clause. Yet there is a catch that is often ignored: you only have the right to revolution if you win. Our Founders understood this clearly.

In the final sentence of the Declaration, they wrote: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” This was not poetic flourishment; it was literal reality. There is a reason the Founders waited more than a year after the first shots were fired before formally signing the Declaration. They knew that if they lost, their lives would be forfeit.

And speaking of those first shots, on April 18, 1775, when the minutemen we now romanticize stood up to the authority of King George III, they did so with loaded weapons, just as some now call for today. But they also understood the cost.

At Lexington and Concord, 49 American colonists were killed and 39 wounded on the very first day of fighting. Families mourned, lives were shattered, and communities were forever changed. Yet no one questioned why the soldiers shot them. They knew exactly what it meant to resist armed governmental authority.

If you show up to a gunfight with a gun, there are consequences. If you quote Jefferson, remember that his tree of liberty is refreshed with blood.

Both situations — Rittenhouse and Pretti — can be viewed through a Second Amendment lens. Both involved the right to bear arms, but the situations are not the same. I am not saying Pretti deserved to die, and I sincerely wish it had not happened. There must be an open investigation and accountability if fault is found.

While this may not apply directly to Pretti’s case, the broader principle remains: using a weapon to protect property from a mob and using a weapon to resist law enforcement are fundamentally different acts.

To my friends considering arming themselves, that is still your unquestionable constitutional right, and no one should stop you. Yet rights are not exercised in a vacuum or free from law and consequences. Revolution may be in America’s DNA, but it comes with a brutal historical truth: it only works if you win.

James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at james.finck@swoknews.com. Thanks to Southwest Ledger for sharing his column