“Letters from A Farmer,” in Defense of Property Rights, as Relevant Today as 250 Years Ago
“Letters from A Farmer,” in Defense of Property Rights, as Relevant Today as 250 Years Ago
By Chris McGowan
On this day (December 16th) in 1773, American Patriots expressed their frustration and outrage with taxation imposed by the British crown by dressing as Native Americans, boarding ships carrying tea as cargo, and dumping 342 chests of their beloved beverage into the Boston Harbor. What is lesser known is that a series of a dozen anonymously published essays, entitled “Letters from a Farmer,” which were written a few years earlier, helped set the stage for this historical event.
Widely known as the Boston Tea Party, the Sons of Liberty organized the protest by dressing as Mohawk Indians and destroying the British-owned tea, which subsequently proved another significant milestone on the Americans’ journey to declare independence in 1776. What is often overlooked are the initial sparks that led to the American Revolution, the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townsend Duties Act of 1767, which were ignited years earlier.
Notably, English taxes and the regulation of trade over the previous decade had caused the colonists to grow increasingly angry about British attempts to utilize and leverage increasing taxes on the American colonies to stabilize their war-tattered economy and reduce their massive debt after the very costly French and Indian War.
Writing to protest these British taxes, John Dickinson, a legislator and lawyer from Pennsylvania, anonymously penned “Letters from a Farmer” to rally the America colonists against the British monarchy. Dickinson, who later became known as the “Penman of the American Revolution,” wrote twelve persuasive essays under the pseudonym, “A Farmer.” The author asserted that the British imposition of taxes without consent, often referred to as “taxation without representation,” would eventually lead to British attempts to assert control over property rights across the Atlantic Ocean.
Dickinson, whose essays rapidly gained popularity and were quickly reprinted in newspapers throughout the American colonies wrote, “We cannot be happy without being free – that we cannot be secure in our property, if, without our consent, others may, by right, take it away…” Dickinson’s contention regarding property rights remains as true today as when it was published in 1767.
Two and a half centuries later, Roger Pilon, who is a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute echoed Dickinson’s sentiments writing, “It is no accident that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to justice for all should protect property rights. Property is the foundation of every right we have, including the right to be free.” Just as “A Farmer” called attention to the importance of defending property rights prior to the start of the American Revolution, farmers are, once again, sounding the alarm to defend private property rights.
In Iowa, as the issue of eminent domain is being robustly debated throughout the state and especially in our state legislature, a quick summary of the issue may be in order. As eminent domain is constitutionally permitted for “public use” by the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the definition of “public use” was redefined 20 years ago. Historically “public use” was interpreted as a road, school, military fort, park, etc. Not until the June 2005 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London did the definition of a “public use” suddenly also include a “private use,” in this case for private economic development.
Two decades later, this debate rages on as private companies seek the authority to condemn private property for their own priority projects. While their motives, including profit, expanded markets for agriculture products, higher prices for agricultural commodities, etc., are all very worthy, Iowans cannot allow their long-held and critically important private property rights to be subverted. An admittedly worthy cause today will undoubtedly set the table for far less noble purposes in the future.
Furthermore, disparate parties coming to the table and negotiating is a common, if not expected occurrence in all economic development projects as mutually beneficial outcomes become increasingly likely through dialogue. However, the erosion of private property rights, which are widely considered essential to our individual liberty, must not be a casualty of compromise.
As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissent in the Kelo decision observed, “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.”
Twenty years removed, as we face this exact scenario with proposed pipelines in Iowa, the late O’Connor seems quite prophetic. Many legal observers believe that when the Kelo decision is revisited in the future, the Supreme Court will reverse itself leading to the full restoration of private property rights.
In the meantime, let us use this specific history, not only as a resource and a reminder of the importance of private property rights, but also as a guide to those who seek the wisdom of our Founders in resolving issues that might appear new to some, but are, in fact, as old as time.
Chris McGowan has lived on a small farm in southern Plymouth County for over 20 years. He is a husband, father, military veteran, lawyer, and economic development professional. He is also a Republican candidate for the 4thCongressional District in Iowa.