Video
Grievance #19 of the Declaration of Independence
Watch
Founding Principles
About this video
What if you could be arrested and sent away without even seeing a judge?
In Grievance 19 of the Declaration of Independence, Garrett Jones, Postdoc Fellow at the Thomas Jefferson Center at University of Texas at Austin, explains how colonists were detained and transported far from home without due process.
This violated a key legal protection known as habeas corpus, the right to appear before a judge and hear the charges against you. Rooted in traditions going back to the Magna Carta, this right was meant to protect individuals from arbitrary imprisonment.
For colonists, losing that protection was a serious warning sign. If the government could detain people without explanation and move them far away, it meant basic legal rights were no longer secure.
This grievance highlights a tension that still exists today: how to balance liberty and security, especially during times of conflict.
This is Part 19 of our 27-part series breaking down every grievance that led to the American Revolution, building toward Independence Day.
0:00 Grievance 19 stems from the thousands of American patriots that were hauled off to faraway places. These imprisonments violated a fundamental right known as habeas corpus, which is connected with due process and the right to appear before a judge to hear the crimes you are accused of. We need to look back to British tradition first to the Magna Carta, which guaranteed subjects protection against the king arbitrarily
0:21 detaining prisoners in secret and faraway places. So, if this right dates back to the Magna Carta, why was it not extended to the colonists? Executives were not supposed to be able to curtail these rights after the 1679 Habeas Corpus Act, which the great William Blackstone called a second Magna Carta. Our declaration called out the British for violating this fundamental right. But,
0:42 the British Constitution created a safety valve for emergencies, allowing habeas corpus to be suspended in times of rebellion. This type of trade-off between rights and security would become enshrined in the US Constitution suspension clause. The clause has been at the center of some of the most important debates in American constitutional development. Most famously, President Lincoln unilaterally suspended the writ at the
1:04 start of the Civil War after shots fired on Fort Sumter. Debates over habeas corpus and due process shape our history. In the next 250 years, we the people will continue to have these debates and test whether a nation conceived in liberty can long endure. We can better ensure we pass that test through civic knowledge and discussion of the importance of Grievance 19 and
1:25 its connection to the great writ of habeas corpus.
Standards
Related Resources
What happens when a government controls who you can trade with? In Grievance 16 of the Declaration of Independence, Grace Richter, PhD candidate in history at George Washington University, explains how Britain tightened control over colonial trade through laws like the Navigation Acts. For years, colonists had traded relatively freely, even with countries outside the British Empire. But as tensions grew, Britain began strictly enforcing these laws and restricting trade. The shutdown of the Boston port in 1774 made things even worse, cutting off a major hub of economic activity. For many colonists, this wasn’t just about money. Trade was their livelihood, and controlling it meant controlling their freedom. What once felt like loose oversight turned into something much more serious: direct control over colonial economies and daily life. This is Part 16 of our 27-part series breaking down every grievance that led to the American Revolution, building toward Independence Day.
Everyone knows the phrase “no taxation without representation.” But what did it actually mean? In Grievance 17 of the Declaration of Independence, Zachary Deibel, Assistant Professor at Virginia Military Institute, explains why representation, not just taxes, was the real issue. British officials argued that colonists were “virtually represented” in Parliament, meaning lawmakers acted in the best interest of the entire empire. But for Americans, that wasn’t enough. They were used to having a direct voice through their own colonial legislatures. Colonists didn’t reject all taxes. What they rejected was being taxed by a government where they had no real representation or consent. As thinkers like John Locke argued, legitimate government depends on the consent of the governed. Without that, political power loses its authority.
What if you didn’t get a jury at your trial? In Grievance 18 of the Declaration of Independence, Chris Canty, student at George Washington University, explains how colonists were denied the right to trial by jury in certain cases. Instead, cases like smuggling were sent to admiralty courts, where a single judge decided the outcome. No jury. No peers. Just a ruling from a magistrate. For colonists, this was a serious violation of their rights. Trial by jury had been a core part of English law since the Magna Carta, and losing it felt like losing a key protection against government power. This wasn’t just about one case or one court. It was about a bigger issue: if the government can control the courts, can it also control justice?
Primary sources, videos, essays, lessons, and more about what led to the Declaration of Independence
What were the grievances laid out in the Declaration of Independence? Help students define each grievance through modern song lyrics in our interactive quiz leading up to Constitution Day. This Constitution Day, BRI is highlighting the years between the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787.