Contrary to popular belief, declaring independence and seceding from Great Britain was not a very popular stance initially. In fact, Historians generally agree that those who supported the revolution never had a majority: they only made up an estimated 40–45% of the colonists, while 35–45% “were on the fence,” (“Loyalists”). This surprising fact, however, is cemented even in the Declaration of Independence, which opens with an assertion that when you inevitably diverge in politics, you should explain why you realigned if you have any respect for “mankind.” The Declaration of Independence became the colonist’s means of doing just that. In a way, the Declaration of Independence exemplifies a facet of civil discourse: a means to communicate their opinion and grievances in a peaceful manner, and in this case, one that would hopefully avoid a violent overthrow, while simultaneously convincing neutral colonists. Indeed, the “civil,” in “civil discourse,” does not necessarily mean excessive politeness, conflict‐avoidance, and refusal to “take sides.” Rather, it is about being upfront about our differences and confronting conflict head‐on. As such, the civil in “civil discourse,” is more about civic duty— a form of behavior that is important for good citizenship (Delaney). As such, civil discourse becomes a means to engage in civic duty because, in doing so, we learn to recognize what we owe to our fellow citizens and the country.
Prior to the Enlightenment period, most states and societies were organized in systems of monarchies or oligarchies. John Locke, colloquially dubbed the “father of liberalism,” wrote multiple revolutionary ideas in the Second Treatise of Government. One such idea included the “consent of the governed,” which directly challenged the doctrine of the divine right of kings and absolute monarchy. Many of these ideas from John Locke (such as natural rights and social contracts) are heavily referred to in founding documents and greatly influenced the founding fathers (Swanzy). Another significant philosopher that also contributed to Enlightenment ideals was John Stuart Mill. In On Liberty, he describes the concept of a free marketplace of ideas stating that it is the best way to achieve “truth,” (Eduardo). This concept is extremely important to civil discourse, as it places value in all opinions, explaining why it’s worth engaging in civil discourse even if the opinion seems to be “objectively” wrong. Harvard professor, Danielle Allen, further elaborates on how civil discourse upholds these ideas in her book Talking to Strangers. She argues that sacrifice is necessary in a democracy, even inevitable as one continues to participate in a democracy (Allen 28). Like Mill, Allen places a focus on dissenting opinions and the tyranny of the majority. Mill explains that dissenting opinions are the reason that we are able to progress society in a way that can benefit as many of us as possible and Allen supplements that, however, she argues that we must be cautious. Simply focusing on what the majority of the population wants, will lead to a constantly sacrificing minority, leading to civil turmoil (Allen). In the case of the U.S., leading to racial tension and divide.
Thus, Allen argues that civil discourse is an attempt in convincing or explaining to a majority or to the other party your feelings and your perspective on a certain issue. It helps others respect the sacrifices that are being made by the minority, acknowledge it, and find solutions to assuage the sacrifices required to keep a functioning democracy. In a republic, where those we elect are meant to represent our opinions, it is vital to be communicating to others about who you prefer and why. It is important to have these discussions because it informs our policies and who we want to represent us. A democracy is ultimately meant to be the will of the people. Of course, in a country as large as the United States, there will always be a losing party, and not everyone’s will is going to be represented even though that is what a democracy is meant to be. Allen argues that by “talking to strangers,” or (in other words) engaging in civil discourse, it will move you to respect the sacrifices that are made by the minority.
That said, this does not mean civil discourse is a perfect solution to the problem of a “sacrificing minority.” In the creation of the Constitution, there was much debate over ratification resulting in a series of essays dubbed the Federalist Papers and Anti‐federalist Papers, which argued for or against the ratification respectively. One of these documents, Federalist 10, highlights the importance of civil discourse in its discussion around factions. James Madison—the writer of Federalist 10—acknowledges the threat of factions and the tyranny of the majority. However, Madison argues that a large republic hosts a diverse set of views and so power will be dispersed across many different factions (“Founders”). All of these factions will be kept in check by one another, and therefore encouraged to compromise with one another. While Madison envisioned civil discourse being a solution to tyrannical rule of the majority, we haven’t seen this necessarily played out. Civil discourse is heavily reliant on freedom of speech. Such is the case of the Massachusetts compromise, which created a bill of rights that protects individual liberties from federal overreach. One of the first protections provided in the bill of rights is the first amendment protecting free speech and liberty of expression which came about to address the Anti‐federalists’ concerns. Civil discourse cannot exist without free speech, and the protection for free speech wouldn’t have existed if there was no civil discourse. Yet, similarly to freedom of speech, it is a difficult line to draw of what can be considered part of civil discourse and what cannot be. For example, does Malcom X views on violent protest and uprising a valid form of civic duty and discourse? What about hate speech? Should it be protected? What can be considered to be productive and what is too extreme or inherently harmful to society?
Still, this does not mean we should not shy away from civil discourse. All of these questions also require conversation with each other in order, as Mill states, to come “closer to [the truth],” (Eduardo).
Works Cited
Allen, Danielle. Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education. University of Chicago Press, 2006. University of Chicago Press, https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo3636037.html.
Delaney, Nora. For the Sake of Argument. Mar. 2019, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/public-leadership-management/sake-argument.
Eduardo, Angel. “John Stuart Mill’s Enduring Arguments for Free Speech | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.” The Fire, 14 June 2024, https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/john-stuart-mills-enduring-arguments-free-speech.
Founders Online: The Federalist Number 10, [22 November] 1787. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01–10-02–0178. Accessed 15 Dec. 2025.
Swanzy, Brenée. “How John Locke Influenced the Declaration of Independence.” John Locke Foundation, 4 July 2019, https://www.johnlocke.org/john-locke-and-the-declaration-of-independence/.
Loyalists vs Patriots: America’s Revolutionary Divide. 25 Nov. 2020, https://historyincharts.com/patriot-and-loyalist-support-for-the-american-revolution/.
