Imagine it’s 1774 and you just found out that King George III has passed a new law to punish everyone for the 150 people who dumped tea in the harbor, and all the town meetings are canceled for the next six weeks! This act was called the Coercive Act, the King came off as being a bit dramatic because it’s not like all of Boston dumped tea in the harbor, only a small portion so it’s like getting punished for something a sibling or other family member did which most people tend to find unfair. England saw it a fair punishment for what's today known as the Boston Tea Party. Since the Coercive act was the last act passed by the king/ parliament before the Continental Congress was created, it could be argued that this act was one of the pivot
…show more content…
An example of that would be a patriot named Patrick Henry, who gave a commonly known speech to the Virginia legislature, known as, “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!” Henry starts off his argument, declaring, “We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament.” (Henry) In this Henry is implying that the king is a tyrant along with the parliament. Even though the king could probably be considered a tyrant this argument is still an emotionally based bias because in this Henry is implying that the colonists have protested which is not one-hundred percent true because there are thousands of loyalists resided in America as well. Another reason I say betrayal is used often is because the final draft writers of the Declaration Of Independence also list the reasons why patriots thought the king was a tyrant, it states, “He has broken up certain legislators that opposed him, and refused to let others be elected” (Declaration) Especially the last part of that statement indicated patriots thought of the king as a tyrant. I believe at least one reason some colonists may feel betrayed is because they believed the parliament did a lot of taxation without representation, such as the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts; although taxes …show more content…
The Declaration rough draft was written by a man named Thomas Jefferson but it was edited by the other members of the Continental Congress (56 members signed the declaration of independence on July 4th, 1776, which is why we celebrate the fourth of July because it’s independence day). One of their reasons listed in the document was how the king forced them to live next to the Indian “savages.” This is very opinionated because the Indians were probably mad that a lot of white skinned men were moving into their hunting land, assuming they aren’t happy at all about 25% of their land being taken away.The king isn’t really isn’t responsible for this since he didn’t order anyone to live next to anyone, how could he, he most certainly didn’t have a list of every single colonist and where they live. But the way that this information was presented made it seem like the king was being really unfair to colonists because he was forcing them to live next to crazy people which was not the case. In fact the king tried to avoid conflict by creating a line called the proclamation line in 1763, this got the colonists angry, but it was really was for everyone's benefit, the King doesn’t have to deal with any crisis or potential wars and the colonists wouldn’t be invading the North West territory’s
An example of that would be a patriot named Patrick Henry, who gave a commonly known speech to the Virginia legislature, known as, “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!” Henry starts off his argument, declaring, “We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament.” (Henry) In this Henry is implying that the king is a tyrant along with the parliament. Even though the king could probably be considered a tyrant this argument is still an emotionally based bias because in this Henry is implying that the colonists have protested which is not one-hundred percent true because there are thousands of loyalists resided in America as well. Another reason I say betrayal is used often is because the final draft writers of the Declaration Of Independence also list the reasons why patriots thought the king was a tyrant, it states, “He has broken up certain legislators that opposed him, and refused to let others be elected” (Declaration) Especially the last part of that statement indicated patriots thought of the king as a tyrant. I believe at least one reason some colonists may feel betrayed is because they believed the parliament did a lot of taxation without representation, such as the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts; although taxes …show more content…
The Declaration rough draft was written by a man named Thomas Jefferson but it was edited by the other members of the Continental Congress (56 members signed the declaration of independence on July 4th, 1776, which is why we celebrate the fourth of July because it’s independence day). One of their reasons listed in the document was how the king forced them to live next to the Indian “savages.” This is very opinionated because the Indians were probably mad that a lot of white skinned men were moving into their hunting land, assuming they aren’t happy at all about 25% of their land being taken away.The king isn’t really isn’t responsible for this since he didn’t order anyone to live next to anyone, how could he, he most certainly didn’t have a list of every single colonist and where they live. But the way that this information was presented made it seem like the king was being really unfair to colonists because he was forcing them to live next to crazy people which was not the case. In fact the king tried to avoid conflict by creating a line called the proclamation line in 1763, this got the colonists angry, but it was really was for everyone's benefit, the King doesn’t have to deal with any crisis or potential wars and the colonists wouldn’t be invading the North West territory’s