The Declaration of Independence serves as an argument the colonists made for rebelling against the British. In the Declaration, the colonists justified their rebellion by citing their natural right to “alter or to abolish” a tyrannical government and to establish a new one (Db). The colonists also referred to the king as a tyrant, citing a “history of repeated injuries and usurpations” (Db). Alhough this was the battle cry for the colonists in the Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence is somewhat historically inaccurate in its arguments. While the colonists and the British government did have conflicts over the governing of the colonies, the Declaration of Independence does not accurately reflect the colonists’ history of patriotism
…show more content…
In July of 1775, a couple months after the start of the war, the Continental Congress issued the Olive Branch Petition to King George. The Congress till addressed the king as their “Most Gracious Sovereign” and called themselves “Majesty’s faithful subjects of the Colonies” (C69). In the petition, the Congress stated that despite the current conflict, they still retained “too tender a regard for the kingdom from which we derive our origin” (C69). Despite the colonists’ plea for peace, King George III assented to the Prohibitory Act in December of 1775 which accused the colonists of open rebellion of the crown and cut off their trade with and protection provided by Britain. The colonists, now realizing that any hope of being independent states under the British Empire was over, “contended that they could withdraw their allegiance and invoke their natural right to resist constituted authority” (Y260). By this examination of the disputes between the colonists and the British government, it reveals that the colonists thought patriotically of their king up until the Revolutionary War began to intensify. The Declaration of Independence’s accusations of King George III of being a tyrant are unfounded in this …show more content…
In response to the ministry deciding to pay the Massachusetts governor and other offices with the taxes levied on tea, Samuel Adams held a Boston Town Meeting in fall of 1772, creating a committee of correspondence. The committee argued that “’All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please,’ so when they enter into civil society they do so ‘by voluntary consent’ forming an ‘original compact,’ the terms of which ‘should conform as far as possible to the Law of natural reason and equity” (Y240). In 1774 Thomas Jefferson, colonial figures, the primary author of the Declaration, argued that Parliament’s legislation over the colonies were “a violation of ‘those rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all” (Y249). This shift towards referring to their natural rights make sense for the colonists given that they were seeking independence from Britain. Foner states that “in the Declaration, ‘the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God’, not the British constitution or heritage of the freeborn English man, justified independence. The idea of liberty as a natural right became a revolutionary rallying cry, a standard by which to judge existing institutions and a justification for their overthrow” (Foner 15). By citing their natural rights, the
In July of 1775, a couple months after the start of the war, the Continental Congress issued the Olive Branch Petition to King George. The Congress till addressed the king as their “Most Gracious Sovereign” and called themselves “Majesty’s faithful subjects of the Colonies” (C69). In the petition, the Congress stated that despite the current conflict, they still retained “too tender a regard for the kingdom from which we derive our origin” (C69). Despite the colonists’ plea for peace, King George III assented to the Prohibitory Act in December of 1775 which accused the colonists of open rebellion of the crown and cut off their trade with and protection provided by Britain. The colonists, now realizing that any hope of being independent states under the British Empire was over, “contended that they could withdraw their allegiance and invoke their natural right to resist constituted authority” (Y260). By this examination of the disputes between the colonists and the British government, it reveals that the colonists thought patriotically of their king up until the Revolutionary War began to intensify. The Declaration of Independence’s accusations of King George III of being a tyrant are unfounded in this …show more content…
In response to the ministry deciding to pay the Massachusetts governor and other offices with the taxes levied on tea, Samuel Adams held a Boston Town Meeting in fall of 1772, creating a committee of correspondence. The committee argued that “’All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please,’ so when they enter into civil society they do so ‘by voluntary consent’ forming an ‘original compact,’ the terms of which ‘should conform as far as possible to the Law of natural reason and equity” (Y240). In 1774 Thomas Jefferson, colonial figures, the primary author of the Declaration, argued that Parliament’s legislation over the colonies were “a violation of ‘those rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all” (Y249). This shift towards referring to their natural rights make sense for the colonists given that they were seeking independence from Britain. Foner states that “in the Declaration, ‘the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God’, not the British constitution or heritage of the freeborn English man, justified independence. The idea of liberty as a natural right became a revolutionary rallying cry, a standard by which to judge existing institutions and a justification for their overthrow” (Foner 15). By citing their natural rights, the