Why Was The Declaration Of Independence Justified

1007 Words 5 Pages
The American Revolution lasted from 1765 to 1776 until the Americans finally decreed independence from Britain through the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. This significant document was written by Thomas Jefferson who wrote about the unalienable rights about the colonists and listed the tyrannic deeds done by King George III to the colonists. Many of these deeds listed were valid to an extent but it was also very one-sided and biased. America had the right to become independent, however the charges leveled in the Declaration of Independence against the King were too biased and one-sided to be valid reasons for independence. Economically, the charges against the king were not valid because the British had the right to economically …show more content…
On March 5, 1770, the Boston Massacre occurred and in the Declaration of Independence, Britain was blamed for it. However, it was the colonists fault because they were the one provoking the redcoats in the first place. Yes, it is Britain’s fault for murdering several colonists but if the redcoats were never provoked in the first place, this would have never happened. The Boston Massacre rests on the colonists shoulders and not the Britons and the accusation made in the Declaration of Independence is invalid. The Declaration of Independence also blames the king for the involvement of Indians in the war and in their territory. According to the Petition of the Paxton Boys to the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania, Indians attacked and murdered many people by the frontiers of their province. (Doc. A) This would have never happened however if they had followed the Proclamation of 1763 which forbade all settlements past the Appalachian Mountains. The proclamation was created to keep the colonists safe from the Indians but they perceived it the wrong way and thought that the king was taking their liberty away. The colonists blamed the king for two events that would never have happened when it were actually the colonists’ faults, making the charges leveled against the king …show more content…
The charges against the king for tax and trade may have been slightly valid, but Britain had the right to regulate trade and add taxes because they owned the thirteen colonies. The dissolvement of the representative houses were punishment for the Boston Tea Party and there were no invasions of rights; the colonists just perceived it the wrong way. The social charges were both caused by the colonists themselves and not Britain in any way. If the colonies had just listened to Britain and the king, then they wouldn’t be trying to blame someone else for something they caused. Although the charges made against the king seemed valid enough to declare independence, that was not the case and the king was wrongly accused and the charges were

Related Documents