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