He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

“He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people” is one of the many charges laid out by Thomas Jefferson in “The Declaration of Independence.” Jefferson’s claim is that King George III has made a habit of disbanding various houses of assembly in both England and the colonies, which can be seen as a direct infringement on the rights of all people. This charge was made by the founding fathers for a number of legitimate reasons, both at home and abroad. The first major implication the King made infringing on the colonialist political rights was that of the tea taxes. This was cleverly hatched plan by the government, because if they accepted the small Townshend –taxed tea, which they did, “how could they logically protect against other and more burdensome Parliamentary levies in the future?” (Alden, History, 138) In Boston, in April of 1774, George III imposed three Coercive Acts which “called for the establishment of a royally chosen council in Massachusetts; for the appointment by the governor of all provincial judges and of all the sheriffs” (Ibid., 143). In addition to these restrictions, each town was only able to meet once per year. These measures were taken to increase British authority within the colony, as well as to limit democracy and local control. The people of Massachusetts opposed this bill because it violated their rights as a people, and at the same time prevented them from defending those rights. This act, in conjunction with the preceding stamp duties, created an uneasy political climate in the colonies. These bills were passed easily in the British Parliament despite a small resistance by a few members of the House of Lords. A petition by American citizens in London declared that if “their people were threatened by political slavery, that they would not accept the condition without a struggle” (Ibid., 144). Strangely, the King had flirted with the idea of tampering with the colonies charter in 1769, but decided that to be an irrational action to impose on Massachusetts. Things had obviously changed. George III quickly imposed two more laws that further diminished the rights of the people. Firstly, he changed the laws of criminal trial, allowing for changes of venue to another British colony, if it was thought the accused could not a get a fair trial where the crime took place. This angered the citizens because, once again, local control of their colony was once again diluted, and justice was placed in the hands of others. The second law George III imposed was the Quartering Act, which allowed for the military to use citizen’s private property to both house and supply troops. Once again, the King used government dominance to infringe on the property rights of the colonists, something that would not be tolerated.
As the news of the colonies frustrations came back to London, the King called an election, heavily funded Lord North effort along with many other of his close allies. “If such men failed to prove their gratitude for past favors, they could expect none on the future. For the King and North kept close watch upon their followers. “Any man who voted against the ministry was punished” (Ibid., 159). The King used his immense power to firmly control the house, which defeats the purpose of the House as a counter balance to the King. All these actions of the King created a climate in the American colonies for change, as they could no longer accept the King a fair and just ruler. Their hard work to create a democracy and locally control themselves was being chipped away and they would not accept such a huge invasion on their rights as a people.