IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of
the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

This is the first charge that the signers of the declaration of independence list against the King and with good reason. It is the tyrannical nature of the King that is causing the frustrations against him and this grievance along with the 11 that follow are aimed at attacking that aspect.

What the signers are trying to say here is clear and even when looked at today the language is not as obscure or dated as in other articles of the document. The only part of the phrase that may cause any trouble in its meaning is “Assent to Laws”. It is referring to the royal assent given by the King that is needed to make a law official. Today in the majority of countries who have monarchy or loyalties to them this assenting to laws is merely a ceremonial function. Today the legislative bodies debate the laws and have realistically the power to enact them and getting royal assent is merely something preformed out of tradition. Around the time of the declaration and earlier however the King could refuse to give his assent to a law, which in the case of the recommendations of the colonists happened often.

Although there were problems before previous to this it was the period after the end of the French and Indian war in 1763 in which the main problems present to the “abuses” took place. After the French and Indian war the balance of power in the new world shifted in favor of the British and the colonies became a very powerful asset to the King. There are many theories surrounding this subject but a major one is that England was fearful or jealous of the power of the colonies and realized that if they understood the full extent of their power they could hold a revolt. In an attempt to suppress this there were a number of acts passed restricting the rights and freedoms of the colonists.

Fear was not the only factor for enacting the laws. The Proclamation of 1763 was put in place to protect the Natives and their land by preventing the colonists from expanding further west. The Sugar act, the Stamp act, Quartering act and the Townshend duties were all passed in this time and taxed the already frustrated colonists. The whole time this is happening the colonists are trying to assert themselves and establish rights. They drafted legislation that would allow for self government while still staying loyal to England.” They were in no way trying to interfere with the business taking place back in England; or trying to usurp the Kings authority. Despite their good nature they were refused by the King along with many of the other recommendations sent to him by the colonists.

In turn it was the prevention of the freedom of the colonists that lead to their revolution. By not assenting to laws the King was a rallying point for all those who felt unrepresented and abused by a Monarchy who refused to do what was seen as “wholesome and necessary for he public good.”


http://www.colonialhall.com/

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

The second of the many charges laid out in the America’s “Declaration of Independence” contends that “He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.” This claim indicted King George III of several acts; first of disallowing state governors to pass laws, regardless of how important or urgent their enactment may have been, and of requiring suspension of the bill’s movement until the King gave his assent. Finally, King George is accused of neglecting to address these bills. These laws that King George put in place impeded the efficient function of the American colonial political process and passed the deciding power abroad, where the implications and importance of the issues could not be fully grasped and were ultimately not punctually or properly dealt with.
This claim refers to a series of British acts, beginning with the Proclamation of 1763, which among other regulations, forbade colonial governments to have official relations agreements with Native peoples (Houghton Mifflin). This was among the first of many movements of Britain to establish their authority over the politics of America.
However, the larger, more authoritative act was to follow. In 1766, King George established the Declaratory Act, which ensued the repealed Stamp Act (Houghton Mifflin). The Declaratory Act passed all the powers of decision in the colonies onto the British Parliament, where there were no American colonists represented (Chaffin, 1974). While British Parliament’s main objective with the enactment of the Declaratory Act was to later be able to easily impose internal taxation on the colonies, it had an important effect on the ability of the Americans to be governed properly (Chaffin 1974). Information could not have been as complete and rapidly transmitted as it was between the people and the government. While this should have been self-evident, the bill passed through British Parliament with no amendments and with consensus (Chaffin 1974).
The Declaratory Act left the American colonies in situation which they could not overcome through the political process, since in the Act is was declared that any proceedings that questioned the right of British to have this complete legislative power over America would be discarded as untrue and invalid (Chaffin 1974). In part because of this, it became clear that the only way for Americans to change this unfair balance of power and governing rights was through revolution.

The Founding of the American Republic:
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=6447

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.


This grievance drafted in the Declaration of Independence, addressed directly to King George III, was put forth in response to the threat of, and eventual realization of the dissolution of the valued right to representation in the legislature of local colonial government. In particular, this complaint alludes to the action taken by the British authority in relation to the implementation of the Quebec Act and the Massachusetts Government Act of 1774.
With the conclusion of the French and Indian War, a significant portion of land and roughly six thousand inhabitants were transferred to British authority[1]. The Canadian territory and the subjects acquired in this British victory, under the Quebec Act, were awarded a government without the luxury of a representative assembly[2]. Despite the fact that even under French governance the province had not been granted this representative body, this action produced a wave of anxiety amongst the American colonists[3]. The colonists feared that this “large [district] of people” in the newly created English colony were subject to a government and its laws that afforded no popular representation, a form of administration that the colonies deemed an inestimable right. Although this form of administration was reserved to Quebec, colonists considered this course of events “ominous”[4]. What’s more, as the Act expanded the territory of Quebec[5], colonists hoping to settle westward would be subjected to “Canada’s autocratic government”[6]. Thus, the absence of popular “representation in the legislature” was met with fear and anger.
While the Quebec Act threatened representative government in the Americas, the Massachusetts Government Act of the same year directly disposed of representative government in this particular colony. The act was implemented in response to the Boston Tea Party, designed to hamper further disobedience, and as a demonstration of the authority of the Crown and Parliament[7]. The original constitution of the colony, established in 1691, was effectively altered, to the horror of the public[8]. Through the previous constitution it was established that the king had the authority of appointing the governor of the colony[9], while the right to elect the council of the governor and the representative assembly of freeholders remained in the hands of the colonists[10]. With the advent of the act, however, the authority of the election of the council of the governor was assigned to the king[11], thereby “[transferring] all governing power in the colony to the executive”[12]. The annual election of councilors, previously “vested…in the assemblies”, was henceforth terminated[13]; colonists of Massachusetts were forced to “relinquish [their] right”, a right held by the colony since its foundation. This reorganization of the government enjoyed by Massachusetts ensured that the colony was “[subjected]…to direct Parliamentary control”[14]. While the act was designed to instill respect for the inherent authority of Parliament, Americans viewed these series of events as “[setting] a dangerous precedent in America…against popular assemblies”[15]. Parliament had succeeded in angering its colonists by forcing a government upon the colony void of popular “representation in legislature”.
These two acts ensured that the colonial expectation of their entitlement to representative government was done away with, and these laws imposed on the public an unnatural system of governance in direct conflict with their rights. This was concluded by the outraged American colonial public to be a tyrannical act on behalf of the British Crown, and an act that would not be tolerated.

[1] David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen and Thomas A. Bailey, The American Pageant: Volume I to 1877 (Houghton Mifflin, 2002), 133.
[2] Ibid.
[3] John M. Blum et al, The National Experience: A History of the United States (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanvich, 1981), 101.
[4] Blum, et al, National Experience, 101.
[5] Lester D. Langley, The Americas in the Age of Revolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 31.
[6] Blum, John et al, National Experience, 101.
[7] Ibid., 100.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 51.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 100.
[12] Langley, Age of Revolution, 31.
[13] Yale Law School, "Great Britain : Parliament: The Massachusetts Government Act; May 20, 1774," <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerrev/parliament/mass_gov_act.htm>, 2007.
[14] Blum, et al, National Experience, 101.
[15] Kennedy, Cohen and Bailey, American Pageant, 133.

Sydney Dale-McGrath

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.” This charge against King George III deals with the assemblies in Massachusetts and Virginia that were moved to new locations away from the public records for reasons of “safety” (A User’s Guide to the Declaration of Independence: Site of America’s Founding, http://www.founding.com/declare/index.cfm ). In a broader context, it was one of the charges that referred to the king’s “attempts to destroy colonial legislative acts and powers” (William Raymond Smith, “The Rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence,” College English, Vol. 24, no. 4 (Jan, 1965): 306-309, 308, http://www.jstor.org ). By doing this, King George III not only prevented members of both of these assemblies from properly conducting any form of meeting, but he also prevented them from finding problems with his rule.
By moving the meetings away from the locations of the Public Records, King George III essentially took away the main resources that the assemblies had to conduct their meetings (A User’s Guide to the Declaration of Independence, http://www.founding.com/declare/index.cfm). The result of this was that they could not access the needed information to the issues that they intended to discuss and thus really could not do anything about them. At this period in time, there were a number of issues that many colonies had problems with. Yet because of their new location, these two assemblies could not gather enough facts to help produce proper arguments. Both Massachusetts and Virginia had problems with the Towshend Acts and took a stand against them (Dumas Malone, The Story of the Declaration of Independence (New York: Oxford Press, 1954), 18-19). By moving the two assemblies away from the Public Records, they would not have the necessary information to properly repute these acts.
Not only did these assemblies not have the Public Records that they needed to discuss acts, they also did not have the records of King George III’s actions. Without this information, it became much more difficult to discover any unwanted actions taken by King George III.
As stated earlier, these two assemblies were moved for reasons of “safety” (Ibid). In Massachusetts, particularly in Boston, there had been some recent acts of violence that had occurred. The most prominent act of violence was the Boston Tea Party which took place on December 16, 1773 (Malone, The Story of the Declaration of Independence, 29). Following this, there was an “attempt to remodel the government of Massachusetts Bay” (Malone, The Story of the Declaration of Independence, 29). One way to remodel the government would be to move assemblies to locations that were away from the Public Records in order to prevent them from finding facts that would lead to further acts of violence.

Alex Elkin

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.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.


The American Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a compilation of accusations made against King George III of England. The Declaration closely resembles the Magna Carta of 1215 where the noblemen of England wrote a set of charges against the king in hopes of limiting his power. The people of the American colonies were trying to do almost the same thing as their English ancestors, with the exception that they intended to remove themselves from the Kings care completely. In order “to convince the ‘candid world’, the Declaration listed eighteen means George III used to bring about his despotic ends.”1 One of the major accusations made against George III was that:


“he refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, Whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.”


When the signatories of The Declaration of Independence wrote this charge against George III, they were complaining how he attempted “to destroy colonial legislative acts and powers”.2 The people were upset that King George III had not allowed the American people to be elected for government and rather that he had chosen the people himself, whom they believed were unsuitable to stand in a government for a country they didn’t know much about. Due to the fact that the people George III chose to run the colonies were unsuitable, the colonial people felt as if the king did not care enough about them, especially because he took such a long time to replace them. The colonists were upset because while they were off fighting the revolution, they were leaving their state unprotected from both internal and external dangers.
To sum up the colonists statement clearly, they believed that the King and parliament were treating them worse then they were treating their subjects back in England and that he and his monarchy would not be able to destroy their hope for democracy. When the charge claims that “whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for exercise”, it refers to the fact that the American people who were fighting in the revolutionary war had returned to have the Legislative Power put in place. The document was especially important at the time because it “notified the world that the Americans were serious”3 about their intent to install a democratic government.
The American colonists had felt misused by both the monarch and parliament for a long period of time and they were distraught because they were unable to elect their own representatives unlike the people in England. Once the idea of democracy entered their minds, neither the king nor his forces were able to destroy their dream and they had continued to fight until they had won both their freedom from England and the right to have their own Legislature. Through separating with the monarch and parliament, the American people were able to achieve what they had dreamed, both a democratic government and the freedom from Britain.




William Raymond Smith, “The Rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence,” College English, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Jan, 1965): 308.
William Raymond Smith, “The Rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence,” College English, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Jan, 1965): 308.
Edward S. Corwin & Jack W. Peltason, “Understanding the Constitution,” Dryden Press, (1958): 4.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

The issues the delegates had in this section deal with restrictions on immigration and land settlement. American colonies were continuing to develop, and with development comes the need for an increase in population which cannot be attained solely through reproduction within the colonies. Thus, there was a need for immigration and King George III was hindering their progress through obstruction of laws and by not passing other laws necessary for increased migration. King George III increased taxation on the colonies in order to help pay of the war debt from the Seven Years War. The fact that colonists would be levied with increased taxes would also have discouraged migration to the Colonies from Britain, as there would be no incentive to escape Britain and not have to worry about tax increases to pay off the war debt. Ultimately, he was stunting the development of the colonies. Additionally, legislation such as the Quartering Act, which allowed British soldiers to reside in the house of a colonist without consent of the owner, infringed on property rights, which would naturally be of deterrence to potential immigrants. Property rights had been realized through the rise of Lockean principles which contributed to the formation of the American Republic.
Surrounding issues include the ways in which the colonies formally made their protest. The First Continental Congress was designed to coordinate and clearly articulate the charges that the American colonies viewed as intolerable to their existence. They were in the early stages of developing sovereignty from an overreaching monarch that was encroaching on their perceived rights and freedoms. The Second Continental Congress was planned to proceed with further action if Britain remained unresponsive. What began as a series of sporadic and isolated victories for rebel militias during the Revolutionary War developed into organized and unified governmental organization that led to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation (which became the first constitution), and eventual victory in the Revolutionary War. In order to realize their common cause and achieve victory, unity had to be founded through the mentioned organizations of government. All the charges made against King George III become that much more significant and all encompassing when the support of the colonies is behind it. As one writer asserts, “most colonial spokesmen believed that ‘necessity,’ especially the right of self-defence, justified American independence. They also understood that without colonial unity, the effort would fail.”1. It was their unification that led to their eventual success.

1. Murrin, John M. “American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence” by Pauline Maier. “The American Historical Review.” Vol. 104, No. 2. (April 1999), 560. . 10 October 2007.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.


A significant charge made against King George III in the declaration of independence was related to the independence of the judiciary. The charge against the king states “he has made judges dependent on his will alone of the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” In essence, this charge points to the injustice of the fact that judges depended on the crown for their continued employment and salaries. The result of this dependency was that the judges were more likely to rule in favour of the crown to protect their careers.

When the Declaration of Independence was drafted, George III no longer had the power to exercise control over English courts, but could still do so over American courts.1 Many colonists had a difficult understanding why judicial independence was necessary for the proper implementation of justice in England, but the same did not apply to the American colonies.2
Massachusetts provides an excellent example of strong feelings of injustice resulting from judicial dependence on the crown. As a result of the Townsend Act, the crown began paying the salaries of the judges in Massachusetts.3 This was viewed by the people of Massachusetts as a great injustice, and was seen as an attack of Massachusetts’s judicial sovereignty.4 Judges were now viewed as employees of the imperial government in England, rather than unbiased officials enforcing American laws. It was seen as an attempt to establish a firm hand over the colonies.5 The situation climaxed when the people of Massachusetts discovered that the crown was paying the salaries of judges in their highest courts.6

In a separation with Britain, it is clear that the American people wanted to establish a judicial system in which judges could preside over proceedings without needing to worry about changes in their salaries, or termination of their employment. The idea of judiciary independence is so important, that it is eventually incorporated into the constitution of the United States of America, in the “Judicial Tenure and Salary protection clauses.”7 This clause established that judges were to be appointed for lifelong terms and could only be removed from their positions through an impeachment process, and also by guaranteeing that the salaries of judges could not be reduced.8

1 Martha A Ziskind, “Judicial Tenure in the American constitution: English and American Precedents,” The Supreme Court Review 1969 (1969): 135.
2 Barbara A Black, “Massachusetts and the Judges: Judicial Independence in Perspective,” Law and History Review 3 (1985): 109.
3 Ibid, 102.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Peter M Shane, “Who May Discipline or Remove Federal Judges? A constitutional Analysis,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 142, no 1 (1993): 209.
8 The Federal Judiciary, “A History of Judicial Independence,” http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/resources/judicialindependence/history.html (accessed October 13, 2007).

Deborah Howse

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

The American Declaration of Independence states “HE has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” The signers of the declaration of independence meant this particular passage as a denouncement of the increasing regulation of the colonies in the years leading up to its drafting. At the conclusion of the Seven Years war the British government was deeply in debt and looking for ways to get the American colonies to help foot the bill. One of the first attempts at gaining some of this revenue came in the form of the “Sugar Act” of 1764, which introduced more duties on some foreign imports and established a new superior Vice-Admiralty court in Halifax.[1] This new court would be used to try ship owners who broke or were suspected of breaking any of the new laws. The burden of proof lay with the accused in these courts, and so unless they could prove their innocence conclusively, their cargo was seized by the crown.[2] This was of course hugely unpopular and no fewer than eight colonies sent petitions to the King asking that it be repealed.
The Townsend acts of 1766 applied taxes to items imported from Britain, which helped fund Royal salaries in the colonies. In addition to these taxes, the acts introduced even more vice-admiralty courts to major port cities in the colonies such as Philadelphia and Boston. Ships were seized and tensions rose between British-appointed authorities and the locals in the colonies. Even patriot John Hancock had a much-publicized seizure of one of his ships.
Another failed attempt at colonial administration was the American Board of Customs, another brainchild of Charles Townsend which began in 1767. The commissioners of this board were striving “to make taxation of the colonies by parliament effective”.[3] This of course didn’t sit well with those colonists who considered taxation without representation unjust. Townsend intended to raise revenue in the colonies by adding new customs duties and the appropriate amount of new administration that would accompany them.[4] This struck to the heart of what the signers of the declaration of independence meant when they wrote of the “multitude of New Offices”. On November fifth, 1767, “three of the five commissioners… with eight other customs officers” landed in Boston.[5] Their unpopular tasks included supervising the collection of duties, enforcing laws of search and seizure, and suspending or removing officers in the ports.[6]
Such regulations as the Revenue Act (or “Sugar Act”) of 1764, and the Townsend acts of 1766, and the taxes and Vice-Admiralty courts they initiated. Both the taxes/duties and the courts were seen as taking money from the American people and giving it to the crown and it’s supporters without the proper governmental representation. In effect, the signers of the Declaration of Independence felt the British crown was harassing and robbing the American people.
[1] Carl Ubbelohde, The Vice-Admiralty Courts and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1960), 49.
[2] Ibid, 50.
[3] Dora Mae Clark, “The American Board of Customs, 1767-1783” The American Historical Review, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Jul. 1940): 777.
[4] Ibid, 779.
[5] Ibid, 785.
[6] Ibid, 783.

David Mac Isaac

http://www.ushistory.org/

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.


The signers of the Declaration of Independence made a charge against George III claiming “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.” The people of the American colonies were not happy with their military situation after the Boston Massacre in 1772. They felt that the standing armies were “corrupting the morals of society” and were also said to be “dreaded as the ready engines of tyranny and oppression.” Many people seemed to fear standing armies and being mistreated by them. George Washington wisely stated “a large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a County, yet a few Troops, under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but indispensably necessary.” This comment most likely sums up what the people in the colonies were thinking at the time. They were surrounded by standing armies, even at times of peace, which caused more disorder than necessary. Many colonists began to complain about the situation of standing armies. Furthermore, numerous states began to create new constitutions and bills of rights, which contained “provisions separately addressing the grievances against the involuntary quartering of soldiers and maintenance of standing armies.” The 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights gave a clear statement of what the people wanted in terms of an army, “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe-defense of a free State.” Therefore when the Declaration of Independence was written it included this grievance directed to George III arguing against standing armies in times of peace.


Susannah MacKinnon

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

The American Declaration of Independence contains many serious charges against King George. One charge, however, is not raised within the document as often as one would think it would be in a treatise dedicated to freedom from tyranny and the promotion of rule of law. This charge is as follows: “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.” Essentially, what this charge states is that British military officials and soldiers were not being held accountable for their actions, and were thereby acting above and beyond the rule of law. Such an allegation is very serious in the context of today’s legal system. This essay looks to examine this charge through analysis of the relationship between the colonists and the military, while also examining a particular instance in which British military personnel appeared to act outside of the legal system applicable to all other citizens.
With tensions already high from previous British legislation imposed on the colonies, the Quartering Act 1767 ignited furious criticism from the colonists towards the King’s soldiers. The Act stated that British troops in the colonies were to be housed and paid for by the colonial assemblies. When the New York colonial assembly refused the legislation, British Parliament countered with threats to disband the colonial assembly.[1]
Following the passing of the Townshend Act 1767, the British set up various committees in the colonies to clamp down on illegal trade. These committees were quite successful in addressing the smuggling that was occurring in the colonies, leading to even more anger from colonists, particularly Boston merchants. The other colonial response to the British taxing statutes, being a boycott on taxed goods, began to spread, being particularly effective in the Boston area, and as such, and not surprisingly, customs officials were treated unfavorably. This led the British to deploy troops in Boston.[2] “The presence of British regular troops was a constant reminder of the colonists' subservience to the crown.”[3] To add to the tension, the troops often took side jobs, which would normally have gone to colonists.
In the midst of these trade skirmishes, the Boston massacre occurred. This was one of the most significant events concerning the colonists and the British military, which formed the basis for the charge against the King and the British military in the Declaration of Independence described above. On March 5, 1770, angry rioters in New England surrounded a small group of soldiers protecting the customs office. No one knows for sure the exact sequence of events, but “Fire” was yelled out and the result was the death of four colonists.[4] Captain Thomas Preston was the first to stand trial. With John Adams as his lawyer, he was eventually acquitted of all charges.[5] This apparent lack of justice for the British military participants in the incident caused an uproar throughout Boston, which had a concurrent, similar effect throughout the rest of the colonies.
The leaders of the American Revolution obviously looked back to these events during the debates about and eventual signing of the Declaration of Independence. Analysis of such events shows that while actual blame for the incidents may not have been entirely the soldiers’ fault, justice did not appear to have been done, and the lack of perceived justice gave rise to the charge that the King and his military were above the law.
[1] “The Quartering Act.” America’s Homepage.

[2] “British Reforms and Colonial Resistance, 1767-1772.” The Library of Congress. <http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/amrev/brittwo/brittwo.html>

[3] Ibid.

[4] “America’s Story from America’s Library.” Library of Congress.
[5] Reid, John Phillip. “A Lawyer Acquittal: John Adams and the Boston Massacre Trials.” American Journal of Legal History.







Biography of Charles Carroll of Carrollton

A Biography of Charles Carroll of Carrollton


Charles Carroll of Carrollton was born on September 17, 1737, in Annapolis, Maryland, to Charles Carroll and Elizabeth Carroll of Annapolis. His early education, though a matter of some question, appears to have begun at age eight, when he left for St. Omer, France, to be taught by Jesuits. At the age of 17, Carroll graduated from the College of Louis the Grande and decided to stay in Europe to continue his studies, eventually settling into the study of law in London.
At the age of 28, in 1765, Carroll returned to Annapolis to find an environment of tension and political debate. In 1772, Carroll began to write anonymous articles in various newspapers arguing against British attempts to tax colonists without representation. Although Carroll was barred from running for office, voting and practicing law, because he was a Roman Catholic, he was a prominent proponent for patriot beliefs and an influential member of the community, being one of the richest men in America at the time. After serving on a number of committees, Carroll was commissioned to join Benjamin Franklin and others on a mission to Canada to convince Canadians to join the revolutionary cause. Carroll served on Maryland’s first ever Commission of Safety in 1775.
Upon Maryland’s decision to join the open revolution, Carroll was elected to the Second Continental Congress. He missed the vote on the Declaration of Independence, but did sign the document. He remained in Congress for the remainder of the Revolutionary War, while helping construct Maryland’s constitution. In 1781, Carroll was elected to the Maryland Senate where he remained until 1788, when he became elected to the first Federal Congress. He returned to the Maryland Senate in 1790, where he remained for the next 10 years until retiring from political life in 1800 at the age of 63.
Carroll spent his retirement years involved in many activities, such as building an elaborate estate for his son, worth $40 000 at the time, and, in 1827, helping create the Baltimore-Ohio Railroad. Carroll was the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence; he died at the age of 96 on November 14, 1832, in Baltimore, Maryland.[i]

A Portrait of Charles Carroll of Carrollton
- Cantshow pic for some reason?
[i] Leonard, Lewis A. Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Moffat, Yard and Company: New York, 1918.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

By ratifying the Declaration of Independence, the signers wished to formally express their disapproval at being ruled by a foreign government. Their indictments, specifically the charge “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation” explicitly voice their displeasure at the British parliament, and therefore the King, in ruling from abroad and subjecting the American colonies to foreign laws. The indictments are directed to the King because he was the only figure they had to profess their independence to, as they considered themselves absolved of the British Parliament[1]. The charge could be reworded as “The King, along with Parliament, subjects the American colonies to foreign jurisdiction, and has therefore created the following acts of false legislation:”

Americans began to disapprove of Parliament at least ten years prior to the Declaration of Independence[2]. Initial protests were against internal taxation, or taxes within the colonies, such as the Stamp Act[3]. Although Americans believed Parliament had authority over them, they appealed internal taxation, stating Parliament had authority in every aspect except internal taxation. Parliament seemed to acquiesce with the Americans by repealing the Stamp Act, but then imposed external taxes on common imports which affected the people just as harshly as internal taxes. Americans upheld the British constitution and believed it “assured the protection of the peoples’ rights,” so they could not understand such restrictive laws as the Stamp Act and the later Declaratory Act, which asserted Parliament’s right to tax and legislate colonies of America[4][5]. Americans were convinced that of conspiracy of Parliament to undermine the colonies and regretted their assertion that Parliament had authority over them in every area but internal taxation[6]. Their reasons for displeasure varied but would have been due to one or more of the nine indictments following the aforementioned charge, including: the Quartering Act, the Fisheries Act, the Stamp Act, the Paint, Paper, and Glass Act, the Quebec Act, various taxing acts such as the tea tax, and the Declaratory Act, among others.

Dave Millett

[1] Carl Keyes, October 16th, 2007.
[2] Stella F. Duff, "The Case Against the King: The Virginia Gazettes Indict George III," William and Mary Quarterly 6:3 (Jul., 1949), pp. 383-397. (http://www.jstor.org/).
[3] Sidney George Fisher, "The Twenty-Eight Charges against the King in the Declaration of Independence," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 31 (1907), pp. 257-303. (http://www.hsp.org/default.aspx?id=68 )
[4] Stella F. Duff, "The Case Against the King: The Virginia Gazettes Indict George III," William and Mary Quarterly 6:3 (Jul., 1949), pp. 383-397. (http://www.jstor.org/).
[5] Carl Keyes, October 16th, 2007.
[6] Sidney George Fisher, "The Twenty-Eight Charges against the King in the Declaration of Independence," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 31 (1907), pp. 257-303. (http://www.hsp.org/default.aspx?id=68 )

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:


When the Second Continental Congress wrote that,

He [King George III] has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:[1]


they were charging George III with quartering (housing) English troops within the towns and cities of the America Colonies against the wishes of colonists. In particular, colonists objected to England’s Parliament passing two Quartering acts, one in 1765 and one in 1774. The Congress opposed the housing of troops in privately owned buildings and also felt that Parliament had no right to pass laws on the behalf of the colonies.
There were two Quartering acts passed by the English parliament – one in 1765 and one in 1774. The 1774 Quartering act came to be identified by colonists as one of the four "Intolerable Acts." The 1665 Quartering act was instituted during the French-Indian War and required colonies to provide adequate housing for British soldiers, however the act was not respected by all colonial legislatures and trade restrictions were imposed on New York for refusing to comply with requests for quartering.[2]
A second quartering act was passed in 1774. The Quartering act of 1774

"allowed officers to refuse unsuitable housing and to demand a more convenient location. In the event that local authorities did not satisfy such a request within twenty four hours, the act empowered the governor to order ay uninhabited buildings prepared for the use of the king’s troops. The act did not, as has often been asserted, provide for the billeting soldiers in private homes.”[3]

The effects of the act on the colonies are a point of disagreement among historians there is little doubt that colonists objected to the quartering of troops in the colonies. Don R. Gerlach argued that many historians overstate the effects that the Quartering Act of 1774 had on the colonies. Through a close reading of the act itself, Gerlach points out that the governor could only order the billeting of troops in uninhabited outhouses, barns and other buildings, not in the occupied private homes of colonists.[4] Gerlach paid close attention to the exact wording of the Quartering Act of 1774 but did not discuss the way that it was experienced by colonists. However, he did look at the official response of the First Continental Congress. The Congress, he argued, did not specifically claim that any troops entered private homes in its “Declaration and Resolves”, but instead referred only to the act in its legal name. He then argued that “The Declaration of Independence simply mentions the objection to standing armies in peacetime without consent of local legislatures – a safeguard generalization which adequately covered the real objection and the unwillingness to accept Parliament’s authorization of such armies.”[5] The first claim made by Gerlach seems fair; however the claim that the Declaration of Independence does not include a direct reference to the quartering of troops is clearly incorrect, as shown by the inclusion of the charge that George III mistreats the colonists by “quartering large bodies of armed troops among” them.[6]
While Gerlach argued that the Quartering Act of 1774 was not a major concern for the colonists, he fails to address the fact that even if colonists were not specifically opposed to the Quartering Act of 1774, they were opposed to the quartering of British troops among them. In December 1756, the middle of the French-India War, English officials came into conflict with colonial officials in both New York and Pennsylvania over the quartering of troops.[7] By the time the second continental congress had met, colonists objected both to having soldiers living amongst them, and to the attempts of Parliament to make and enforce laws upon the colonies.

Works Cited
Declaration of Independence”, Archiving Early America, .
David Ammerman, In The Common Cause, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia,
1974.
Don R. Gerlach, “A Note on the Quartering Act of 1774,” The New England Quarterly,
Vol. 39, No. 1 (1966), 80-88.
Rogers, Alan J., “Colonial Opposition to the Quartering of Troops During the French and
Indian War,” Military Affairs, Vol 34, No. 1 (1970), 7-11.
[1] Declaration of Independence”, Archiving Early America, <>.
[2] J. Alan Rogers, “Colonial Opposition to the Quartering of Troops During the French and Indian War,” Military Affairs, Vol. 34, No. 1(1970), 7-9.
[3]David Ammerman, In The Common Cause, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974), 10.
[4] Don R. Gerlach, “A Note on the Quartering Act of 1774,” The New England Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1 (1966), 83.
[5] Ibid., 87.
[6] “Declaration of Independence.”
[7] Rogers, “Colonial Opposition”, 7-8.


Chris Parsons

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

This issue is related to the events of the Boston Massacre. The Boston Massacre took place on March 5th, 1770 when small groups of colonist were tormenting British soldiers. There was a solider that was standing in front of Custom House that lashed out; this made more colonists flock to the situation. The solider called for help and a group of about seven to eight men came to the rescue under the leadership of Captain Thomas Preston Colonists then started to throw snowballs at the British soldiers to provoke the situation even more. One of the British soldiers fired his musket into the crowd which was followed by another shot. After the first shot was fired the crowed push away from the scene and all they could be seen was the Redcoat line. In the end several people were left wounded and five people were left dead. Due to the event of five colonists getting killed the charges that were laid on the British soldiers who shot them was that they had to get their thumbs branded. This was merely a slap on the wrist of a punishment for the crime that was committed. The soldiers should of been given a harsher punishment for their crime. This is what this part of the Declaration of Independence represents, that anyone who commits a crime against one of the “inhabitants” should receive the punishment in which they deserve. This was issues was included into the Declaration of Independence was due to the Boston Massacre. The British had killed five colonists for not justified reason, and the colonists wanted to British soldiers to be punished. The punishment that they received was not seen as even and as to the crime that they had committed. Hence as to why this line appears. The colonist want to make sure that if a murder is to murder another colonist they will receive a punishment that will fit to the crime. Also this was a way of sending a message back to George III saying that the monarchy cannot get away with giving light punishments to heavy crimes. The colonist are taking a stand and putting their foot down and telling the monarch what they are going to do if a situation like the Boston Massacre was to happened again.

Sources:
Martin Kelly, “The Boston Massacre – American Revolution and Boston Massacre” October 2007.

Carl Robert Keyes, public presentation, October 11, 2007.

Hiller Zobel, The Boston Massacre (New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1970), 198

Adam Reid

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:


In The Declaration of Independence many faults of British rule are exposed. One of such complaints is the charge of cutting off international trade, essentially the lifeblood of the American colonies. Upon the settlement of the colonies Britain had a specific purpose for them to fulfill. Britain’s relationship with the colonies was structured as a mercantile, or old colonial system. They held the belief that the soul purpose of the colony was to provide wealth and power to the mother country, Britain. Operating in this way left Britain highly dependant upon trade with the colonies for raw materials, or commodities not found in Britain. The colonies bestowed a large cash crop of resources on Britain, but had be regulated to ensure their maximum output of wealth. A series of acts were passed to prevent the colonies from exporting goods that could be used and profited from in Britain. They had a lot to lose to their trading competitors, mainly the Dutch. Initially the purpose of the acts was defensive, to protect British interests, but later became a source of income themselves, with he implementation of new taxes and revenues. These measures were meant to relieve pressure on Britains debts.

The first of such acts to be passed was the Navigation Act of 1651. Before this time there was no significant impediment to colonial trade. This act put in place restrictions on what ships could pass into British harbours carrying imported goods. European ships were exempt as long as the vessel originated from the same place as the goods it held. As for the rest of the world, only British ships could carry their goods into British ports. These laws were not fully enforced, and were unsuccessful in achieving their goal. In 1660 the act was strengthened, and broadened to incorporate stricter provisions. It stipulated that the only vessels bringing goods into Britain were to be British or colonial ships. Not only that, but the act named certain “enumerated” items such as tobacco, sugar, cotton, or wool that could only be exported to Britain. Large duties were paid on these items upon arrival in Britain, and in 1672 these duties were also expected to be paid between colonies. This addition to the original Navigation Act would have been disastrous to many of the northern colonies, which dealt with such goods. Fortunately for the colonies, these acts were very difficult to enforce.

The Navigation Act was but one of a number of laws passed that impeded the ability of the colonies to profit from international trade. In 1663 the Staple Act was passed, putting yet another trade barrier in place. The act stated that any goods being exported from the colonies, or imported to the colonies, first had to be shipped through harbours in Britain. Upon arrival these goods would be unloaded, inspected, and taxed before being reloaded and sent to their destination. This act not only increased the cost of the goods being exported or imported, but also heavily added to the time needed to ship them. The next deterrent to international trade happened much later, in 1733 with the adoption of the Molasses Act. This act was meant to curtail the importation of French sugar and molasses, which came from the French West Indies. The colonists would trade their surplus stocks of goods such as fish, flour and lumber for the sugar or molasses. Upon the implementation of the Molasses Act, the colonists were forced to buy more expensive sugar from the Britain, or to buy black market smuggled sugar and molasses. This law was seen by many in the colonies as unfair and was met with mass smuggling of French sugar and molasses.

These laws contributed immensely to the dissatisfaction of the colonies and resentment of their British rulers. Many colonists depended upon fair foreign trade to make a living, and felt alienated form their supposed countrymen. Trade is essential for the survival of a new settlement, and for the North American colonies, it was one of the essential issues that sparked their ambitions of independence. Trade was the backbone of the colonies, and for cutting off their trade with the rest of the world, Britain came much closer to the revolution which eventually occurred.

http://www.usahistory.info/

W., Stewart Wallace, "Navigation Laws" in The Encyclopedia of Canada. Vol 4, 1948. p.386

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

This was one of the most well known grievances of the American colonists during the revolution. It can be traced back to several pieces of legislation passed by the British Parliament in the run up to the revolution.

The British civil wars in the seventeenth century had affirmed the right of British subjects to assent to taxation, through their elected representatives in the House of Commons. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, the colonists argued that as British subjects they could not be taxed without their consent, and since they were not represented in the British House of Commons, their consent could not be obtained through the British Parliament. Rather, colonist’s consent would have to be obtained through elected colonial legislatures, which Parliament declined to do.1

The British Parliament passed several acts in the lead up to the revolution in order to raise revenues from the colonies and help defray some of the debt incurred from the Seven Years War. The first of these was the Stamp Act, passed March 22, 1765.2 It required that a stamp be applied to every piece of printed paper (including newspapers, ships documents, legal documents, and playing cards), and colonists were of course charged for the stamp. The colonists saw this as an illegitimate tax because its purpose was not to regulate trade, but rather to raise revenue. This meant that as British citizens, they had the right to assent to this tax through colonial legislatures. In addition, the years of salutary neglect meant that almost no taxes had ever been imposed on the American colonies by Parliament, and this was a sharp departure from that longstanding tradition.3

Opposition to the Stamp Act was widespread. Legislatures petitioned Parliament for repeal of the Stamp Act, non-importation agreements were instituted against British imports, and large mobs began ransacking the homes of government officials. By the time the Act was meant to come into effect in November of 1765, the appointed stamp agents were too intimidated by colonists to enforce the Act.4 Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, but Parliament simultaneously passed the Declaratory Act asserting that they had the right to tax colonists in all cases.

On June 29, 1767, Parliament passed the Townshend Act, which imposed duties on a list of articles including glass, lead, paint, paper, and tea. This act resurrected the hostility that the Stamp Act had incited, since it was also aimed at raising revenue and was thus seen as another attempt at illegal taxation. Popular protest reached its heights in Boston in 1768 when customs officials impounded one of John Hancock’s ships. The customs office was mobbed and the officials were forced to flee to a British warship in the harbor. The colonists responded with renewed non-importation agreements. The duties imposed by the Townshend Act were all eventually repealed on April 12, 1770, with the exception of the duty on tea.5

While their original argument revolved around their rights as British citizens, the Declaration of Independence was a renunciation of the colonists’ status as British citizens, making this argument impossible. They were therefore forced to argue that all men had the right not to be taxed without their consent, not merely British citizens. And while their grievance had originally been with Parliament, once the colonists renounced Parliament’s authority they were forced to address their grievances to the King, even though he had not been the originator of the legislation.

Brooke Saunders

http://www.ushistory.org/

Endnotes
1. Carl Becker, The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1922), 22.
2. Edward Dumbauld, The Declaration of Independence and What it Means Today (Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950), 131.
3. Becker, Declaration of Independence, 81.
4. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “A Summary of the 1765 Stamp Act,” [www.colonialwilliamsburg.com/History/teaching/tchcrsta.cfm]
5. Ibid.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

A short while after the French no longer became a factor in America, trouble started brewing within the colonies. A British gentleman by the name of George Grenville noticed that Britains debt has doubled due to the wars in America and so decided that the Americans should become even more heavily taxed than they previously were. This would not seem to be to big a problem were it not for the fact that the British never let the colonies have any say in the matter. Soon, the British began not only taxing but passing laws without any regard for what the colonist thought. This was viewed as an infringement upon the Americans’ basic rights to govern themselves, thus they decided to succeed from Britain for, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, “taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.”
The Americans were already upset that they were being taxed without any representation back in Britain by the time the Declaratory Act was put into place by parliament. This act, meant to illustrate Britain’s power over the colonies, stated that Britain had the right to tax any of their interests in the colonies. This act later lead to the Townshend Acts which put a tariff on goods imported from Britain, which didn’t seem to make much sense to the colonist as it was trade within the same empire. Angry colonists with the most to loose from these increasing taxed began to join together in groups such as the Sons of Liberty. The British however began to notice how disgruntled the colonists were becoming so they attempted to tighten their grasp of the colonies by imposing what is known as the “Intolerable Acts.”
The first act that directly infringed upon the colonists rights was the Massachusetts Government Act which disallowed town meetings and changed the Massachusetts charter. The charters of each colony is what defined the people within each individual colony, acting as a document that illustrated their basic rights; so to alter in any way this document meant to take away the civil liberties of the people it represented. The British further insulted the Americans by passing the Administration of Justice Act which called for any British soldier to be tried and arraigned in Britain as opposed to the colonies, even were it to be for killing an innocent American. This allowed British thieves and murderers to bypass the American judicial system, taking away any power the colonies had over the British soldiers who were increasing in numbers frequently. The final act of the “Intolerable Acts” was the Quartering Act, which stated that British soldiers could be housed wherever the British deemed worthy. The British had now taken away the rights of the colonists to control what happened within their own household now, and there was seemingly nothing that could stop the British from further taking away the colonists’ freedoms. The strength and will of the American people however would prove that wrong as they began to fight the British for the ability to keep their laws and form the type of government that suited their lives, not the lives of people across an ocean. Although many Americans died, they were fighting for what will always be a just cause, freedom.

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

On July 4th 1776 a group of representatives at the second Continental Congress finalized and signed a document that would forever alter the course of history in Britain’s North American Colonies. This Document is known as the Declaration of Independence and contains a statement of cessation but also a list of grievances addressed to the King George III of England. These complaints laid forth by the colonists were grave indeed, and had become so intolerable that breaking free from their loyalty to Britain was the only remaining action that these men felt could be taken. One of these charges was, “For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”(1) Their complaint stemmed from the fact that by order of the King and Parliament on more than one occasion representative government within particular colonies had been shut down via certain Acts from Britain.

The first of the Acts that were passed that took the step of shutting down the colonist’s representative committees and councils was the New York Suspending Act of 1767. This Act was passed on July 2, 1767 as part of the Townshend Acts:
“That from and after the first day of October, one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven, until provision shall have been made by the said assembly of New York for furnishing his Majesty's troops within the said province,. . . it shall not be lawful for the governor,. . . or for the council, within the colony,. . . of New York in America, to pass, or give his or their assent to, or concurrence in, the making or passing of any act of assembly; or his or their assent to any order, resolution, or vote, in concurrence with the House of representatives for the time being within the said colony,. . . or for the said house of representatives to pass or make any bill, order, resolution, or vote . . .”(2)
The Townshend Acts included new duties placed on imports; the money derived from this duty was then used to pay the British officials appointed to the provinces. It also included a reorganization of Customs, to make sure that the Navigation Act, Townshend duties, and Sugar Acts were being correctly charged and followed. It also contained the New York Suspending Act of 1767 due to the New York colony not following the Quartering Act of 1765, which demanded that the colonies pay for the Quartering and supplying of British Troops stationed within that colony. In the end, although quite unhappy by the measures parliament had taken, the colonists passed a resolution and funded the troops.

Another act passed later as one of the Intolerable (or Coercive) Acts suspended the elected representative committees in the Colony of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Government Act of 1774 was passed by Parliament on May 20th of that year:
“That from and after the first day of August, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-four, so much of the charter, granted by their majesties King William and Queen Mary to the inhabitants of the said province . . ., and all and every clause, matter, and thing, therein contained, which relates to the time and manner of electing the assistants or counselors for the said province, be revoked,. . . and that the offices of all counselors and assistants, elected and appointed in pursuance thereof, shall from thenceforth cease and determine: . . . the council, or court of assistants of the said province for the time being, shall be . . . thereunto nominated and appointed by his Majesty, his heirs and successors, from time to time,. . .”(3)
To this act though, the reaction of the colonists was not one of compliance as it had been with the previous New York act. In this time there were protests throughout the colony; one of the more common was to have groups of townsfolk and farmers gather before the courthouses and protest to such excess that the judges could not come to sit for any sessions. Another more dangerous tactic of the enraged people was to threaten the crown appointed officials with clubs. These sorts of protests often held threats of bodily harm and destruction of property, and the colonists would demand the resignation of these officials and their return to Boston.(4) One of these crown Appointees a Timothy Paine from Worchester reported to Governor Gage of Massachusetts:
“people’s spirits are so raised they seem determined to risque their lives and everything dear to them in opposition, and to prevent any person from executing any commission he may receive under the present administration.”(5)

It is these two Acts in particular that led the second Continental Congress to discuss this suspension of legislatures amongst their lists of complaints to the crown. It was the acts of parliament revoking the right to meet, speak, and be able to guide law in relation to their own livelihoods that made this one of the Charges the Declaration focused on. The colonists understood that if they were ever going to be able to have any control over their own lives and future determination of law that they could not continue under a parliament that continued to revoke their constitutional rights to assembly and representation, rights they thought every man should have, they envisioned a nation of the free in their creation of the Declaration. In the words of Comedian John Stewart, “Still, knowing the inherent contradiction between their noble words and the reality of a slave-owning nation, Jefferson and the Founders wisely decided to strike from the Declaration of Independence the phrase or your money back.”(6)

Endnotes:
1. Declaration of Independence
2. Brainard, Rick, “Causes of the American Revolution: The Townshend Duties” http://http-server.carleton.ca/~pking/docs/440docs1.htm
3. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, “The Massachusetts Government Act; May 20, 1774” http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerrev/parliament/mass_gov_act.htm
4. Nash, Gary B. The Unknown American Revolution: The unruly birth of democracy and the struggle to create America. New York: Penguin Books, 2005, 178-183
5. Ibid., 179-180
6. Stewart, John, Karlin, Ben, Javerbaum, David ed. America (The Book): A Citizens Guide to Democracy Inaction. New York, Boston: Warner Books, 2004

Bibliography:

Nash, Gary B. The Unknown American Revolution: The unruly birth of democracy and the struggle to create America. New York: Penguin Books, 2005

Stewart, John, Karlin, Ben, Javerbaum, David ed. America (The Book): A Citizens Guide to Democracy Inaction. New York, Boston: Warner Books, 2004

Brainard, Rick, “Causes of the American Revolution: The Townshend Duties” http://http-server.carleton.ca/~pking/docs/440docs1.htm

The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, “The Massachusetts Government Act; May 20, 1774” http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerrev/parliament/mass_gov_act.htm

Wanda White

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Josiah Bartlett, New Hampshire

Josiah Bartlett was a political leader in the American Revolution. At the 1774 Continental Congress, he was one of the main delegates of New Hampshire and among the most active of all the delegates and it is likely that Josiah Bartlett was one of the first American politicians to vote in favour of American independence, and later among of the first signatories of the Declaration of Independence (Meyers 1979).
Born in Amesbury, Massachusetts in 1729, Josiah Bartlett grew up and lived in Kingston, New Hampshire, a town on the frontier (Meyers 1979). Here, being financially incapable of attending college, Bartlett apprenticed in medicine. He soon after married a cousin, Mary Bartlett, and together they had a large family (Meyers 1979). In part due to this, Bartlett had significant amount of influence in the community, and was therefore selected to be on the board of town officers for Kingston in 1757 (Meyers 1979). He had an active interest in the settling of the frontier and was made the proprietor of two new towns on the frontier, Warren and Wentworth (Meyers 1979).
Throughout the 1750s and 1760s, Bartlett’s political career was blossoming, for he was active and engaged in his positions in New Hampshire (Meyers 1979). It was natural that he gained a promotion to Justice of the Peace in 1765. He was also selected as Lieutenant Commander of the militia there (Meyers 1979). At the same time he was also the representative for Kingston at the provincial legislature (Meyers 1979). During this growing political involvement, he joined in the increasingly popular view that American independence from Britain was needed and, in 1774, he agreed to be the New Hampshire delegate at the Continental Congress (Meyers 1979).
After the American Revolution, Bartlett returned to New Hampshire, where he held the prominent positions of Chief Justice, Chief Executive of the State, and ultimately became the first Governor of New Hampshire (Meyers 1979). Records show that he was consistently present and engaged in political life until his retirement in 1794 (Meyers 1979). Bartlett died within twelve months of leaving the public life, in May 1795 (Meyers 1979).

William Whipple, New Hampshire

Matthew Thornton, New Hampshire

John Hancock, Massachusetts

John Hancock is a man whose face may not be reconcilable to most people but almost everyone knows his name, and more specially his signature. When one looks at the Declaration of Independence his is the name that stands out, it is the largest and the clearest. There are many rumors surrounding his signing of the document. It is said that he signed it so large because he wanted to King to be able to read it without specials. Whatever the rumors what is clear, besides his name, is that he had a great impact on the forming of the United States.

John Hancock was born on January 12, 1737 in what is now Quincy, Massachusetts. After the death of his father he was raised by his wealthy uncle and upon his death inherited what was arguably one of the largest fortunes in the new world at the time. He was educated at Harvard College and received a degree in 1754. He married Dorothy Quincy and had two children, neither of whom survived to adulthood.

Hancock’s involvement in the signing of the document came about through his work and the connections he had to very wealthy business men. It was clear that despite his friendships to many know loyalists he was strongly for the independence of the colonies. He was involved in many smuggling operations to resist the taxes unjustly placed on the colonies by England. He became more of a public figure over time and on the forth anniversary of the Boston Massacre gave a speech that help launch him into the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts then to the Continental Congress. He became the President of the Provincial Congress after that which put him in a position to take part in the second Continental Congress and in turn the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He was the first to sign the document on August 2nd and this is also one of the attributing factors to the size of the signature.

He died in October 1793 in his hometown and after living a very influential life in early America still enjoys a celebrity status in today’s world whenever anyone is asked to give their John Hancock.

Samuel Adams, Massachusetts

Thomas Jefferson, in reflection upon his colleague and fellow patriot Samuel Adams, argued that he was “truly the man of the Revolution” [1]. Adams’s political career would attest to such an impressive claim. Born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1722, despite his failed business ventures, Adams proved adept in politics[2]. His political record began in when he was elected to the Massachusetts Assembly where he served as a clerk[3]. His influence on the political environment of the colonies and the colonial opinion of British authority was significant. In the turbulent decades leading to the revolutionary war, Adams proved an effective “political agitator and organizer of rebellion”[4]. In particular, he took part in the drafting of the protest to Parliament calling for the repeal of the Stamp Act of 1765[5], and he was prominent supporter and source of encouragement of the nonimportation efforts in opposition to the Townshend revenue duties of 1767[6]. A member of the zealous patriotic organization the Sons of Liberty, he took leadership in the defiant action of Boston Tea Party of 1773[7]. Another significant contribution to the revolutionary fervor was his role in the organization of the local committees of correspondence, the first of which was formed in Boston in 1772[8]; these committees successfully “spread the spirit of resistance”, and their success spurred the creation of broader intercolonial committees[9]. Described as a “master propagandist and engineer of rebellion”, he certainly encouraged acts of resistance within the colonies, particularly through his contributions to colonial newspapers and pamphlets that succeeded in stirring anti-British sentiment[10]. Adams represented Massachusetts during the Continental Congress of 1774, and acted again as a delegate in the Second Continental Congress[11]. He served in Congress until 1781, whereupon he returned to his native Massachusetts, to take a seat in the State Senate; he served in that body until 1788[12]. Following his service to the national government in the years of the Revolution, he remained an influential political leader. Adams was elected as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts from 1789 until 1793, and was thereafter repeatedly elected to the position of Governor of the state from 1794 until his retirement in 1797[13]. Adams is remembered as an aggressive and passionate proponent of revolution.


[1] Pauline Maier, “Coming to Terms with Samuel Adams,” The American Historical Review 81 (1976): 13.
[2] Ibid., 12.
[3] Maier, “Samuel Adams,” 12.
[4] David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen and Thomas A. Bailey, The American Pageant: Volume I to1877 (Houghton Mifflin, 2002), 131.
[5]"Samuel Adams," <>, 2006.
[6] Maier, “Samuel Adams,” 13.
[7] "Samuel Adams," <>, 2006.
[8] Kennedy, Cohen and Bailey, American Pageant, 131.
[9] Kennedy, Cohen and Bailey, American Pageant, 131.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Maier, “Samuel Adams,” 13.
[12] Ibid.
[13] "Samuel Adams," <>, 2006.

Sydney Dale-McGrath