The Moral Foundation for the American Struggle for Independence

Brittany Taylor

September 28, 2011

American Foundations 101

Bro. Johnson

Rebellion: (noun) open, organized, and resistance to one's government or ruler. There have been multiple examples of rebellion throughout society; the rebellions of slaves against their “masters,” the “Boxer Rebellion,” the peasant revolts in France are a few examples. Each of these groups thought that their beliefs were worth standing up for. They each were open with their beliefs, organized groups, and resisted their government.  The colonists from Great Britain did just this, but were they justified in this action?

First and foremost, the colonist (as a whole) felt that every man has certain rights. (Rights being just claims or titles.)  These rights are not to be given by any form of government, they are called unalienable rights or natural rights. These specific rights are given by God. They include; life, liberty and property. Each of these are not earned nor given to you by a ruler, they are endowed upon you as soon as you are on this earth. No one can take these rights away from you; if someone does we not only have the ability to, but have the responsibility to overthrow such government.

The King of Britain, King George III, felt that the previous kings were weak because the colonies had been allowed to govern themselves. The previous kings were also not fully ruling, they had those below them making many of the decisions; he didn’t approve of this method of ruling. King George III wanted to prove his power to his subjects and the only way, he felt, to do this was to take control of the American colonies. He did this in many different ways, but the most obvious and controversial were the many acts that he forced the American colonists to abide by.

The first step that King George III took was to create The Proclamation of 1763. This document stated that the American colonists could no longer settle west of the Appalachian Mountains. Not only were many settlers already occupying this territory, but many had been living there, successfully, for years. They had their crops and homes in working order. They were angry that they were being forced to leave their homes to come east of the Appalachian Mountains. There were also many colonists who had been planning to expand west, for more land and to adventure into the unknown. This proclamation infringed on the unalienable, or natural, rights of the colonists. The third God given right is the right to own property. The colonists that were west of the Appalachian Mountains were forced to leave their rightfully owned property; they had no choice. The colonists that that were on the east side couldn’t pursue more land, they were unable to get any gain on the west side. This was controlling what people could and could not own, thus taking away the natural right of property.

The Quartering Act also invaded the colonist’s natural right to own property. The Quartering Act allowed a British troop to gain room and board from any colonist with no consent or say from the said colonist. This invaded a person’s right of property by forcing them to allow another person to take up needed space within one’s home and requiring those soldiers to be fed as well. The colonists had the right to be able to choose how their money and resources were being used. 

King George III then begins to tax the American colonists without any representatives from the people of the colonies. There was not just one case of this; there were many different occasions when King George III practiced taxation without representation. This taxing took away the colonist’s liberty, which is freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. They were forced to pay a certain amount of money. It did not matter if they agreed of not. 

The first instance in which case this happens is when the Sugar Act was implemented. The Sugar Act placed a tax on items that are imported on ships to the colonies. These items included, but were not limited to; sugar, textiles, coffee, wines, and indigo. The items that passed though Great Britain before arriving in America were taxed twice. They were also forbidden to import specific foreign goods.

The second occasion wherein taxation without representation occurred was accomplished through another act, the Stamp Act. This act forced any and every piece of printed material obtain a stamp from England. This created a tax for any paper used; including anything from playing cards to legal documents. Not only did this exercise taxation without representation but it was also the first example of Great Britain’s departure from precedent.  This departure from precedent refers to the Rule of Law. This is the belief that any leader is not above the law. This goes back to the unalienable rights given by God; no man is above these laws or can do anything to take another person’s rights away. The departure from precedent is to, specifically, go against how the government has worked in the past. This is not acceptable when that process has been proven to be in accordance to the natural rights of man.

The Townshend Act was yet another act in which the liberty of the colonists was taken away through their liberty being violated. The Townshend Act placed a tax on imports, specifically tea. This act was made even more invasive when the Tea Act was put in place. The Tea Act created a monopoly for the East India Tea Company. The tea that was imported from the East India Tea Company was significantly cheaper than any other company’s tea due to the fact that Great Britain did not require a second tax on their imports. Instead of shipping the tea from East India to Great Britain and then on to the American colonies, the tea was simply shipped from East India to America. This act made the American colonists reluctant to buy from the East India Company because they did not want to contribute to the strengthening of Great Britain’s economy. This violated their natural right of liberty by forcing them to buy tea from a specific tea company.

Through all these infringements of rights of property and liberty the right of life was being threatened as well. There was the chance that the loosing this property, food, or money could cause a colonist to be unable to provide for himself or his family, in which case the loss of life itself is a strong possibility. Now tell me, were the colonists justified in their rebellion?