American representatives opposed additional taxes imposed on the colonies by the British Parliament. Their argument was based on the fact that the United States was not represented in the British Parliament, which brought into question the legitimacy of the laws passed in Britain. The unprecedented arrogance demonstrated by King George and failure by the British Parliament to dialogue with the American representatives led to the eventual hostility between Britain and the United States. In response, Britain passed more punitive laws targeting Massachusetts, which they believed was at the core of the rebellion.
The Stamp Act of was one such measure. It created an excise tax on newspapers, customs documents, licenses, college diplomas, and most legal documents. Although the Stamp Act was widely popular in England where taxes were far higher than they were in the colonies, it was uniformly resented in the colonies.
Nine colonial legislatures officially expressed their objections to this British tax, and civil disobedience to this Act was rampant throughout the colonies.
The Stamp Act became increasingly unenforceable, and in March Parliament revoked it. The colonists were grateful for the repeal of the Stamp Act and were eager to mend their relations with the mother country.
At this point, a complete break from England remained unimaginable, but a precedent for colonial defiance had been created. Despite the repeal of the Stamp Act, underlying philosophical differences remained. The British wanted the colonists to pay the greater part of the cost of royal government in the colonies, whereas the colonists resisted imperial taxation and limits on self-government.
A series of incidents that took place between and emphasized these differences.
For example, the Townshend Duties ofwhich taxed imports, led to nonimportation agreements boycotts of British goods that injured the British economy and caused the repeal of the Townshend Duties in Customs racketeering, in which greedy customs officials seized ships and their goods whether or not evidence of smuggling existed, led to widespread violence and to the British occupation of Boston in The British occupation itself led indirectly to the Boston Massacre ofwhen an angry mob incited a soldier to fire into the crowd.
The ensuing mayhem caused five deaths. The Boston Tea Party of and the punitive British response solidified colonial fears that the Crown was attempting to limit traditional English liberties throughout North America. In response to these events, the first Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia in George Washington was the third Virginia representative.
The delegates summarized their principles and demands in the Declaration of Rights, which conceded to Parliament the power to regulate colonial commerce, but argued that parliamentary efforts to impose taxes, enforce laws through admiralty courts, suspend assemblies, and unilaterally revoke charters were unconstitutional.
After these incidents, a break from England had become a distinct possibility although still not a certainty. In Williamsburg in Aprilon orders from the British ministry, Governor Dunmore directed British marines to remove guns and powder stored at the Magazine.
A violent clash between the alarmed city residents and the British almost erupted. Dunmore soon fled to a British ship in the York River. Determined to regain control of the colony, the governor threatened to offer freedom to all slaves who ran away to the British side.
By Julybattles in what eventually became known as the American Revolution had already taken place in Massachusetts: Despite this ominous turn of events, not all parties saw the Revolution as inevitable.
For example, a majority of the second Continental Congress, which began meeting in Maystill opposed independence. Even Samuel Adams, among the most radical of the colonists, described himself as "fond of reconciliation.
Most colonists had hoped that their resistance would either convince the king to dismiss the ministers responsible for the repressive legislation or would jolt Parliament into renouncing its authority over all matters in the colonies except trade regulation.
As it became clear that neither course would occur, some loyalist colonists accused their contemporaries of creating a rift, or at least inflaming existing problems. Their Revolutionary counterparts often browbeat clergymen who preached pro-British sermons, pressured their countrymen to boycott British goods, and coerced merchants to burn British imports.
In November, Governor Dunmore signed his Emancipation Proclamation placing Virginia under martial law and granting freedom to all slaves and indentured servants who would bear arms for the king.Nov 13, · yes the American colonists justified in waging war and breaking away form Britain, because the colonists were in every right to do so Share to: What were the colonists that wanted to .
Summary. The colonists' disappointment began shortly after the French and Indian War ended in , when the British government tried to reduce the debt incurred during the war by collecting additional taxes and gaining more control over the colonies.
Were the Colonists Justified in Waging War? Essay Sample. The American colonists were justified in waging war and breaking away from Britain because of unjust laws, a King of tyranny, and both violating searches and officials.
This question can be looked at from both sides. Many American colonists felt as though they were justified in waging war and breaking away from Britain. yes the American colonists justified in waging war and breaking away form Britain, because the colonists were in every right to do so Share to: What were the colonists that wanted to break away.
Why were the American colonists justified in rebelling against Great Britain and ultimately 2 educator answers Who is Daniel Shays and what was he rebelling against?what Shays and the others.