Can someone please evaluate the accusations made against King George 3rd in the declaration of Independence?

Question

i know this is a complex question which might take some time to answer but it would really help me out a lot...jsut look at the second section of the declaration which blames King George for a lot of things and using historical information and facts say if some of these accusations were either true or false

Answer 1

~Actually no, it is not all that difficult or complex, but if you think someone is going to go through them one by one and address each, you must be out of your mind. Have you read the pertinent sections? If so, you should know the answer. Then, too, you have to decide from what prospective the answer should be given? The answer from the homeland British is apt to be different from that of the rebellious colonials who supported independence (about 1/3) or from that of the loyalist colonials who remained faithful to the rightful government (about 1/3) or from that of the colonials who never really took a stand one way or the other (about 1/3) or from the colonials in the Canadian and West Indies colonies who were subject to similar rules and reasonably content with the status quo. Ask yourself:

What was the power of the King and Parliament over the colonies in 1776?

Were not the colonies British territories, subject to British law and British rule?

What was the nature of taxation in, say, Liverpool at the time and what was the nature of representation of the citizens of Liverpool in Parliament? Does that contrast in any way with a citizen of Boston?

Weren't the oppressive taxes actually lower than the ones they replaced and weren't they imposed because the homeland British were all but bankrupt from the cost of the Seven Years War (including the North American component, the French and Indian War)? Weren't the new and reduced taxes imposed to collect the colonial share of that cost, the colonials having reaped the benefit, and wasn't the real problem the fact that the taxes were being collected for once, the former policy of the government having been to look the other way when the colonials refused to pay or to otherwise ignore their rightful obligations to the government?

Given that the colonists relied on, and demanded, British military protection, did it make sense for Parliament and the Crown to restrict growth of the colonies to an area wherein that protection could be provided?

Under British law, how were judges appointed?

Which was the supreme law of the land, the Crown and Parliament or the colonial legislatures and under what authority did the colonial legislatures exist?

By what authority did a colonial propose to be authorized to grant British citizenship to anyone, whether or not if in compliance with British law?

Were not the British troops the only legally authorized troops in the colonies and what would have been the consequence if they were withdrawn and the Spanish chose to move into Georgia from Florida or the French into Virginia from there lands to the west? But for the British troops, how were colonial borders to be secured and did not the Crown and Parliament have the right to secure their own colonies?

Weren't the trade rules imposed for the benefit and well being of ALL British subjects, including the colonials?

Of what possible concern to a resident of North Carolina what Parliament did to preserve the integrity of Quebec as a British colony after acquiring it from the French and why would someone from Rhode Island think he had any claim to lands around Detroit?

You could take the easy way out and say that the Declaration of Independence was a meaningless and redundant document because independence was actually declared on July 2, 1776, with the ratification of the Lee Resolution which simply said, in its entirety:

Resolved, 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.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

Answer 2

This is definitely a complex question. Some general comments up front...

1. The Declaration of Independence (DoI) IS a historical document, and even though it's biased, its claims should be taken seriously. Not that you wouldn't, but I just feel I need to say that.

2. The DoI puts the focus on King George III. It commits a technical error on this point, in that Parliament was really the source of most of the grievances that the North American colonies had. HOWEVER...since the delegates to the Second Continental Congress considered King George III to be the sovereign over Great Britain and the man they HAD been subject to, they zeroed in on him. Kind of a "buck stops here" mentality.

You may want to read the following articles...

http://colonial-america.suite101.com/article.cfm/causes_of_the_american_revolution

http://colonial-america.suite101.com/article.cfm/great_books_on_early_america

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/declarationofindependence/a/declaration_sg.htm

And then check out this website...

http://www.founding.com/home.htm

and...if you're interested...my blog at...

http://americanfounding.blogspot.com

Answer 3

Truth is subjective in this case. These were the grievances of the colonists, as they saw it. I'm sure if you were able to read some old English documents from around the same time, they would also have their viewpoint.

If you think about it, most of it was probably true, or else the colonists would not have risked death in order to overthrow the government.

Answer 4

Here is a proof from Wikipedia I additionally incorporated the reference on the backside of the guide for the understanding sited. I suppose the legislative our bodies you're relating to is the enforcement of the more than a few "Acts" inflicted at the colonies to preserve manipulate of exchange and trade. Salutary overlook ''Salutary overlook'' used to be an undocumented, regardless that lengthy status, British coverage of averting strict enforcement of parliamentary legislation supposed to preserve the American colonies obedient to Great Britain. Prime Minister Robert Walpole recounted that "if no regulations have been located at the colonies, they could flourish . This coverage, which lasted from approximately 1607 to 1763, allowed the enforcement of exchange family members legislation to be lenient. Walpole didn't suppose in imposing the Navigation Acts, founded beneath Oliver Cromwell and Charles II and designed to drive the colonists to exchange simplest with England. King George III ended this coverage via acts such because the Stamp Act and Sugar Act, inflicting tensions inside the colonies. Salutary overlook occurred over 3 time intervals: from 1607-1696, England had no coherent imperial coverage; from 1696-1763, England attempted to type a coherent coverage (navigation acts), however didn't put in force it; finally, from 1763-1775 England started to check out and use a coherent coverage. Salutary overlook used to be a significant contributing aspect that ended in the American Revolutionary War. Since the imperial authority didn't assert the vigour that it had, the colonists have been left to manipulate themselves. These basically sovereign colonies quickly grew to become aware of the thought of self-manipulate. The results of such lengthy isolation finally resulted within the emergence of a collective identification that viewed itself break free Great Britain. The turning factor from salutary overlook to an try to put in force English insurance policies used to be the Seven Years' War (French and Indian War). Great Britain used to be combating France for imperial manipulate of the recognized international (adding North America, wherein the warfare used to be began (see Jumonville affair) and used to be wasting very badly till Secretary of State William Pitt the Elder took cost. To support the warfare attempt, Pitt attempted to grab provides from the colonies, drive colonial guys into provider, and take manipulate of navy problems. The colonists strongly resented his interference, and quickly Pitt eased his insurance policies. Nevertheless, the Seven Years' War fostered resentment within the American colonists in the direction of the British and contempt in Britain in the direction of the Americans. These tensions brought about England to desert its coverage of salutary overlook, which led instantly to the American Revolution. The time period "salutary overlook" arises from Edmund Burke's 'Speech for Conciliation with the Colonies' given within the House of Commons March 22, 1775. "That I understand that the colonies traditionally owe little or not anything to any care of ours, and that they aren't squeezed into this completely satisfied type by means of the restrictions of watchful and suspicious executive, however that, via a sensible and salutary overlook, a beneficiant nature has been suffered to take her possess technique to perfection; while I mirror upon those results, while I see how moneymaking they've been to us, I believe the entire pleasure of vigour sink, and all presumption within the knowledge of human contrivances soften, and die away inside me." (Burke p. 186) References Burke, Edmund (1834). The Works of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke Vol. I. Holdsworth and Ball. OCLC 16565696. pp.181-205