2007-10-22 15:44:34 · 9 answers · asked by snarrr 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
The colonists had a legal right to revolt based in the English Common Law. The Colonists were British citizens. Great Britain does not have a written constitution. Long tradition dating to Magna Charta (the Great Charter) incorporated legal decisions, acts of parliament and the writings of Blackstone into Britain's Constitutional tradition. That tradition was that the government derived its right to govern from the governed. The rights of Englishmen included a right to a trial by a jury of your peers, to be secure in your person and personal effects, to be free from taxation without representation.
The Declaration of Independence is a list of grievances. Its authors and Signers demanded the rights all Englishmen enjoyed, but which had been taken from or restricted by the King, Colonial Governors and Parliament. The Declaration of Independence exposes the abuses of the Colonial system and describes the bases for throwing off the yoke of tyranny. Its Signers suffered huge personal losses and pledged their lives and sacred honor because they believed they had a right to rebel against, and secure to themselves and their posterity the rights of free men. Ultimately they created a nation which has for two centuries permitted and encouraged the greatest development of the human spirit in history. Perfect, no. Magnificent, yes. Not only did they have the right, they believed they had the obligation to rebel, not for the sake of rebellion, but for the sake of millions of people they would never know. The Colonists' collective courage is awe inspiring. If Tom Brokaw knew more about history, he might have second thoughts about calling the World War II generation the "Greatest Generation."
The Colonial Rebels found no glory, little promise of a better future, no organized national celebration when they were finished. All they got was liberty and the back-breaking labor that would go into completing the task. Civil War, national expansion, and world leadership have tested that generation's sacrifice and resoundingly pronounced it the greatest ever.
Yes, they had the right to rebel, but even if they did not, they were right to rebel. Thank God they had the courage to do it.
2007-10-22 16:23:06 · answer #1 · answered by Ron D 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your good King George was draining the colonies dry for his weary wars in Europe. He was taxing the colonists as much as 60% of everything they had. He also pressured them to bunker the men that were in the colonies and, feed them.
King George didn't seem to care about the winters in the colonies and the severe shortages of food and clothing, he insisted his troops get the best of the best, the colonists were at the bottom.
The laws in the Colonies were made for the colonists not the British troops. They ruled with an iron hand.
When an average colonist farmer has to give up 60% of his goods, bivouck six men and feed them plus, let them have the rule of your home without question, your creating a problem.
2007-10-23 05:28:52 · answer #2 · answered by cowboydoc 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes they did. When a people is being oppressed by a stubborn government that won't compromise on anything they have every right. And Englishmen had already revolted against the king all the way back to the middle ages.
2007-10-23 00:20:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to the principles of social contract built upon the ideas of natural rights, and supported by the English Constitution and Magna Carta: yes.
From England's point-of-view: no.
Does it matter? No, because the colonists won. Had they failed, they would've all been hanged as traitors.
2007-10-22 22:55:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Americans didn't want to break away in the first place, hence the Declaration of Rights and Grievances, in which they appealed to the king in place of parliament and assured their (the founding fathers) loyalty to the king. However, when the king saw this, he refuses to even finish reading it and ordered his troops to crush the colonial rebels. So yes, Independence was justified.
2014-10-16 05:09:56 · answer #5 · answered by W 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you use the word "revolt", instead of "separated from", then you are admitting it was illegal.
Besides, anyone who had had previous military service in the French and Indian War must have taken a prior oath of loyalty to the British Crown. (Do you hear that Gen. Washington?)
2007-10-22 23:20:08 · answer #6 · answered by fr.peter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, any people being subjugated by its government has a fundamental right to rebel that no law or edict can take away. The right to live free trumps any other law.
2007-10-22 22:52:39 · answer #7 · answered by theseeker4 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since the winners of wars get to write the histories that document those wars - yes, we did - according to "American" history.
Great Britain may, however, see it somewhat differently.
2007-10-22 23:42:33 · answer #8 · answered by Patti R 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on your point of view. I'm certainly happy with the results, but the English considered them criminals.
2007-10-22 22:51:59 · answer #9 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋