decleration of independence.. do you believe that the american colonies had the rihgt to rebel against British

Question

decleration of independence.. do you believe that the american colonies had the rihgt to rebel against British rule????

Answer 1

I do belive that they did. The colonists were ruled by England, but a majority of the time, England didn't have any idea as to what was going on.(due to bad communication) The English also continued to hike taxes. EX:The Sugar Act-a tax applied to all luxury items.
Honestly, I don't blame the Colonists for rebelling. They were being ruled by someone who had no clue as to what was really going on, and they created crazy sky high taxes.

Answer 2

Taxation without representation. Colonists had absolutely no say about who would govern them. They also strongly believed that the rights of man come not from other men, but God. They absolutely had the right to rebel. We, today, have the right to rebel against an oppressive government. But we must also have the means, which is why the Second Amendment is so important.

Answer 3

the yank colonists were following in a convention of British heritage which had produced the Civil conflict, the magnificent Revolution and the United Irishmen. each and each of the yank colonies were on the prompt nonetheless predominantly British, most of the arguments which they recommend got here by ability of British philosophers, even the French philosophes who inspired them were many times themselves reflecting on the style between Britain and France. the biggest impression change into economic. The Colonists needed loose commerce basically so they could do company with the French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch, especially contained in the Caribbean. Britain nonetheless insisted commerce went by ability of her. The Colonists needed freedom to strengthen over the Alleghenies - the British had made treaties with the Indian countries which prevented this, partly to maintain away from the price of Indian Wars. Britain change into as grasping for territory as the different skill, although the French had no longer verified this change right into a efficient territory even as they occupied it. The Colonists disliked paying Imperial Taxes. without the presence of the French they reckoned they could manage their personal defence by ability of community militias. The Caribbean colonies had very small British populations and were specially slave plantations. there change into no way they could have effectively rebelled, the Royal military might want to quickly have intervened and they could were weak to slave rebellions of their turn. most of the African holdings on the prompt were both slave stations or re-furnish factors for ships going to India, the in basic terms exception change into Cape Colony. maximum white inhabitants were Boers and without the help of a overseas skill they too were helpless antagonistic to the British, for the British inhabitants there might want to were no element, their entire reason for being there change into to re-furnish the East India employer ships. India change into nonetheless better many times than not contained in the palms of community princes immediately. The East India employer in basic terms held Bengal, Bihar and Circars and the territory round Madras. there have been on-going community wars in which the EIC frequently managed to affix with community allies. there change into no longer some thing like the yank difficulty, this change into better about elite skill struggles over who change into going to rule territory.

Answer 4

yes and no

but there was too much distance between england and the colonies. the king of england had no idea what was going on on this side of the ocean. he was taxing the people too unfairly.

Answer 5

Anybody has a right to rebel. They also have a right to get a beat-down for it if unsuccessful.

Answer 6

yes and no... yes because a population should rebel if the govt oppresses them and no because in legal term's it's treason... today, if another revolution happened it would be treason according to the constitution.

Answer 7

YES
no representation.
also no man should be forced to live under the thumb of a monarchy