Did the colonists have the right to declare their independ.?

Question

Use the three strongest grievances from the Dec. of Indep. to support.

Answer 1

One answer says "Not according to the colonial charter they were ruled by."

That's interesting, because one of the strongest arguments the COLONISTS made for rejecting the King's rule... that he was that the King was NOT ruling them according to their charter at all!

The Declaration introduces one set of grievances thus:

(# 1)
"He has combined with others [i.e., Parliament] to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation"

Several specifics are listed under this head, including "For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:"

This referred to such things as the provisions of the "Massachusetts Government Act" of 1774 (one of the principle "Coercive Acts" [called the "Intolerable Acts" by Americans]), which restricted town meetings in Massachusetts and changed the colony's councilors from elected to crown-appointed officials.

In fact, this matter of "altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments" is an underlying issue in many of the colonists' complaints. Whereas the colonists HAD for most of their history been expected to defend themselves and settle their own local issues, in part through their own legislatures, during the previous decade the British government had declared ITS right to legislate for the colonies in any matter whatsoever (most explicitly in the "Declaratory Act").**

From the above description of the history, there is a sense in which this complaint about changing the forms of government could be applied to several particular grievances, including that of "imposing Taxes on us without our Consent". (that is, the well-known "taxation without representation")

** Compare also this complaint:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.


(#2)
A second very strong argument was that the King was essentially making WAR against them.
This began with the huge step of declaring them in rebellion and out of his protection

"He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us."

The following grievances provide details of WAYS in which he has waged war:

* He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
* He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
* He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
* He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Two earlier grievances that might be combined with these:
* quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
* He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

(In the last part of this, we see again the complaint about the King's violating the rights of the colonists to legislate for themselves.)


(#3) - refusal even to hear the colonists grievances

In summing up the complaints, the following is added:
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."

Along the same lines, note the earlier complaint:
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

(That is, if we don't go along with him, he not only doesn't listen to us; he shuts down our legislatures!)
_______________

The Declaration of Independence actually assumes a lot -- it does not spell out the background, or many of the historical reasons why the various actions complained of were serious VIOLATIONS of the historical RIGHTS of these colonists. That is all a bit better explained in other documents.

One you might look at is the "Declarations and Resolves" issued by the FIRST Continental Congress on October 14, 1774. It appeals to their rights as ENGLISHMEN, and to what was granted to them in their CHARTERS and practiced in their COMPACTS.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/resolves.htm

Along the same lines is the "English Bill of Rights" of 1689. This document, written to justify Parliament's removal of James II (technically, accepting his "abdication" when he fled them) and installing of William and Mary. It begins with a list of grievances, concerning English rights violated by James, as a reason for rejecting his rule. (In other words, it closely parallels the function of the Declaration of Independence... AND many of its core arguments.)
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm

In fact, it is helpful to note several close parallels between this documents "grievance list" and the Declaration's (in each case, the first is from the Bill of Rights, the rest from the Declaration of Independence)

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law
* He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;
* He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
* For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever

By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;
* He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;
* For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;
* For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
* For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

Answer 2

That's a very interesting question! Do the people have the right to in essence overthrown the goverment when they find it unacceptable? You have to look at each situation individually. In the case of the Civil War the answer is an absolute NO, because the states were part of the actual government and had processes in place to address greivences, and the states were created BY the government. In the case of the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence, it's a bit different. These were not states of a Union, but colonies across the ocean that had no say in government, no representation, no way to address greivences.

I cannot right now give you specific reasons in the document, but I think the reasons are strong enough.

Answer 3

This isn't hard at all. the answer is NO. Not according to the colonial charter they were ruled by. Hence, the upraising.I would point out to your teacher that the declaration its self was treasonous in nature. To declare its independence it had to go against its Ruler( Great Britton) so NO of course they had no right to anything except that in the charter.
If this is the question your teacher asked, exactly, you should get an A with this argument because the only rights they had were those given to them by their ruler.
So this makes the Declaration of Independence irrelevant to this question.
I've given you half the answer, ( and got you thinking I hope), the second part would be why the document is irrelevant to the question, or in other words, were the colonists allowed to write there own rules? and Breakaway from Britton Look up in Yaholigans, and other homework help pages to see what was allowed by The good King of England. Oh, you should probably find out what that Kings name was as well.
Hope this helps! Merry Xmas

Answer 4

After the Colonists won the Revolutionary War they had every right to declare their independance.

Answer 5

That's why the colonist had the Revolutionary War. It was for independence from Great Britain.

Answer 6

Everyone has a right to declare their independence.

If you want to see how those actual people felt about it, you can find eye witness accounts in the research section of New Free Books.

Answer 7

Well, if you read the Declaration of Independance, it refers to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS (PROPERTY).