Were the colonists morally justified in revolting from King George the third and Great Britton? I think the colonists were morally justified in revolting against King George the third and Great Brittan for a number of reasons. One being taxation without representation, before 1763 all colonial tax decisions were made by colonial legislators, and people had representation in their taxing. Three examples of taxation without representation are the Sugar-Act, which raised prices on certain goods such as coffee and textiles. The Stamp-Act, which made all printed materials such as documents and papers taxed. Lastly the Townshend-Act, which put taxes on imports. Great Britton created these taxes to help raise revenue from their war with France. All these taxes violated the rights of the colonists and the British constitution.
Another reason the colonists were justified in revolting was because Great Britton ignored the colonist’s natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Some specific examples are British soldiers took lives at the Boston Massacre. Second Great Britton allowed their soldiers search and seizure without warrants, which stomped all over the colonist’s rights of liberty and property. Also in 1765 there was the Quartering-Act, which made the colonists house and feed the British soldiers, most of the time without their consent.
The colonists were also morally justified because Rule of Law. King George the third and parliament violated precedent by putting themselves above the law. King George the third was trying to show there was a change from king George the first and second, and that he was not weak like his father and grandfather were. Great Britton also had a lack of due process. Governor Hutchinson asked for more British soldiers to bring more power to the area. Colonists who were officials were discredited and had no say in matters. The Whig party had been in control and were accommodating to the colonists so the king removed all the Whig leaders. The king increased his power by rewarding all the people who were loyal to him. He rewarded these people by appointing them to powerful positions. The king just put more power over parliament and officials over American Colonies. Also colonists did not have the same rights as British citizens had when they were still under British rule. Though they still had to pay the price of being a British citizen they had to go without getting the benefits.
Great Britton also established soldiers in times of peace. Having British soldiers around created lots of unrest in the colonies. Especially after events such as the Boston Massacre, and the brutal beating of James Otis, which changed his life forever. The Boston Massacre all started with a soldier crossing the line and striking a child because he did not like what the child had to say. It then escalated and ended with three people dead and two mortally wounded. Similarly James Otis stood up for what he believed and was beaten by a group of men that were customs officials and British soldiers, wanting to take their frustration out on a Whig leader. The wounds Otis received were not life or death, but they did hurt him mentally and he never recovered. Doing this to James Otis really upset the Boston community and just gave them more incentive to revolt. British soldiers were given too much power at this time such as the British captain in the 29th regiment who advised his men to kill any civilian that touched them. After this Samuel Adams tried to get the removal of British troops from the colonies.
The colonists went about protesting in the right way. They always had order in how they responded. They had a process of resisting. First they tried petitions, such as the letters from a farmer in Pennsylvania, John Dickenson. In his letters he said he was happy to be a British citizen, but said Great Britton could not trample on its subjects rights. He was trying to get British rulers to go back to tradition, precedent and, prudence. Samuel Adams also tried petitioning with circular letters, which circulated among legislative bodies in other colonies. Second they tried boycotting. They stopped buying, trading, and selling goods to British merchants. These boycotts came at a great economic sacrifice to those who were boycotting but it hurt Britain more than it hurt the colonists. They also boycotted the Stamp-Act by preventing stamps from being available. The Sons of America was on of the big boycotting groups. Lastly the less peace-full way, they tried was to maintain dignity with no riotousness such as the Boston Tea Party. The Boston Tea Party was in response to the new tea tax. The East India Tea Company had a monopoly but most of the tea in the colonies was smuggled in tax-free. The East India tea was left in the ports on the ships, when a few of the colonists went aboard and broke up all the containers holding the tea and threw it overboard. This led then to the next act, the Coercive-Act. The Coercive-Act closed off the port until the East India Company was compensated.
With all that happened to the American colonists it is no surprise that they revolted. They were very dignified in how they went about the revolt. They were not trying to revolt in the beginning; they just wanted the rights that they deserved. They did not want a war they just wanted things to go back to how they had been before. They gave it years of trying it the peaceful way and then had to resort to revolting. The British government is the one who pushed the colonists into the revolt by all the taxes they threw at them. The colonists deserved their natural rights of life, liberty, and property and the British were not giving it to them. The British were not even giving them the rights they deserved by being British citizens. So yes, the colonists were very justified in revolting against king George the third and Great Britton.
