27, 2002
“Radical Declaration”
Gentlemen, there comes a time in all of our lives when we must stand up to our overseers. As our fellow countryman, Thomas Paine, declared, “It is ridiculous for an island to rule part of a continent, 3000 miles away.”
Moreover, the restrictions on trade, the newly passed declaration allowing for the quartering of large bodies of armed British troops, and the closing of the port of Boston, shows that our dictator is unwilling to compromise on these “Intolerable Acts.”
Furthermore, it seems as though it is but a small group of wealthy, extremely privileged, land owning loyals, who wish to remain under this tyranny. The king refuses to hear our grievances and has even disallowed us trial by jury.
The esteemed patriot and my good friend and neighbor, Samuel Adams, tells me that he has received word from “A Virginian who wrote home from London that King George’s own House of Commons says he is ‘very obstinate’ and ‘shan’t continue to reign with any peaceable conduct toward the colonies’.” (Langguth, 28)
So my friends, I ask you all how long can we continue to be treated as hostiles? Why should we wish to remain loyal to a country that deprived us of religious freedoms for generations, not to mention those of us who have no tie to the king and Britain at all?
Why should we not seek independence? Why should we give into our selfish, greedy, loyalist neighbors, while the British troops are killing our friends, attacking our cities, and laying sole claim to OUR goods?
I say we put a sharp and decisive end to our ties with the tyrannical king and HIS country. This bold declarative statement, however, will require the support and backing of all colonists not just my northernmost neighbors.
...no loyalty to the Crown now, in future conflicts, the colonists may turn against us and become our enemy. Radical action must be taken in order to regulate their behavior. They must recognize the royal authority.
insist on our right of and capacity for being self-governing individuals. But we find ourselves again under the rule of a king - an authority exterior to the self. This time, however, we cannot as easily identify the king and declare our independence." Despite
Being a great schemer, Lord North struck out the plan of the East India Company’s sending tea to America, hoping thereby to outwit us, and to establish the Townshend Act effectually, which will forever after be pleaded as a precedent for every imposition the Parliament of Great Britain shall think proper to saddle us with. It is much to be wished that the Americans will convince Lord North that they are not yet ready to have the yoke of slavery riveted about their necks, and send back the tea whence it came.
“Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others, the most improper to defend us.” Such words scribed by the Revolutionary radical Thomas Paine epitomized the drive behind the American Revolution of the 18th century. For nearly two hundred years, the citizens of the American Colonies had been fastened securely to the wrist of the mother country, England. They had tolerated the tyrannous rule, but not without the simmer of rebellious thoughts. As England piled tax after tax onto their colonies, thoughts of revolution and revolt sprung up in the minds of the colonists and brewed there, waiting for a catalyst to drive them into action. The catalyst ignited on January 10th, 1776 when Thomas Paine published his fiery pamphlet ‘Common Sense’. The 48-page pamphlet presented before the colonists a vision for independence that had never been conceived before. It radically altered the course of the Revolution and would later find itself molding the foundation of America’s government indefinitely.
To those ready for change, as of mid-1776 our colonies have gone through drastic changes in over the past few years in order to unite and become a sovereign country. Following the Sons of Liberty’s Boston Tea Party incident, British Parliament passed a series of unacceptable laws, known as the Intolerable Acts, which clearly violated our human rights. The Boston harbor was shut down, a British Governor was appointed to Massachusetts, British soldiers are now being quartered in colonists’ homes, and a series of tax laws were placed on items which were previously essential to colonists. To top it off, this has taken place without the colonial men and women’s voice being represented overseas in Parliament. The Provincial Congress has been put together to vote on how to resolve the Intolerable Acts.
Subsequently, it was appointed to King George III; withal, it was rejected. Obstinacy and greed characterized him, and torment was his specialty. He planned on keeping the “New World” for himself without even considering the outlook from his fellow men. He was not interested in making any type of variation, seeking only for domination. Written in the Olive Branch Petition, there is a line that reads “...your royal authority and influence may be graciously interposed to procure us relief from our afflicting fears and jealousies…” (Dickinson, John). That displays the everlasting fear that lived within the people of the thirteen colonies. The repercussions of the king’s disgraceful actions were The Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. John Dickinson and the Continental Congress enunciate that they want to settle peace through every part of their dominions. However, the jilt of the petition divulged war as the only option, unless they wanted their doctrines of morality crushed. The colonists praised King George to such degree that misery came from his adoration; their need to make peace made them write a petition that tributes a man they deemed
After enduring “a long train of abuses and usurpations” the colonists decided to declare themselves free of British rule (para 2). Jefferson writes that given their “unalienable rights . . . Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”, “it is the Right of the People . . . to institute new Government”, one that will fairly represent them, to reestablish order (para 2). The Declaration of Independence does not seek to convince or even encourage action; rather, it aims to declare. There are no mistaking Jefferson’s words. The Colonists are tired of the mistreatment and they are effectively severing all “Allegiance to the British Crown, and . . . political connection” (para 23). The audience of The Declaration of Independence, the world, is specifically addressed twice. The first
...arliament, caused the colonies to become more and more independent throughout the eighteenth century. Yet the colonists wanted to exhaust every remedy to their grievances before resorting to war. Declaring independence was never going to be a swift process, as each colony progressed at a different rate. Nonetheless, forming a colonial army at the same time as attempting to negotiate peaceful conciliation with the British was not at first a popular decision, yet to many the benefits outweighed the possible losses. In the end, the rejection of the Olive branch represented a watershed in the evolution of a national identity that was completely independent of a British identity, for its dismissal stiffened the patriots’ resolve toward independence and paved the way for the penning of a much more famous letter to the king, the Declaration of Independence.
The colonies did not initially desire to succeed and become independent from the British, at first they were very proud of being British. Throughout the years of being a British Colony, The mother country of Britain committed actions that the colonists could not stand much longer. From taxation without representation to quartering British soldiers unwillingly, the tension built up until the colonists eventually rebelled. Some colonists remained loyal to the crown, while others joined the rebellion. These rebellious forces grew in strength and number, when the rebellion grew too big, the Revolution sparked. No longer would the colonist be forced to the British law, the colonists were willing to fight and die for their freedom. This event was
Lawyer James Otis and other colonist rebels referred to King George as a tyrant. As stated by James Otis in The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (1763), . . . “The very act of taxing exercised over those who are not represented appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights as freemen, and if continued seems to be in effect and entire disfranchisement of every civil right.” James Otis’s point of view seemed to express concerns for the civil and constitutional rights and liberties of the colonists.
However, the author 's interpretations of Jefferson 's decisions and their connection to modern politics are intriguing, to say the least. In 1774, Jefferson penned A Summary View of the Rights of British America and, later, in 1775, drafted the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (Ellis 32-44). According to Ellis, the documents act as proof that Jefferson was insensitive to the constitutional complexities a Revolution held as his interpretation of otherwise important matters revolved around his “pattern of juvenile romanticism” (38). Evidently, the American colonies’ desire for independence from the mother country was a momentous decision that affected all thirteen colonies. However, in Ellis’ arguments, Thomas Jefferson’s writing at the time showed either his failure to acknowledge the severity of the situation or his disregard of the same. Accordingly, as written in the American Sphinx, Jefferson’s mannerisms in the first Continental Congress and Virginia evokes the picture of an adolescent instead of the thirty-year-old man he was at the time (Ellis 38). It is no wonder Ellis observes Thomas Jefferson as a founding father who was not only “wildly idealistic” but also possessed “extraordinary naivete” while advocating the notions of a Jeffersonian utopia that unrestrained
Of course the British have not only engaged in the violation of the rights of “neutral vessels” which they “…would be so prompt to avenge if committed against herself” but also “…of violating the rights and peace of our coasts.” (26) Madison contends that the British are enforcing a “pretended blockade” because the British do not have an adequate force present or the “practicability of applying one”. Madi...
The Revolutionary War was one of America’s earliest battles and one of many. Although, many came to America to gain independence from Great Britain many still had loyalty for the King and their laws. Others believed that America needs to be separated from Great Britain and control their own fate and government. I will analyze the arguments of Thomas Paine and James Chalmers. Should America be sustained by Great Britain or find their own passage?
This document defines independence because it states the terms on why the colonies need to be free from the control of the king. The co...
A ruler should be neither too powerful nor too weak, and he should claim his legitimacy with his willingness and abilities to protect his people, their property, and their natural rights. First, if a ruler had absolute power, he would tend to use it to benefit himself at the expense of his people’s interests. The Declaration of Independence gives an extensive overview of King George III’s misdeeds. “For imposing taxes on [the people of the American colonies] without consent: […][King George III] has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.” King George III was a despot, wielded all the power, mistreated the American colonies, and taxed them heavily and extensively to accumulate wealth for his crown. As a result, the American colonies rebelled and sought independence. On the other hand, a ruler should not lack authority over the people, because he would not be able to protect ...