On July 4th, 1776, the American colonists completed the official Declaration of Independence from England, their mother country. Liberty, their driving purpose, obliged them to dissolve their ties with Great Britain when they were consistently refused a right to represent themselves in Parliament. The small protests and petitions that had started as a rebellion ultimately led to revolution. But was revolution necessary to achieve their goals? Was England forced to battle the colonists as their only means of maintaining a foothold in America? Actually, the British government could have avoided revolution if they had responded differently to colonial rebellion, especially by repealing the new acts of legislation, recalling the militia and acknowledging colonial petitions by allotting them parliamentary representation.

Parliament imposed many new taxes on the colonies in order to pay the debt of the Seven Years War. Some, like the Sugar Act in 1764 simply entailed duties on imported goods. Following the Sugar Act came the Stamp Act in 1765, requiring the purchase of taxed, stamped papers for legal documents and playing cards. The colonists were outraged that they should be taxed without being represented in British government. While Parliament was compelled, by severe colonial resistance, to repeal the first two acts, the British government instituted a new act on goods in 1767, called the Townshend Revenue Acts, which encompassed many common items—for instance, tea and glass. Other taxes deprived colonists of natural rights, such as the Tea Act in 1773, allowing the British East India Company to sell through the colonies without paying the required dues. In 1774, Parliament passed the Massachusetts Government Act, which abolished colonial self-government in Massachusetts by dissolving their legislature. Similarly, the Boston Port Act of the same year closed Boston Harbor to all import or export until the residents reimbursed the company for the tea destroyed from the renowned Boston Tea Party. These acts were the kindling to the fire for liberty that would turn into revolution.

Beginning in 1774, Great Britain sent soldiers to be quartered in America, which greatly upset the colonists. The hated Quartering Act permitted soldiers to be housed in public buildings and private homes—at the colonists’ expense. While certainly not all British soldiers committed crimes, many were disrespectful to their hosts, often abusing the women and children. Some mistreated the house and property as well. The same year, Parliament passed the Administration of Justice Act, which protected any British soldiers, accused of wrongdoing, from colonial courts, instead sending them to England for trial. Since this left the colonists defenseless against disreputable soldiers, they found themselves truly at the mercy of King George III and his Parliament. Quartering British soldiers in the colonies fueled the colonial belief that England did not consider the colonists equal to their brethren in the mother country.

Determined to be civilized in dealing with Great Britain, the colonies produced several forms of peaceful protests, such as petitions and methods of boycotting. Starting with the Stamp Act, many banded together as a group called the Sons of Liberty, who circulated petitions and pamphlets in attempt to repeal the acts. Thankfully, these men advised the people to form a mob only as a last resort, and thus prevented much violence. Men and women alike practiced nonimportation of British merchandise, ladies learning to weave homespun fabric rather than purchase English silks, and merchants refusing to carry goods from the mother country. “Save your money and you save your country” became a well-known slogan.1 Concerning those loyalists who continued to purchase or stock British goods, many were exposed in the newspapers and even subjected to violence. In 1768, Massachusetts sent out a circular letter and managed to convince several other states to endorse it. The governor condemned it and subsequently dissolved the state’s legislature. In a final effort to convince King George III to grant them representation in Parliament, the colonists sent one last petition to Britain—The Olive Branch Petition. Devised at the Second Continental Congress, in 1775, it was in every way peaceful and respectful. Unfortunately, the king refused to accept it. England’s decision to ignore the colonists’ pleas simply enforced the drastic differences between the colonies and their King across the Atlantic, and helped the colonists form the unity that would guide them through the revolution to come.

Had the British government responded differently to colonial rebellion by removing the newly imposed taxes, returning the stationed militia to England and hearing colonial petitions by ultimately granting them a voice in Parliament, they could have avoided revolution. The colonists merely wanted to represent themselves in Parliament, but because of Britain’s indifference, were pushed further into submission instead of closer to equality. While they exhibited some violence, most of their protests were peaceful and well-justified against taxation without representation or soldiers ruling their homes. Until the Second Continental Congress, they had no wish of dissolving ties with their homeland, but simply pleaded for common rights. If Great Britain had respected the colonial plea for parliamentary representation, American citizens would likely still be British subjects today.

1 Out of Many, a History of the American People, AP Edition, Faragher, John Mack, Mari Jo Buhle, Daniel Czitrom, Susan H. Armitage. Pearson: Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2007. Page, 178. [Boston Gazette, editor]

Works Cited

1. Out of Many, a History of the American People, AP Edition, Faragher, John Mack, Mari Jo Buhle, Daniel Czitrom, Susan H. Armitage. Pearson: Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2007. Pages 165-194

2. Declaration Statesmanship, 4th Edition, Ferrier, Richard, and Andrew Seeley. Key Books, CA, 2014.