Disagreements erupted over how the colonies felt that they should be treated and the way they were actually treated by Britain. The British stance was that the colonies were created for the benefit of Britain and the Colonialists wanted more say in their own existence. One main cause of the revolution was that the Colonists wanted more representation within the British government hence “no taxation without representation”, (Hickman n.d.), Britain was unwilling to do this. Another factor was the geographical distance between Britain and the Colonists, this created a sense of independence with in the colonies. Britain therefore tried to tighten control over the Colonists through a series of acts designed to quell any sense of rebellion.
In agreement with Samuel Johnson, Samuel Seabury also states that getting away from the British will not be beneficial to us. Seabury claims that staying under British rule will cause no injury to America and that if we were to get away from under their control they would only turn on us as enemies. It may be true that the British will turn on us, my fellow New Yorkers, but it is time for us to
Without those Enlightenment ideals it would’ve been believed that it was fine for the British to continue what they were doing. Thus the need to implement the ideals was the reason for the Revolution; no Enlightenment, no American Revolution.
However the other two will check the one wanting to exceed thus, balancing out the power and securing citizens from a dictatorship type of government. Another reason would simply be when he states, “If men were angles, no government would be necessary.” In other words since we are not angles but are men if we had power in our hands we would abuse it. Then he continues that even though the powers are shared and are equal the government should still be able to control not only the people but, themselves. This will only help protect the people’s individual rights including the minority. In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice.
1. Although Benjamin Franklin’s Plan for the Union was designed for protection and not power, it did have some aspects to it that were more politically and economically motivated. It suggested that a general assembly was to be formed, providing a general and uniform government in the colonies for the first time. This council would not only make military plans and preparations, but also make laws and “levy…general duties, imposts or taxes” on the colonies. This was most likely why the British government did not support the plan, as it would have given the colonists even more power to self govern, and would have allowed the Colonies to have more power of taxation during a time where Britain was beginning to levy more taxes on them.
With the foundation of a federal government, that government can regulate and maintain both domestic and international trade without individual state interference, therefore making the United States one of the most important trading countries in the western world. This is only one possible explanation, another might be that they honestly did purely want to build a government for the people of the United States and by the people, which is supported by Paul Johnson’s writings. Other debates between intentions lie behind the injection of United States into the Vietnam conflict. Some historians say that the reason for our entrance into the conflict was to protect democracy and stop the spread of communism. Others say that the U.S. involvement wasn’t to protect democracy but to protect our economic interests in the nearby South Pacific and Middle East.
To achieve this America first had to rid itself of the Navigation Acts. New England would set the tone; “Massachusetts bay officials regarded the colony as a “free state” subject only to laws of their making” (Lambert31). America’s fight for independence in the Atlantic started with its fight for independence politically first. Parliament enacted acts such as the Sugar and Stamp Act to try and combat these issues of American trade smuggling. But Americans were not backing down; in fact it was the exact opposite.
If the colonists were allowed their civil rights associated with Parliament then they would have never broken their allegiance to the crown. Although the bond between the two was severely damaged, it could have been mended. The colonists would have looked towards England for guidance on the newly formed country. By allowing the colonists to enjoy the sanctuary of liberty then they would be more obedient and England would still have the sovereign authority of the country and reap the rewards associated with
Politically, the British introduced changes to India, such as saying that the Indians required to be civilized, and that British rule would remove Oriental despotism and anarchy and implement a reliable system of justice.Socially, when India was colonized, the English language quickly spread and the indigenous languages of the natives began to be wiped out.Economically, under colonial rule, India often depended on great Britain for such things as technological advances and manufactured goods. | 10. Siam, or today's Kingdom of Thailand, was the only country in Southeast Asia that remained independent of European control.The two African countries two remain independent of European control where Ethiopia and Liberia. | 11. The Europeans would still punish those that had already been brought into slavery.
We, the Colonists, sincerely wish to address the issue of the Stamp Act and our response to it. We are Englishmen, and despite being across the ocean, we are still under the rule of His Majesty. This means that we are entitled to the same rights as Englishmen who live in England. That said, it is unfair that we are being taxed by Parliament; they do not represent us for they are in England and they do not consider us when making such laws, even if they say so. Our taxes are gifts to His Majesty, and to force us to give the gift is inappropriate.