Why the Colonists Broke Away from Britain Research Paper

Although the colonists regarded themselves as citizens of Great Britain, they were upset with the imposition of taxes without representation, legislation unaccompanied by consultations, and the tyrannical management of the government. The 17th and 18th centuries saw the unprecedented expansion and growth of English power in North America. The region was strategically critical for trade and promised future wealth for the settlers. Towards the mid-eighteenth century, the British colonies were well established settlements and the imperialists had developed into a military and commercial powerhouse after collaboratively emerging victorious in the French and Indian War. Afterwards, Britain adopted new policies, which sought to bring the colonies closer and aligned with the colonialist’s economic interests. The government began imposing colonial taxes, enforcing British mercantile laws, and formulating new legislation. For instance, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, issued by King George III, proscribed any settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains as a means of restraining the settlers from making further incursions into the area. Although the colonists deemed themselves as subjects of England, their dissension and eventual breakaway was instigated by the new taxes without representation, tyrannical government, and arbitrary legislations.

The Settlement and Occupation of Britons in America

At the commencement of the 17h century, Great Britain had not established permanent settlements in America. However, in the subsequent year, they outpaced their rivals, sending swarms of immigrants to the newly established colonies. The Americans regarded themselves as the subjects of King George III and citizens of Great Britain and were tied to England through trade and how they were governed. In this regard, the colonists followed the British laws and largely accepted orders from the King. Additionally, they recognized parliament as having the rights and legitimacy to take any action on their behalf, including asserting the primacy of Britain’s economic interests over theirs. This implies that although the colonists viewed some of the imperialist’s actions as inexpedient and unfair, they did not appear as burdensome or oppressive. Moreover, the North American British subjects believed that the administration protected their rights. Therefore, they complied with the directions of the King of England and the legislative actions of the parliament.

Conflicting Interests

After 1763, the actions undertaken by the Parliament and the King started to conflict with the interests of the colonists. For instance, following the French and Indian War, the British was burdened with huge debts, most of which incurred to defend the colonies. As a result, Britain thought that the colonies should contribute more funds to offset the accumulated war-related financial implications (Foner 181). Consequently, the Parliament began imposing levies and taxes on the colonists through various legislations, including the Sugar, Townshends, and Stamp acts. Another political misstep which further aggravated the conflicting interests of the British and colonists was the issuance of a royal decree, known as the Proclamation of 1763 (George). The declaration prohibited the settlers from making further incursions west of the Appalachian Mountains and also required those who had already settled there to return to the eastern side. Additionally, the colonists started to agitate for an inclusive governance structure in which they would influence how the government would be run.

Imposition of Taxes without Representation

Among the prominent reasons why the colonists broke away from the British was the imperialists’ act of imposing taxes on the settlers without representation in Parliament. The colonialists had accumulated hefty debts incurred while defending and repulsing the invasion of the French and Indians. In this regard, the colonialists imposed a range of taxes and levies on their subjects to help to settle the financial obligations (Foner 183). For instance, the Parliament of Great Britain debated and enacted the Stamp Act of 1765, which levied a direct toll on the colonists. The tax obligation required numerous printed materials and legal documents, including newspapers, marriage licenses, commercial contracts, wills, pamphlets, and diplomas to be produced on a paper manufactured in London and bearing an embossed revenue stamp (Parliament Debates The Stamp Act). Therefore, the Stamp Act was British Government’s first direct tax imposed to collect revenues from the colonists.

The reaction of the American colonies to the Stamp Act was swift and intense, reflecting the widespread unpopularity and outright opposition of the tariff. The colonists felt that the tax was distinctly unfair since it was debated and enacted by people who did not represent them. The settlers protested these externally proposed duties by passing five resolves through the House of Burgesses as proposed by Patrick Henry. The resolve underscored the indispensability of imposition of taxes by the representatives of the people who understand the how much the citizens could bear and the easiest modality of raising such tolls (Parliament Debates the Stamp Act). However, the most radical resolution enacted by the House was the fifth which explicitly amplified the growing and widely accepted principle among the settlers that there could be no taxation without representation. The passage in the Virginia House of Burgesses emboldened and encouraged other assemblies.

Despite the agitation of the colonists, the Parliament declined to yield to their demands. In this regard, it refused to give them any representatives in the government, prompting the thirteen territories to secede from Britain and start their country. Therefore, the issues of taxation and representation generated by the Stamp Act damaged the relations with the settlers and 10 years later, they rose in an armed rebellion against the British, leading to the eventual breakaway.

The Proclamation of 1763

In retaliation to Pontiac’s Rebellion, which was primarily an uprising of Native Americans steered by Pontiac, King George III decreed that all lands westwards of the Appalachian Divide were off limits for the colonial settlers. Notably, this act angered the Americans who viewed the territories as strategic assets after they were surrendered by France. Consequently, their expansionist urges were suppressed by the British officials beyond the control and influence of the colonists (George). The objective of the proclamation was to appease the Native Americans by preventing the encroachment of their lands. This move was a political misstep by King George III, which effectively upset and stirred the settlers’ desire to assert their American liberties against the oppression of the British (George). The colonists resented the idea and reinvigorated their pursuit of breaking away from Britain rule.

Tyrannical Government and Arbitrary Legislations

The tyrannical tendencies and arbitrary legislations debated by the British Parliament and implemented on the American colonists fueled the latter’s desire to form their own government and determine how it would be run. The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in the First Continental Congress, was a document which enumerated the settlers’ rights to control their government and detach it from the influence of the King (Warford-Johnston, 83). In multiple instances, Great Britain, through the King and Parliament, had exercised arbitrary and unrestrained authority, which imposed laws and conditions on the subjects without their input. For instance, the Declaration outlined the imposition of taxes without the consent of colonists and the suppression of the House of Representatives among the prominent grievances. From this dimension, the Declaration of Independence underscored the essence of the creation of a new country governed by the power of the people instead of king’s decrees. Thus, the tyrannical tendencies of the British government emboldened the colonists’ desire to break away.

Philosophical Justifications

The colonists raised multiple philosophical justifications for their agitation to break away from England and create a new country. Among the prominent foundations was the conviction that people institute governments to protect and preserve their rights. This implies that the colonists were justified to abolish and severe their ties with the British administration since it no longer protected their rights. Additionally, the colonists felt that the exercise of absolute power by the British was hurting their natural liberties. In this regard, the tyrannical regimes executed power beyond what the people had consented.

Reasons why some Colonists Remained Loyal

After the breakaway, some colonists, known as loyalists, remained loyal to Great Britain for various reasons. For instance, they believed in the pursuit of reforms through peaceful protests as a preventive precaution against the rise of mob rule or tyranny. Additionally, they were convinced that independence meant the loss of economic benefits and advantages derived from being members of the British mercantile system. Also, some loyalists deemed themselves as loyal British citizens and detaching from the king would diminish their status and glory.

Colonists’ Justification for the Revolt

The colonists were justified in revolting against the British due to the latter’s continued suppression of the settlers’ rights, including their agitation for representation in Parliament. Moreover, the form of government and administration contravened their belief in a regime instituted by the people to protect and advance their interests. In this regard, acts such as the arbitrary imposition of taxes and legislations violated the philosophical essence of a government. Additionally, the settlers felt that the British government and parliament were overstepping the specific powers the people had consented.

Works Cited

Foner, Eric. Give me Liberty!: An American History. 6th ed., W. W. Norton & Company, 2019

George R. The Royal Proclamation, 1763, Web.

“Parliament Debates the Stamp Act, February 1765.” Americainclass.Org, Web.

Warford-Johnston, Benjamin. “American Colonial Committees of Correspondence: Encountering Oppression, Exploring Unity, and Exchanging Visions of the Future.” The History Teacher, vol. 50, no. 1, 2016, pp. 83–126.