notorial dissent wrote:The colonists chief gripes were that the Crown was totally ignoring what was going on over here, was passing taxes, and laws without regard to what the colonists thought about it or needed, replaced existing courts with courts whose only loyalty was to the Crown and who were not likely to rule other than as the Crown dictated, and had wiped out almost 200 years of self government with no thought to the consequences, and were basically treating the colonists as a subject people. The big problem with all of this was that the colonists, for the most part, thought of themselves and considered themselves to be free Englishmen with the same rights and privileges accorded their friends and family at home, and for some reason they got a bit tetchy about it. The tax business was admittedly a part of it, and probably the part that affected the most people, but when it was decreed that they could only buy from English merchants it sort of upset people here more than just a bit, and was probably the last straw. So claiming that the colonists were tax protesters is disingenuous at best.
Far from being Tax Protestors, I would put them in the category of civil rights protesters, who had something to complain about. The revocation of 200 years of self rule and legislation, coupled with a judiciary that was locally responsible and having not only the custom, but the law saying that you were on the same footing as your cousins in England, then suddenly and absolutely ripped out from under you would tend to put you a bit on the fractious side.
An equal factor, was that at the time, petition was the only road open to the colonists to get their message across, and it was problematic at best, since they could be charged with treason or sedition if the sentiments did not meet with official approval, they had no legislative access, the colonial gov’t was dedicated to keeping the Crown, not the colonists happy, and so would not make any waves, and the courts by the same virtue were closed to them as well.
And yes, Franklin did get to speak before Parliament, he was there as the trade representative of the colonies, and as the mercantilists were pretty much in control of Parliament at the time they were all for not cutting off their source of raw materials. They also weren’t going to expend themselves anymore than they had to to maintain that supply either. That last meeting before hostilities broke out was the final attempt at a peaceful settlement. For his troubles, Franklin was verbally abused and hooted at, and at that moment, they turned a man who had been an ardent Anglophile and supporter of England and of a peaceful settlement into an even more ardent revolutionary and implacable enemy, and from that point on, he put all his efforts into the separation of the two nations.
[/color][/b]
What you said simply offers another part of the story it doesn't contradict anything I've said.
The federal government today IMO treats people worse when it concerns their freedoms. It's not like you can sue the government concerning its actions. They have taken the same position as the crown its sovereign even when it concerns acts against its own people. Unless of course it allows us to sue it. So much for a government for the people by the people. The government does as it wishes, the right to vote for representation is in form only. It would be like parliament offering a predetermined list of people the colonists can vote for all the rest are shut out and slandered. The British Parliament proudly exclaims you have representation now, pay up and do as directed. While people today have life much easier they have given up nearly all of their freedoms in return as compared to the colonists of that day. A slave who resides and has benefit of the mansion is still a slave.
The colonists have a lot less to complain about that we do today when it comes to government. Any one of them could have easily avoided ever having to deal with British rule or its courts by just doing some simple things. Instead they wanted to operate tax free all together, not even pay minuscule taxes on goods which was used to pay for their protection. Britain didn't just randomly pick on people. Also they weren't forced to buy only British goods, what you're saying is kinda like saying we're forced to only buy crap made in China because everything you see is made there.
The colonists were not forced to hand over a significant part of their earnings, forced to contribute to their social welfare, every one of them forced to hand over their books and records every year, have their businesses regulated, forced to comply with employment laws, told what they can and can not do with their children, forced to use only a fiat based currency, get approval for building everything, the list is very, very long. While you can argue all that regulation and taxation is better for us as a society its not better for our freedoms and liberties. That's what the colonists wanted and demanded, they had it made as it compares to today.