Why the colonists in America were morally justified to declare Independence in 1776? There are many key reasons as to why the Colonists were justified in there revolt. To name a few one has to understand the basis of where the justifications are coming from. Key reasons: Great Britain was exercising taxation without representation, the colonists Natural Rights were being violated, King George III was being the ruler of law rather than obeying the rule of law, and Great Britain was cutting off trade.
Taxation without representation is a situation in which a government imposes taxes on a particular group of its citizens, despite the citizens not consenting or having an actual representative deliver their views when the taxation decision was made (investopedia.com). The colonists deserve this right if they are under rule of Great Britain. When the British government started taxing the colonists of the goods they were selling to them, without sending a representative to deliver the views was an immoral and unjustified based on the precedence that had preceded the taxation. Taxation inevitably lead to the declaration of independence and a war with Great Britain. The Sugar Act of 1764 was and is a great example of Taxation without Representation. It was designed to raise Revenues not just on sugar but on essentials of the time such as coffee, textiles, etc. This was a departure on Precedence that the colonists had previously had with King George I and King George II.
The colonists Natural Rights were being violated. Natural Rights are god given rights that always exist even in a state of no government, which are Life, Liberty, and Property. The British government was violating these rights with the way they were treating the Colonists. They were taking away their property by controlling America as their own. It says in the Declaration of Independence that they were destroying their property and taking it away. The Quartering of Troops was unjustified in taking away property because it took away the privacy that is entitled with Property, Life, and Liberty. Property is a Natural Right and therefore should not be tampered with, because in turn the Life and Liberty will be violated as well. Life was being taken away, especially with the unjustified government ordered murders of people revolting against the British Empire and even those who were innocent. Murdering above the law was unjustified which is something King George was starting to make unfair for the colonies. Liberty was also being taken away. No one has the right to govern someone based on power and control. It should be justified and based on organization and the Proper Role of Government with the creator as the ruler of law. When Great Britain sought to control the colonists and give them taxation without representation this took their liberty away. When King George enacted the right of royal figures to not have to have trial in the colonies for murder, this basically took away the liberty of the people and was unjustified. It also took away the Life because the trial would then be held in Great Britain and with the Kings control most likely be dismissed. The colonists have the right to protect their Natural Rights.
The ruler of law rather than the rule of law was evident in King George. He put himself above the law in many ways. The Declaration of Independence gives a whole list of why he was unjustified in his treatment of the colonists and why they were morally correct to declare independence. One of which was the destruction of Property, again going back to the Natural right of Property. Everything that he did was morally wrong and violated Natural Rights. He is known as the ruler of law. He put himself above the law in the attitude of basing his decisions not on the basis of Law but on the basis of his own personal opinion. The people should be the rulers and for King George to base his decisions off of his personal judgments and the judgments of his close associates gave the people no voice especially for those colonists who are fighting for their life liberty and freedom. Government does not function well when there is a ruler of law. It is unmoral and again takes away Natural Rights which is another proof of the moral intensions of the colonist in revolt.
Cutting of trade was one of the biggest key reasons for the moral proof that the colonists could revolt against their mother country. The taxes on the trade in the Sugar act greatly pushed back the colonist’s ability to afford the already expensive Luxuries shipped from great Britain. At the time Great Britain seemed to be the main trade central of the time, and with the colonies being cut off from trading, basically they were cut off from the world. This was very unjust of King George to stop trade for the colonies which basically stopped the way of life. The only was the colonies were to trade was through smuggling or through paying the astronomical British tax prices. The East India Trade Co. was able to get Tea to the Colonies in a legal way and a cheaper way which greatly aided the colonies. Most of the legal tea was being shipped from the Indies to Great Britain and then again on toward the colonies. However, a revolt was brewing and the Boston Tea Party took place. The Stamp Act would have greatly affected the colonies were it not for the revolting of the colonists which help aid toward the breakoff of independence.
The government at the time was very morally justified in fighting against Great Britain in revolt for the reasons, among others, of Taxation without representation, the right to protection of Natural Rights, overriding the ruler of law to implement the rule of law, and being angry over the fact that cutting off trade was unjustified and moray incorrupt. George the III got what he deserved when the colonist broke away from his country.
