Largely beginning in 1763, American colonists were repeatedly burdened by unfair treatment from the hands of Great Britan. Some of these burdens, including taxation without representation, having armed troops stationed at all times among the colonists, and ignored petitions for reform in these and other areas of grievances.
In 1764 King George III passed the Sugar Act which increased taxes on imported goods to the colonies. This was done to aid in paying debts covering expences associated with the French and Indian war. However, the act was passed without any word acknowledged from the colonies. Essentially, the colonists were taxed without representation. This infringed on their rights as Englishmen as well as their rights as men.
The colonists believed as we do, that all men have certain rights given by God. Because those rights are given by God, no man, prince or pauper, may take those from another. They are unalienable rights.
So, once King George began down this road of tyranny and inflicting abuse after abuse, ignoring these basic rights of the colonists, it became time for the colonists to defend their rights at the expence of fighting against the government which was initiating abuse.
No man is justified in treating another man as a slave or property. As King George passed the tea act, with the purpose of creating more revenue for great britan, he was doing just that. After the colonists refused to buy tea from the East India Tea Co., and when the ships with tea refused to set sail until the tax was paid, the colonists were being treated as slaves. Their right to choose for themselves which goods to buy was being decided for them.
Most of the colonists rights were being treated this way. The colonists were told they could not find settlement any further west. Their right to property and to seek to build their own estate was struck.
Hello Doug!
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I wanted to say was that I really liked the theme of your piece. It continued to return to the idea that Britain was, in fact, abusing the colonists. I think your strong feelings about this subject were apparent and there was no doubt in my mind that you wanted to show this to your readers.
While I thought the intent and purpose of your piece were well stated, I did think that the specificity and organization of your piece could have been improved. For example, when you talked about the tea act you stated, "the colonists were being treated as slaves. Their right to chose for themselves which good to buy was being decided for them." I think that this was a well made point--that they were in a sense deprived of their freedom of choice because many could only afford the cheaper tea, and the British government was forcing a taxed unload--but I struggled to put this in context of a principle. I realize your principle here was most likely natural rights, but I would have found it helpful if you had taken the time to draw a relationship between natural rights and this occurrence. What was written or what did we discuss that led you to believe that forcing tea on colonists was a violation of their natural rights?
In terms of organization, I thought your piece could have benefited from a thesis that related more specifically to your work. In your piece, I believe that the phrase, "Some of these burdens, including taxation without representation, having armed troops stationed at all times among the colonists, and ignored petitions for reform in these and other areas of grievances," was meant to function as a thesis. However, the recurrence of you thesis throughout your work left me, as a reader without a definite purpose for reading. Perhaps you could have said something like, "The British violated the principles of ___________. This was apparent because _____________." Then, you just stick with that statement.
Anyway, I thought you had good ideas and had a solid understanding of what act were wrong and in what ways. I liked some of the insights you provided.
Brianne