Were the colonists justified in declaring their independence from Great Britain? Provide reasons.

This is, of course, a matter of opinion.  I will provide arguments for both sides and you can decide which argument makes more sense to you.

On the one hand, we can say that the colonists were justified in declaring independence from Great Britain.  Britain had ruled the colonies without letting them have any input into the government.  It had imposed taxes on the colonists without their consent.  It had violated what they thought of as their rights as Englishmen through such things as writs of assistance.  They had imposed laws like the Navigation Acts that limited the colonists’ ability to develop economically.  Perhaps most importantly, the colonies had outgrown British rule.  The colonies had a large population and were economically advanced.  They were ready to be able to rule themselves instead of having others tell them what to do.

On the other hand, we can say that the colonists were not justified in declaring independence.  First, we can say that what the British did was really not that bad, especially in light of some of the things the colonists did.  The colonists were not directly represented in Parliament, but neither were many people in England.  The colonists were taxed, but not as heavily as people in England.  The British imposed harsh penalties on the colonies, but only after the colonists did things like attacking government officials who were trying to enforce the law and destroying private property in the “Boston Tea Party.”  Second, even if your government does things you do not like, that does not allow you to simply break away from it.  We all pledge our allegiance to the United States.  That means that we do not get to simply break away from the country if we do not like what the government is doing.  The colonists might have been justified in protesting and trying to change the laws, but they were not justified in breaking away.

Which of these arguments makes more sense to you?