"Was the Revolutionary War Justified" by Mark Noll

Anybody who challenges the right of the colonials to revolt against the Crown must also be prepared to challenge right of the parliamentary forces of the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution to behead Charles I and depose James II of England. And to further deny the Jacobian side of House of Stuart to take the throne(s) of England and Scotland.
The precedents (at least in the colonial mind) for independence go back that far.
Please keep in mind the staunchest supporters of the Parliamentary cause were the Puritans.

 

But that would mean thier heroes of the faith violated the proper interpretation of Romans 13. Sorry, but the continental position of the divine right of kings died in the cradle at Runnymede.

 

another couple of bits of info

"We in the colonies are willing to pay taxes to the Crown, but we insist on our right as Britons to be taxed only with our consent, given either in person to the King, or in our legislature through our elected representatives. If the Crown wishes to tax us, let it ask the colonial legislatures for revenue, explaining the need and the amount desired, and we will act on it. But don't try to tax us via acts in the British Parliament, where we have no seats." For details, see Edmund S. Morgan and Helen Morgan: The Stamp Act Crisis,
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000MS28AA/?tag=baptis04-20 and Edmund S. Morgan Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764-1766, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0807856215/?tag=baptis04-20, passim.
The claim that the colonies wouldn't pay taxes was a piece of anti-rebel propaganda exploded long ago. In fact, when the Prime Minister began talking about taxing the colonies, colonial representatives in London asked him how much he thought was required, and what it would be for, and he refused to tell them. The attempt to establish the principle that London could do as it pleased with the colonies was more important than the money ostensibly sought.

Stephen M. St. Onge

 

May I add that many people just parrot what some well know person says. Well, if (fill in the blank ) said it, then it must be true...

 

The point about living as a Baptist under Cromwell and the Puritans is not germane to the discussion at hand. However, my original point is germane. IOW, many hold up the Puritan,Separtist, and Non-Conformist divines as their theological heroes. Seemingly, the same folk ignore their heroes' political positions.

 

Interpersed:

Seemingly, he is ignoring the fact the debate had raged since the ECW. He does so by looking at the situation through a straw. He is focusing on the mid-18th century. By then the Continentals had accepted certain presuppositions. Which I have discussed above.

I addressed this in my posts above. From the looks of it the Continentals were correct in their fears. Like the old saying goes, "Just because your paranoid, it doesn't mean you don't have real enemies."

What they wanted was the same treatment as Ireland and pre-Act of Union Scotland. Irish taxes were levied by the Irish Parliament in Dublin not by Westminster. And yes, the colonial militias were regular forces of the various colonies. They were not groups raised for the purpose of resistance or rebellion against the Crown. Washington held a Virginia colonel's commission since the F&I War. He had attempted to purchase a Regular British Army commission, but was refused because he was a colonial.

 

As a consequence of the Crown forgetting lessons learned (the monarch really hadn't ruled Great Britian since Queen Anne), in the 13 Colonies, it went the way of the Jacobite Stuarts.

 

The shift from a ruling monarch to a reigning one started under Charles I who lost his head and crown. Charles II learned from his father. Francophile and RC James II did not. He attempted to rule in the French manner and lost his crown though not his head. He was replaced by his sister and brother-in-law (William and Mary). The status quo held during their reigns. W&M were succeeded by Mary's sister Anne. It was during her reign that Parliament gained ascendancy. Due to ill health and grief over the loss of her husband, Queen Anne relied on her ministers. When Anne died, the throne passed to her second cousin, the German speaking George of Hanover (George I). This though she had closer male relatives. But they were disqualified by the Act of Succession which banned Catholics from ascending to the throne of Great Britain. The office of Prime Minister came into being during the reign of G1.
Hope this helps.

 

Actually, it's fairly simple. The Stuarts starting with Charles I sought to rule England and Scotland in the French style as absolute monarchs (this gets us into the whole thing about how the French viewed the Divine right of Kings). Remember, in this period Parliament had gained the power of the purse. If the crown wanted to raise and spend money beyond its own resources, the crown needed Parliament to raise and appropriate the taxes. IOW, the crown could not and can not lay taxes without Parliament's involvement. In France, taxes were what the king said they were.

There was also the matter of religion. The male Stuarts to a greater or lesser extent were supporters of the Roman Catholic Church or as they called them back in the day "Papists." This may not mean much to an American in 2010. But, back then religious controversy was still a contact sport (Thirty Years War). A RCC monarch was expected to to the Papal line. So, when James II not only came out as an RC he further committed to raise his heir James III as a RC, the stuff hit the fan (The Glorious Revolution).