Grievance #21 of the Declaration of Independence
What happens when a government rewrites the rules without your consent?
In Grievance #21 of the Declaration of Independence, Kelsa Pelletiere, PhD Candidate at the University of Mississippi, explains why colonists were furious when Britain altered colonial governments and revoked key charter rights.
Colonial charters acted like agreements between the colonies and the British Crown, helping define how colonial governments operated and what rights colonists expected to have.
But in 1774, Parliament passed the Massachusetts Government Act and changed those rules unilaterally, without colonial approval.
For colonists, this violated a core principle of self-government: the consent of the governed. If Britain could change colonial governments whenever it wanted, then colonial rights and representation were never truly secure.
This grievance reflected a growing fear that Britain was no longer governing with consent, but through direct control.
This is Part 21 of our 27-part series breaking down every grievance that led to the American Revolution, building toward Independence Day.
0:00 If you ask the average person to
0:01 identify the motto of the American
0:03 Revolution, they might be able to recite
0:05 that old classic, no taxation without
0:08 representation. We spend a lot of time
0:09 on that second word, taxation, and sure,
0:12 who likes taxes? But the fourth word of
0:14 the motto helps us understand why they
0:16 were so upset.
0:17 When they endorsed grievance 17, the
0:19 Continental Congress was expressing how
0:21 they were really upset over the issue of
0:23 representation. In the British Empire,
0:25 most people understood that Parliament
0:27 did not actually represent every one of
0:29 its subjects. In 1765, the English
0:32 politician Thomas Whately had explained
0:33 that all British subjects, in fact, were
0:35 virtually represented in Parliament
0:37 because every member of Parliament acted
0:39 in the best interest of the entire
0:41 empire, not on behalf of any individual
0:43 group of constituents. But this
0:45 explanation of virtual representation
0:47 just wasn’t good enough for Americans.
0:48 They were fine with taxes related to
0:50 trade because that was the accepted
0:52 responsibility of the Imperial
0:53 government, and they were fine with
0:55 paying taxes to their colonial
0:56 legislatures that had offered some form
0:58 of representation since the 17th
1:00 century. But when Parliament started
1:01 taxing them directly, they believed it
1:03 had gone too far.
1:05 Patriots like John Adams put it in stark
1:07 terms. Let it be known that British
1:09 liberties, like the right to
1:10 representation, were not the grants of
1:13 princes or parliaments, but original
1:15 rights to which all British subjects
1:17 were entitled. When Parliament imposed
1:19 taxes on colonists without their
1:20 approval, they went against a basic
1:22 enlightenment principle
1:24 that governed the English constitution.
1:27 As John Locke had put it, no one could
1:29 be subjected to the political power of
1:31 another without his own consent. No
1:33 taxation had been enough of a rallying
1:35 cry to get some people protesting in the
1:37 streets, but no representation in a
1:40 government supposedly built on English
1:41 liberty, that was enough of a
1:43 declaration to launch a revolution.
