Grievance #24 of the Declaration of Independence
What happens when your own government starts treating you like the enemy?
In Grievance #24 of the Declaration of Independence, Hannah Nolan, PhD Candidate at the University of Maryland, explains how Britain cut off trade, seized American ships, and removed protection from the colonies.
For years, colonists had benefited from being part of the British Empire, especially protection from the Royal Navy. But after tensions escalated, Parliament passed the Prohibitory Act, ending trade with the colonies and declaring American ships fair game.
To many colonists, this felt like a complete reversal. Instead of protecting them, the British government was now targeting them.
Leaders like John Adams argued that this move effectively made the colonies independent before the Declaration was even signed. What was meant as punishment only pushed colonists further toward separation.
This is Part 24 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.
