Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Fail on multiple levels.
1. George III dissolving colonial legislatures was not a no-government situation. It was a tyrannical government situation.
2. The dissolution of colonial legislatures means only that higher government dissolved a single lower government function.
A. It did not prevent the people from organizing the militia on their own--they certainly did that at Lexington and Concord.
B. One can hardly claim Geo. III's dissolution of colonial legislatures proves the need for government. All it proves is that the there was not a consensual government there for Geo III to dissolve, and that Geo III's government was not consensual. And, that Geo III himself--government--was acting out-of-bounds.*
C. You can bet your bottom dollar the colonial governors would have activated the militia and howled to high heaven for British regulars in the event of an invasion or internal convulsion. The quote doesn't say Geo III recalled or cancelled the colonial royal governors. Too obviously the quoted material is taking Geo III to task for dissolving colonial legislatures for political reasons.
*George III was an outlier. The British monarch was almost totally tied down by 1706-1710 with a religious settlement during Queen Anne's reign. That is to say, the religious settlement finished tying the monarch's hands. From then on, the monarch was a figurehead politically. Almost all political power rested with Parliament and the ministers. Roll back the clock to January 30, 1649 when Parliament executed Charles I. Parliament was supreme. Lots of factional infighting. Eventually Oliver Cromwell dies, and Parliament invites the exiled son, Charles II back to reign. Yep. England went from monarchy to republic to monarchy--and all without outside influence. Parliament invited Charles II back.
But, somewhere along the way, Parliament realized they were the king-makers. Meaning, they were the power, no matter who wore the crown, no matter what the theory was about the source of the power--people or sovereign (king). Nevermind who was the theoretical or legal source of the power, Parliament was the power. (And, still is today.)
So, Charles II eventually died, and his brother James II took over. James screwed up. Badly. When Parliament raised an army, on the morning of the battle, Jimmy Two fled. Damn. No king. Parliament looked around and realized James II's daughter, Mary, was in line for the throne. Problem: She was older and already married to this guy named William of Hanover. Problem: If Mary becomes queen, then William is king. Hmmmmm. So, an arrangement was worked out. Mary and William reigned jointly, but William lost his power if Mary dies. Oh--and the most important part: the Declaration of Rights of 1689. Parliament requires, as part of the deal, that William and Mary agree to the Declaration of Rights. William doesn't really care. He's not all that interested. He agrees. So does Mary.
Thus, Parliament calls the shots--not the king, not the queen.**
By the time Queen Anne comes along, Parliament has tied the hands of the monarch. Geo. III acted behind the scenes--he had to, there was almost no political power left to him. He was an outlier. He acted outside the bounds of the restrictions placed on him by earlier Parliaments. I am guessing the reason he is named in the Declaration of Independence is because he is the fount of political power (the sovereign) and the colonials probably had some idea of his machinations, even across 3K miles of ocean. But, its definitely not like George III was calling all the shots on the colonies. It was mostly Parliament.
**Even today, when Elizabeth II opens Parliament, she reads a speech prepared for her by Parliament. She is essentially reading back to Parliament the legislative agenda that the powers in Parliament decided for her.
Last edited:
