The tie,
therefore, which our revolution was to break, did not subsist between us
and the British parliament, or between us and the British government,
in the aggregate, but directly between us and the king himself. The
colonists had never admitted themselves subject to parliament. That
was precisely the point of the original controversy. They had uniformly
denied that parliament had authority to make laws for them. There
was, therefore, no subjection to parliaments to be thrown off. [2] But
allegiance to the king did exist, and had been uniformly acknowledged;
and down to 1775, the most solemn assurances had been given that it was
not intended to break that allegiance, or to throw it off. Therefore, as
the direct object and only effect of the declaration, according to the
principles on which the controversy had been maintained on our part,
were to sever the tie of allegiance which bound us to the king, it was
properly and necessarily founded on acts of the crown itself, as its
justifying causes. Parliament is not so much as mentioned in the whole
instrument. When odious and oppressive acts are referred to, it is done
by charging the king with confederating with others, "in pretended acts
of legislation," the object being constantly to hold the king himself
directly responsible for those measures which were the grounds of
separation.
Pages:
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156