The American Revolution was Justified

“In order for me to win (as stated in the accepted description) I will have to prove that the Americans had a reasonable cause for starting the physical war against Great Britain. Con, must prove that the Americans were not justified in doing this.” 

“The war followed more than a decade of growing estrangement between the British crown and a large and influential segment of its North American colonies that was caused by British attempts to assert greater control over colonial affairs after having long adhered to a policy of salutary neglect.” 

“The basic reason for this war was for the Americans to free themselves from British dictatorship.” 

“The British did many things that lead up to this, like raising taxes on almost everything you can buy and sell.” 

“Britain's reason for this? The reason was to pay off War funds that they owed to other people” 

“King [George] III used the colonists and unfairly taxed them for the sole reason of paying off debt.” 

“The Americans had enough of paying off their money so they started the Revolutionary War.” 

“They did this not to gain power, but to gain freedom for everyone.” 

“Once they won the war, they came out stronger than ever, and stayed true to their promise in giving freedom to the people. The cause of this? Now America is one of the most wealthy and powerful nations in the world, and is one of the worlds superpowers. Freedom was and still is with the people. America also was one of the first countries to stop slavery and segregation, and is one of the most least racist country's in the world, giving aid to other countries and holding millions of immigrants for sanctuary. “ 

“None of this would have happened if the Revolutionary War didn't take place. I would say that it was very much justified.” 

a. Taxation 

One of the main reasons for the revolution was so-called “No Taxation Without Representation” - I.e. the idea that because colonists were not directly represented in Parliament, Parliament had no right to tax them. As a result, colonists viewed any taxes imposed on them as a violation of their rights. [1] 

This is not a “good or legitimate” reason for rebelling for a multitude of reasons. First, colonists did have indirect representation in Parliament, through their elected legislatures. [2] This concept of indirect representation has been upheld in numerous territories today – for example, the District of Colombia is taxed, and is indirectly represented in the US Congress. [3] 

In addition, the taxes imposed on the colonists were in fact far lighter than those given to British citizens at home. What most people don't realize is that the total taxes the colonists paid were about 1-1.5%, over four times less than what British citizens paid. Protesting even these pithy taxes was nothing but colonial pettiness. [4] 

Finally, these taxes were raised to directly fund the defense of the colonies. In the French and Indian War, Britain spent almost 60 million pounds (doubling the national debt) to save the American colonies from being demolished by the French. To impose taxes to compensate for this is an entirely justifiable move from the British. [5] 

b. The “Boston Massacre” 

The other main reason for the revolution was the “Boston Massacre” - an incident in which five colonists were killed by British soldiers. 

According to all historical accounts, the colonists had started the instigation with the soldiers. They had thrown rocks, hurled verbal threats, and attempted to overpower a soldier and grab his gun. Indeed, the evidence in favor of the soldiers was so strong that a jury of colonists found them to be entirely justified in self-defense. [6] 

c. Exaggerated Oppression 

Finally, the revolution was started because colonists were upset that the British were trying to exert more control over the colonies. Again, this is not a justifiable reason for rebelling. Remember, the colonists were British citizens, and part of the British empire. 

This was not a tyrannical country attempting to take over a sovereign nation. This was Britain, governing British citizens in British territory, who were already treated far better than the average person in the mainland.  

“Firstly, the idea of "no taxation without representation" was not about the amount of tax but the principle behind it. The colonists believed that they had the right to be represented in the government that taxed them, and they were not. The indirect representation in Parliament that the opponent mentions was not enough for the colonists, as they did not have direct representation or control over their own affairs."

“Additionally, the colonies did not view themselves as British citizens but as independent entities that were only subject to British rule due to the colonial charters granted by the Crown.” 

“The Boston Massacre was just one of the many events that led to the American Revolution. It was not the main reason but rather a tipping point in a series of events that demonstrated the British government's failure to protect the colonists' rights and interests. The fact that a jury of colonists found the British soldiers to be justified in self-defense does not mean that the incident was not a spark for the revolution.” 

“My opponent claims that the revolution was worse than the existing status quo, but this argument ignores the fact that the revolution led to the creation of the United States, a country that has since become a world power and a beacon of freedom and democracy. While it is true that the war cost lives and money, it also led to the establishment of a new nation that was free from British rule and had the potential to be a more just and equitable society.” 

"Additionally, the new government of the United States was designed to be more representative of the people, with the Constitution providing a framework for a democratic system of government.” 

First, PRO once again uses the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc – that is, because X happened before Y, X caused Y. We are analyzing whether it was done for a good reason, and better than the status quo before then. Nothing more, nothing less.  

Second, for many years, the United States was certainly not a “beacon of freedom and democracy,” nor was it “just and equitable.” As a reminder, generations of enslaved people endured unspeakable suffering – and for generations after that,  their descendants were subjected to racism, segregation, and inequitable voting rights. 

“This does not hold ground. The BOP is shared, and I claimed the revolution was done for a good and legitimate reason and was more preferable than not doing said action. The outcome of the revolution was the goal for the rebellion, therefore making it a legitimate point in reason.“ 

“This has been the case with every single country to ever exist in some way shape or form. America was one of the first to ban slavery and give blacks equal rights to whites. There are more slaves in the world today than there were at the height of the Roman Empire, and none of them are in The United States.” 

“Con argues that the American Revolution was not justified because the colonists were only taxed at a rate of 1-1.5%. This argument is based on a narrow and incomplete understanding of the reasons behind the colonists' rebellion. The colonists were not only rebelling against taxes, but against a lack of representation in the British government, violations of their civil liberties, and a general feeling of oppression.” 

“Con also claims that the British government had protected the colonists' rights and interests, but this is an assertion that is not supported by historical evidence. The British government had repeatedly violated the colonists' rights, including the right to a fair trial, the right to free speech, and the right to self-determination.” 

“Con also ignores the fact that the colonists had attempted to resolve their grievances peacefully and through nonviolent means, but these efforts were met with hostility and violence from the British government.” 

“My opponent argues that the creation of the United States was not an improvement over the status quo, but this claim is not supported by historical evidence. The United States has become a global leader in the promotion of democracy, freedom, and human rights, and has been a force for positive change in the world.” 

“My opponent's arguments are flawed and lack historical evidence. I have successfully demonstrated that the revolution was done for a good and legitimate reason and was more preferable than not doing said action.”