Chapter 12: Wanting to Be Under the King's Authority. Some American history textbooks give the reader the impression that the English colonists who settled in the New World came here somewhat on their own authority, with only a loose connection to England, but that is not at all true. If a person is to correctly understand the rightness or wrongness of the American Revolution, he or she must first understand that all the colonists who settled in the Thirteen Colonies came to America under the king's authority.
The English colonists came to America for various reasons: to avoid religious persecution, to flee from poverty, and to seek their fortunes. However, none of them were illegal immigrants who stole out of England clandestinely in order to settle in some unexplored corner of the world. They weren't people without a country who happened to end up in America. No, in the founding of each colony, the colony's proprietors petitioned the king for authority to plant a colony in America.
The king then gave them a specific grant that spelled out the boundaries of their colony and their rights. These colonial charters also stated how the colonists would be governed, and they gave the colonists authority to transport goods into and out of that particular colony, subject to tariffs. The colonists had only such rights as were specifically granted to them in their charters or that came from the laws of Parliament.
Nearly all the colonial charters contained provisions by which the king gave the proprietors of each colony the right to transport to that colony "so many of our loving subjects, or any other strangers that will become our loving subjects and live under our allegiance, as shall willingly accompany them." So the proprietors had the right to bring other English citizens to their colonies. They even had the right to bring in settlers from other countries.
Nevertheless, all settlers had to agree to live under allegiance to the English monarch. The charters also gave the king the authority to prohibit certain persons from traveling to the colonies. All the charters granted full English citizenship to all persons born in the colonies or on board the ships transporting settlers to the colonies, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever, as if they and every one of them were born within the realm of England.
So the colonists had the same rights and protections as all other English citizens, but not more rights. Furthermore, rights nearly always come with responsibilities. What our textbooks typically fail to mention is that the colonists also had the same responsibilities as did English citizens living in England. Powers granted to the colonists.
The various English monarchs granted enormous powers of government to the colonial proprietors, but with language reserving "the faith and allegiance and sovereign dominion due to us, our heirs and successors." The charters also granted the colonists the right to set up colonial legislators endowed with the power of making laws, so long as their laws were not contrary or repugnant to the laws and statutes of England. All laws passed by the colonial legislators had to be sent to England for review.
In all of the charters, the king reserved the right to veto any laws that didn't meet his approval. Still, the king rarely vetoed colonial legislation, and the laws automatically went into effect unless they were vetoed. Similarly, the charters authorized the establishment of judges and courts in the colonies. However, the colonists had the right to appeal any colonial judgments to the courts in England.
So the English colonists enjoyed the same rights as other English citizens and had far greater participation in their governments than did most Englishmen. Nevertheless, it was clear from the beginning that the English throne had the ultimate and final authority over the colonists. If any potential colonists didn't like the terms of the colonial charters, he or she didn't have to move to the colonies.
But if they chose to move to the colonies, then they were subject to the terms of the charters and to the laws of Parliament. Furthermore, if after coming to America they felt their situation was better back in England, they were free to return there. However, that rarely happened because the terms of the charters were so generous and because the economic opportunities and religious freedoms were so much greater in America than in England. What the colonists gained.
I've mentioned that all the colonial charters made the colonists the subjects of the English government. It's important for us to realize that such provisions weren't something forced upon the proprietors and colonists against their will. They wanted to be under the sovereignty of the king and Parliament. Why would they have wanted that? The reason is that they wanted the rights, privileges, and protections that came with that citizenship.
Obviously, they couldn't be English citizens without being under the sovereignty of the English government. No country on earth would allow that. To illustrate, I count it a great privilege to be an American citizen, and I enjoy living in the United States. Nevertheless, if I could be more useful to Christ by living in another country, I would certainly be willing to do so. But I would want to keep my U.S. citizenship. Why? Because of the rights, privileges, and protections it gives me.
However, regardless of where I may live on earth, I am subject to all of the laws of the U.S. government so long as I am a U.S. citizen. The United States remains my ultimate earthly sovereign. The only way I could escape such sovereignty would be to give up my U.S. citizenship, and that is not something I want to do. It was the same with the English colonists in America. Military protection.
It wasn't only the legal rights and privileges of English citizenship that made the American colonists want to be under the king's dominion and sovereignty. Spain, France, and the Netherlands all had claims on North America. If the colonists in America had been independent people under no one's sovereignty, there would have been no one to protect them from the Spanish, French, and Dutch armies. The threat from these other European governments was quite real.
For example, about 50 years before the founding of Jamestown, 200 French Huguenots established a settlement in Florida. However, they were attacked by a Spanish army who slaughtered all of the men and took the women and children as prisoners. In the early colonial years, the English didn't have a garrison of soldiers or a fleet of ships in America to protect the colonies. Nevertheless, considerable protection accrued to the colonists from the mere fact that they were living in English colonies.
The other European powers couldn't just attack the English colonists at will without risking an international incident that could easily lead to war with England. The personal writings of the early colonists clearly show that they thought of themselves as Englishmen. Their earthly sovereign was the English monarch. They had no desire or inkling of starting a new country.
As one of the pilgrims wrote about their colony, "My hearty prayer to God is that the event of this and all other honorable and honest undertakings may be for the furtherance of the kingdom of Christ and the enlarging of the bounds of our sovereign Lord King James." Because the colonists were nearly all professing Christians, and since they came to America willingly under the king's authority, two questions naturally come to mind.
First, does the Bible give Christians the authority to rebel against their governments? Second, if not, why did the colonists rebel against the government anyway?