Chapter 22: What the Colonists Should Have Done. So what was the answer? The answer was simple: the Colonists should have trusted in God. Since God commands us to subject ourselves to the governing authorities and to pay all of our taxes, no Christian should ever consider refusal as an option. Furthermore, destroying property, threatening people, and using violence against tax collectors, public officials, and others is totally unacceptable for a Christian. In fact, it should be totally unacceptable for everyone.
I do not personally advocate Christians getting involved in politics. We are called to be ambassadors of God's kingdom, and that's where our energies need to be focused. The Roman Empire levied heavy taxes, but the apostles were too focused on preaching about Jesus and His kingdom to become involved in political issues. They had complete confidence that if they trusted in God and His laws, everything would work out for their eternal good.
As the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us, "He Himself has said, 'I will never leave you nor forsake you.'" So we may boldly say, "The Lord is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?" (Hebrews 13:5-6). So the first-century Christians paid their taxes and devoted their energy to the kingdom of God. If the colonial Christians had been equally focused on Christ and His kingdom, I don't think they would have found the British government to be oppressive at all.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let's discuss how the Colonists could have objected to the new British taxes without ever breaking God's law. Bringing Legal Challenges in Court. Samuel Adams and other revolutionaries claimed that the stamp tax and other taxes passed by Parliament were illegal and violated the Colonists' rights. If they truly believed that, the solution was very simple. As English citizens, they had full access to the British courts.
All they had to do was demonstrate to the British courts that the taxes violated either the colonial charters or the British Constitution. After all, Paul had used the courts to fight for his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:22-29 and 25:10-12). So why didn't the Colonists simply do that and avoid the years of struggle and war? The answer is quite simple: Britain's taxes did not violate the charters or the British Constitution. That was merely a smokescreen used by the colonial agitators.
If they truly had believed the taxes were illegal or unconstitutional, they would have fought through the court system to have them declared null and void. Lobbying Parliament. If the revolutionaries felt the new taxes were unjust, as opposed to being illegal, they could have worked for the repeal of the new taxes through legal political channels. To begin with, they could have lobbied Parliament. Pennsylvania sent Benjamin Franklin to do that very thing, and Parliament listened attentively to what he had to say.
But that was the extent of the Colonists' efforts. The sugar planters in the West Indies and the East India Company all had lobbied Parliament successfully. The American Colonists could have done the same. Since Benjamin Franklin accomplished so much by himself, imagine what the Colonists could have accomplished if they had sent a whole army of persuasive and diplomatic men to work tirelessly to influence Parliament and British public opinion. The British political system was responsive to the voices of the public.
The Colonists could have worked effectively within the system without breaking a single commandment of God. Many wealthy Englishmen had huge sums invested in the plantations of the colonial South. They were very anxious to make certain that nothing jeopardized their investment. As I've mentioned, the Colonists in the English West Indies had been able to persuade Parliament to pass the Molasses Act, which raised the price of rum in both Britain and America.
Just because they didn't have the right to vote didn't mean these West Indian Colonists had no voice in Parliament. They just had to work within the system to achieve such a voice. But in the case of the West Indies, those plantation owners paid their taxes. England received a huge amount of tax income from the West Indies, but virtually none from the American Colonists. No wonder the West Indian Colonists had a more powerful voice in Parliament than the thirteen colonies. But it didn't have to be that way.
In addition to lobbying, the Colonies could have raised funds to elect to Parliament Englishmen sympathetic to colonial interests. In fact, without even lobbying, the Colonies already had a number of sympathetic ears in Parliament. But had they thrown their considerable financial weight behind key candidates, they could have gained even more sympathetic ears.
Under the English system in the 1700s, each member of Parliament was viewed as representing all English citizens, not only the citizens of the district where he was elected. That's why most English people at the time of the American Crisis felt that the Colonists were already represented in Parliament. If the Colonists wanted justice from Parliament, they needed to throw their support into helping elect sympathetic candidates.
Interestingly, as English citizens, the Colonists themselves had the right to run for Parliament. Between the years 1763 and 1775, five Americans were elected to Parliament by the English people. William Wilberforce, the man who fought to end slavery in the British Empire, faced a colossal uphill battle when he began. He fought hard for 26 years against very powerful forces, but in the end, he prevailed. Throughout his long fight, he never once resorted to illegal or unchristian methods.
The Colonists could have done the same. Again, I'm not advocating that Christians get involved in politics. I'm merely saying that there were lawful channels the professing Christian Colonists could have pursued without violating Romans 13. Why the Colonists had sympathetic ears in Parliament. One of the reasons Parliament was often sympathetic to colonial views is that Parliament had more to fear from George III than did the Colonists.
After George I of Hanover became King of England in 1714, Parliament largely ruled England. George I, a German, never lived in England, and it appears he never even learned to speak English. George II could speak English, but he chose to live in Germany rather than England anyway. During the reigns of the first two Georges, the office of English Prime Minister grew to the point that the Prime Minister was nearly as powerful as the King. When George III came to the throne in 1760, he wanted to reverse this trend.
He felt that the first two Hanover kings had neglected their royal responsibilities. The interest George III had in reinvigorating the royal throne caused considerable concern in Parliament, particularly among the Whig Party. Furthermore, in replacing the Whig hero, William Pitt, with George Grenville, George III had turned Pitt into a powerful enemy. For these reasons, in many respects, colonial interests were aligned with the interests of the Whig Party in Parliament.
Like the Colonists, the Whigs wanted to keep the king's power in check. That's why a number of them supported the Colonists in their dispute with England. Other methods. Another peaceful and lawful approach available to the Colonists was to tax themselves to raise the needed funds.
If England was expecting the Stamp Act to bring in 100,000 British pounds per year, the Colonists could have told England, "Rather than you taxing us, we will raise the expected 100,000 British pounds ourselves through taxes passed by our own colonial legislatures." This would have been a particularly effective offer if the Colonists had made it during the period before the stamp tax went into effect.
Or, again, after the Boston Tea Vandalism, the Colonies could have immediately distanced themselves from such an illegal and senseless act. They should have denounced it in their colonial legislatures and reimbursed the owners of the tea. Massachusetts could have arrested and punished the men who were responsible for the Boston Tea Vandalism. England wasn't looking for a fight. If the Colonists had responded the way Christians should have, Parliament would not have passed the Coercive Acts.
Actually, Britain responded more mildly than would most governments. Few governments will close their eyes to such blatant destruction of property and open rebellion. Boycotts, another weapon. In addition to working through the political process in Parliament, the Colonists had another very potent weapon: boycotting British goods. Personally, I don't advocate that Christians get involved in organized boycotts. Nevertheless, voluntary colonial boycotts were not illegal.
The thirteen colonies were the largest market for Britain's manufactured goods. During the tax crisis preceding the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, the American Colonies boycotted certain British goods, and their boycotts were devastatingly effective. The boycotts were one of the reasons why Parliament twice backed down and gave in to the Colonists. So the Colonists already had an effective, lawful, non-violent means of protesting against British taxes. There was no reason for their resorting to violence.
Again, I'm not saying that Christians should get entangled in political issues and boycotts. I'm only saying that the Colonists could have worked non-violently for the repeal of the British taxes while staying within the boundaries allowed by both God and man. Staying within those boundaries should be the first and natural response for all born-again Christians. So why didn't the Colonists respond peacefully? What was lacking?