Have Colonial Grievances Were Justified?

I think the colonial grievances were justified because the colonies were forced to change, England lacked power of the colonies, and British Law was unjust.
The colonist way of life evolved around trade. England had told them to trade only with them and they would, in return give them recourses back. This did not do the colonies any good because they were not left with money and went into debt. The colonies decided that they would hold back some resources and would trade with the West Indies to make money. The British first forced the colonies to stop trade by coming up with the Navigation Law in 1651, which allowed only English ships to trade with English and colonial ports but, all goods destined for the colonies would have to travel through England. They had already been trading with other countries for many years and British forced them to change.
The first act was the Sugar Act, which took place in the year 1764. The Sugar Act taxed the import of sugar from the West Indies. The colonies protested. They were angered that they did not have a say. After they had protested, England lowered the taxes. Following the Sugar Act was the Stamp Tax, which taxed paper goods. Once again the colonist protested and this is where the principle of no taxation without representation is developed. This principle is important because the British replied that the sovereign power of government could not be split between legislative authority in London and taxing authority in the colonies. The British forced the colonies to deny authority of parliament and start considering their own political independence (120). The next act passed was the Declaratory Act in 1766, which reaffirmed Parliament’s unqualified sovereignty over North American colonies. England is seen as weak for having to point out their