John Lindt's Declaration Of Independence
Introduction:
Together, the Declaration of Independence outlined the colonists’ concerns about how King George III treated them and was intended to convince the rest of the world as to why independence was needed. While the Declaration does not itself form a government, it does indicate what the colonists would avoid (abuse or power, or tyranny) and pursue (representation in the legislature, states’ rights) when they did form governments in the future . The Revolutionary War had already begun at this time and many battles too had already taken place. The Declaration’s purpose was to serve as justification for separation from Great Britain.
The origins of the American Revolution can be traced to a variety of grievances and complaints on the …show more content…
They saw it as being nothing more than another annoyance made by the colonies. Previously having received letters addressed to King George III from the colonies - to which they were denied a response or mere acknowledgment- this was the first time they had declared themselves to be free of Parliament and the Crown . In response, the British government hired John Lindt to write a rebuttal pamphlet to the declaration- thus creating, An Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress. This reply sought to pick apart the Declaration. Lindt mocks and disputes each claim made by the colonists. However, little to no attention from the colonists was afforded to Lindt’s rebuttal. This paper seeks to compile a detailed analysis and response to Lindt’s claims- making a judgment of the colonial charge against the Crown found in Article IX of the Declaration and its …show more content…
The phrase, ‘during good behavior,’ was taken to mean that judges served without limit in time and was subject to removal from office only through impeachment or perhaps upon being convicted in a judicial proceeding of misbehavior. The alternative approach of appointing judges to serve during pleasure exposed those whose rulings displeased the appointing authority to the sanction of immediate removal from office. Prior to the Revolution, the Crown enforced this second approach as its invariable policy. Instructing royal governors to condition judicial appointments on service during pleasure and by disallowing acts of colonial legislatures that sought to grant judges protected
Together, the Declaration of Independence outlined the colonists’ concerns about how King George III treated them and was intended to convince the rest of the world as to why independence was needed. While the Declaration does not itself form a government, it does indicate what the colonists would avoid (abuse or power, or tyranny) and pursue (representation in the legislature, states’ rights) when they did form governments in the future . The Revolutionary War had already begun at this time and many battles too had already taken place. The Declaration’s purpose was to serve as justification for separation from Great Britain.
The origins of the American Revolution can be traced to a variety of grievances and complaints on the …show more content…
They saw it as being nothing more than another annoyance made by the colonies. Previously having received letters addressed to King George III from the colonies - to which they were denied a response or mere acknowledgment- this was the first time they had declared themselves to be free of Parliament and the Crown . In response, the British government hired John Lindt to write a rebuttal pamphlet to the declaration- thus creating, An Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress. This reply sought to pick apart the Declaration. Lindt mocks and disputes each claim made by the colonists. However, little to no attention from the colonists was afforded to Lindt’s rebuttal. This paper seeks to compile a detailed analysis and response to Lindt’s claims- making a judgment of the colonial charge against the Crown found in Article IX of the Declaration and its …show more content…
The phrase, ‘during good behavior,’ was taken to mean that judges served without limit in time and was subject to removal from office only through impeachment or perhaps upon being convicted in a judicial proceeding of misbehavior. The alternative approach of appointing judges to serve during pleasure exposed those whose rulings displeased the appointing authority to the sanction of immediate removal from office. Prior to the Revolution, the Crown enforced this second approach as its invariable policy. Instructing royal governors to condition judicial appointments on service during pleasure and by disallowing acts of colonial legislatures that sought to grant judges protected