A story of revolution….

Screen shot 2013-12-26 at 2.39.22 PM

george_IIIThe King and his policymakers gather in a large building making laws for the people in lands far from the towers of the capital.  The leaders imposed a biased system of judgement that took away the opportunities for localities to make their own decisions. People proclaimed that citizens should be judged by their “peers” instead of the new system that condemned individuals without sufficient evidence.

These policymakers advocated actions that violated the privacy rights of individuals as well.  The people were shocked that their basic liberties guaranteed by law were disregarded, putting those in charge above the law.  The King adopted costly and failing endeavours pushed by the elites that many citizens did not Screen shot 2013-12-20 at 6.38.14 PMwant. The huge financial cost of blunders made by those in power negatively impacted the local governments that had little voice in financial matters.  Tax money was wasted on ventures that a growing number of citizens began to oppose. Local residents were forced to use products supplied by merchants connected to the regime when cheaper or superior alternatives existed elsewhere.

Some citizens began to question the decisions made by the King and his inner circle.  At first those who raised their voices against the regime were characterized as radicals.   The protestors claimed that the pubic had no representation in the creation of policies that impacted their local communities. Significant financial power supported the King and his administration, making the odds of Britishoverthrowing his regime low. Some of the policymakers were sympathetic towards the citizens who wanted a voice in lawmaking, but most followed the marching orders of the King’s inner circle. The King had control over the localities and could remove their local leaders if they joined the rebellion.  A few brave souls spoke out, but many felt the political pressure to abide by the King’s proclamations. The policymakers claimed they virtually represented the communities even though the populace had not directly elected them as representatives.

As policy was implemented and conditions worsened in the lands, more moderates joined the rebels. SomeBoycott stayed loyal to the crown, possibly loyal for the sake of being loyal, or they may have benefited from the powerful and their regulations. The rebels, growing in numbers, organized boycotts and protests.  The King tried to squash critical comments by canceling public meetings in rebellious territories.  The people cried “we have no voice” in the matters of our state. Many commoners wondered why the King and the ruling aristocracy were not subject to the very policies they advocated.   Citizens and their local legislators began to meet and devise plans to take their governing powers back.

commonsense2In reaction to public outcry, the King and the policymakers made small changes to the laws.  Most knowledgeable persons knew the adjustments were meaningless - meant to placate the masses.  A noted author wrote that it was “common sense” to break free from the “reign” of elites that were far removed from their localities and day-to-day lives.  Speakers proclaimed to give the people “liberty” and citizens should join their “brethren” in the streets protesting harmful mandates.

Groups of correspondence spread the word.  A congress of advocates met to unite efforts against the King’s agenda across the regions. People wanted laws that reflected the “consent of the governed” rather than the views of the aristocracy. Lists of grievances were drawn up outlining the reasons for rebellion against the King and his inner circle.  Localities signed resolutions against the policies of the King and the ruling class.

Rebellion was in the air.

 

Follow Chris Cerrone on twitter: @Stoptesting15

.

.

.

Could we substitute the following pictures for those above?

imagesSetWidth600-NYS-Ed.-Bldg.2

image

photo

9780385350884_custom-1328b50239b1b41fb902b3509a594ee1c30bc656-s2-c85

Comments

  1. Margaret Benson says:

    The clincher is that the protesters ORGANIZED. Rather than separate voices, yelling in what was a wilderness, they came together. I think I still see too many voices, and not enough organization. Or perhaps the organization is there and growing, but not yet visible. And as the voices are heard only by the “choir,” it is important that the organizing be both loud, and visible.

  2. Reblogged this on Middletown Voice and commented:
    Very clever analogy…some constitutionalists would find the striking similarities with the original version if they could only move past their echo chamber of knowledge. The King is a pawn as well.

  3. Roberta Reid says:

    The more things change, the more they stay the same. The rallying cry of that time (1763-1783, or so) was “No taxation without representation.” Change the players and the circumstance, history is repeating itself. So familiar with this scenario because this was part of the 5th (& 4th) grade curriculum. In NYS, it was interesting to note that 1/3 were Tories/Loyalists, 1/3 Patriots, & 1/3 stayed neutral. I believe that the next few months will be the tipping point!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 14,415 other followers

%d bloggers like this: