Throughout the years preceding the American Revolution, Britain and the colonies enjoyed a strong trans-Atlantic relationship that would eventually erode as the British government enacted legislation that curbed inherent liberties of the American people. Acts were passed that Americans deemed in violation of their rights as British subjects, and the Americans' disposition toward first the Crown's administers and then toward the Crown itself suffered as a result. As American resistance grew, the question of where sovereignty lies was addressed, in which the Americans recognized their subjugation to the Crown so long as their rights remained intact.

Despite dire resistance to the Stamp Act of 1765, Americans held full confidence in the Ministry of Britain and held little doubt to the sovereignty of the Crown, as they viewed themselves the same as any other subjects within the kingdom. Likewise, the Stamp Act Congress in 1765 made clear "That his Majesty's subjects in these colonies, owe the same allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain, that is owing from his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination to that august body, the Parliament of Great Britain" (Brown, ed., "The Declarations of the Stamp Act Congress, 1765").

The American response to the Stamp Act served as a model for the best methods for ordered resistance. When at first petitions did not work, riots ensued and careful mobs enforced the nonusage of stamps, sustaining remarkably few casualties. On March 18, 1766, the Stamp Act was repealed, as its continuance "would be attended with many inconveniences, and may be productive of consequences greatly detrimental to the commercial interests of these kingdoms" (Brown, ed., "Repeal Act, March 18, 1766").

Perhaps Benjamin Franklin articulated the American disposition around the time best in 1766, when, responding to the question of the temper of America towards Britain before 1763, he said that it was "The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the government of the crown, and paid, all their courts, obedience to acts of parliament" (Brown, ed., "Examination of Benjamin Franklin Before the House of Commons, 1766"). The Stamp Act gave Americans concern for their possible oppression by the Ministry, but by and large they believed in the authority of the British government and its ability to redress their grievances. This confidence would erode over time though, as the corruption of the Ministry became clear and no help from the throne was evidently forthcoming.

Popular Whig philosophy prevailing at the time granted sovereignty to the Crown and its ministers, but the right to resistance was fully sustained. An equal emphasis was laid upon obedience as it was upon liberty. "Obedience to lawful rulers was obligatory, as central to 'liberty' as resistance to unlawful magistrates" (Maier 32). In this context, open resistance had to be directed at specific grievances, but only once all peaceful attempts at change were exhausted. The organizations, nonimportation agreements, and riots which ensued after the Stamp Act resisted only that act, and its repeal would herald peace and subjugation again, until the next act of oppression was tried on the people.

The next act of note that produced American resistance was the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which not only levied new duties on many goods but also provided that the revenue raised under it would pay the salaries of royal officials who previously had been dependent on provincial assemblies. When at first the normal course of petitioning brought no change, nonimportation agreements arose in the colonies during 1769. The same methods that brought success earlier after the Stamp Act were employed here. "Once again, as during the Stamp Act period, those who ignored or violated the patriotic agreements were coerced by social and economic boycotts which became harsher as the movement itself gained strength and intensity" (Maier 121). The result of American resistance was seen in 1770 with the repeal of the Townshend duties except the one levied on tea.

Throughout American resistance, the Ministry maintained that it was the sovereign power to which the colonies must acquiesce. The Declaratory Act in 1766 elaborated this point when it was said "that the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial Crown and Parliament of Great Britain" (Brown, ed., "The Declaratory Act of March 18, 1766"). Even the most radical of patriots did not consider independence a real option until the 1770s because of the close ties between America and Britain. The mother country was considered by colonists to be the freest country in the world, and both lands relied on trading between the two. The volume of trade that commenced was one reason that American nonimportation associations worked; British merchants could not stand to lose the business. Common religion and culture also served as ties that united the colonies and Britain.

Perhaps the best link between the colonies and Britain was John Wilkes, defender of liberty and of the colonies. Wilkes' election to Parliament in 1768 helped bolster the colonists' faltering confidence in the government, but he was denied his seat and "by his failures added dimensions to their grievances that American problems alone might have never suggested" (Maier 169). However, American patriots carried on a close correspondence with Wilkes throughout the ordeal.

American resistance could only turn into rebellion and then on to revolution when all hope for redress was gone not just from Parliament and royal officials, but from the King himself. With the onset of resistance and petitions, the attitude was not that the King was in any way at fault, for his sovereignty was unquestioned, but rather in his administers, who performed unconstitutional acts. "Monarchical innocence became (the) working assumption: the King could do no wrong" (Maier 201). Eventually, corruption became so obvious in Parliament that, by 1770, petitions were in general directed at the King. These petitions would be the last test for whether the colonists' grievances could be amended. If the petitions did not win the King's support, then it would be clear that the entire British government was intent on exercising its power at the cost of liberty (Maier 203).

After the King essentially ignored the grievances of the colonists', a span of a few years ensued in which there was a lull in activity. This was in effect the point where the interests of the colonies and of Britain were irreconcilable, although real rebellion was yet to occur. In accordance with Whig philosophy, rebellion would only occur when the colonists were pushed to it by the British. This oppressive push would take form with the Tea Act of May 1773 and the Intolerable Acts of May 1774. Although essentially unique to Massachusetts, these acts would lead to rebellion. The Boston Tea Party ensued after the Tea Act, after which John Adams asked, "What Measures will the Ministry take, in Consequence of this?" (Brown, ed., "John Adams Reflects on the Boston Tea Party, 1773"). Adams justified the Party by saying that "To let (the tea) be landed, would be giving up the Principle of Taxation by Parliamentary Authority, against which the Continent have struggled for 10 years." This assertion reinforced the idea that Parliament only held sovereignty in specific areas granted to them by constitution.

Adams' question of the Ministry's response was answered with the Intolerable Acts, which closed Boston Harbor, overran Quebec's territory onto colonial claims, and took away liberty from the people of Massachusetts in various ways. Once this was done, militias were organized in the colonies, and war was imminent save a drastic turnaround in Parliament. By this time all hope in redress from the King was gone, and by 1775, any sovereignty the King kept was intact only by force. The people had decided en masse that British oppression had gone too far and withdrew their subjugation. The earlier resistances could possibly be viewed as an assertion of the people's sovereignty, but in those cases clear boundaries had been set where the colonists felt themselves grieved. Despite the Massachusetts Government Act, local governments and organizations continued to operate, and individuals who would otherwise comply with the Crown were coerced not to.

"The colonists sought a past that could not be rewon, if indeed it had ever existed. Hence, to protect liberty as they saw it, the Americans broke off from their Mother Country and undertook one of the earliest modern colonial wars for independence" (Maier 271). The American relationship with Britain broke down when the colonists realized the futility of their petitions and actions to bring about sustained Parliamentary change, which occurred around 1770. It also had to be shown that the King would not aid in preserving fundamental liberties. An earlier point of breakdown could have only occurred if these two prerequisites were satisfied. For example, if after the Townshend Acts the colonists had strongly petitioned both Parliament and the King directly, they might have realized the disposition of the system against them and the injustices that were likely to keep occurring. However, Whig philosophy at the time, as concurred on by John Wilkes and John Dickinson, stated that all peaceful modes of resistance must be exhausted before resorting to force (Maier 166). This lent a legitimacy of resistance, and eventually rebellion, to the Americans, which drew its power from the sovereignty and will of the people.

Brown, Richard D.,ed. Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution 1760-1791. D.C. Heath and Company. Lexington, MA 1992.