The Grievances That Sparked a Nation: Continual Abuses by the King
These grievances weren’t abstract complaints; they were procedural violations that struck at the heart of colonial self-rule.
In celebration of the 250th anniversary of the most famous objection to a breach of process, we continue our exploration of the Founders’ grievances with the British Crown and how they sparked a revolution.
The second, third, and fourth grievances in the Declaration of Independence reflect escalating procedural violations by the British Crown that undermined colonial self-governance and fueled revolutionary fervor. These grievances document the King’s obstruction of local legislation, neglect of urgent laws, and coercive demands for representation surrender.
“He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”
This second grievance speaks to a pattern of deliberate delay and neglect. Colonial assemblies often passed laws to address urgent local needs—such as taxation, infrastructure, or public safety—but governors appointed by the King were instructed to withhold approval unless the law received royal assent. In practice, this meant that even time-sensitive legislation was stalled indefinitely.
A prime example occurred in 1770, when the Massachusetts Assembly passed a law to tax government officers. The King ordered the governor to withhold assent, violating the colony’s charter and effectively nullifying its legislative autonomy. This grievance echoes John Locke’s principle that neglect is a valid reason for dissolving a government—a concept deeply embedded in Enlightenment thought and embraced by the Founders.
“He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.”
The third grievance reveals a more sinister tactic—conditional governance. The King refused to approve laws that would benefit growing colonial populations unless they agreed to give up representation. This practice was especially egregious in frontier regions, where settlers sought to establish local governments and courts to manage their affairs.
In Virginia and other colonies, requests to form new counties or districts were denied unless the inhabitants accepted diminished or no representation in the colonial legislature. The Founders viewed this as a direct assault on the principle of consent of the governed. Representation was not a privilege—it was a right. And any attempt to strip it away was seen as tyrannical.
“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.”
The fourth grievance highlights a strategy of logistical sabotage. By relocating legislative sessions to remote or inconvenient locations, the Crown sought to disrupt colonial governance and pressure assemblies into submission. This tactic was used most famously in Massachusetts after the Boston Tea Party.
In 1774, Parliament passed the Massachusetts Government Act, which moved the colonial assembly from Boston to Salem, a town nearly 20 miles away and far from the colony’s administrative center. The goal was clear: Make it more difficult for legislators to meet, access records, and coordinate resistance. The Founders saw this as an abuse of power designed to fatigue and frustrate elected officials into compliance.
These grievances weren’t abstract complaints; they were procedural violations that struck at the heart of colonial self-rule. Each one documented a moment when the King chose control over consent, obstruction over cooperation. Together, they built the case for independence.
Sources: Annotated Grievances – Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History