The Grievances That Sparked a Nation: The Roots of Self-Governance

As we continue to commemorate America’s 250th year of independence, we once again reflect on the Founders’ list of grievances against the British Crown and how these violations sparked the American Revolution, one of the most consequential stands against procedural abuses in history.

Today, we focus on Grievances Five, Six, and Seven, each striking at the very foundation of republican governance: representation.

Grievance 5 reads: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.”

In 1768, the Massachusetts General Court issued the Massachusetts Circular Letter, a bold protest against taxation without representation under the Townshend Acts. Governor Francis Bernard demanded that the House rescind it; when they refused, he dissolved the assembly. In May 1769, the Virginia House of Burgesses asserted that only Virginians through their elected assembly could levy taxes and condemned the threat of transporting colonists to England for trial. The new governor, Lord Botetourt, responded by dissolving the legislature.

North Carolina faced a similar fate.  When its assembly refused to comply with royal instructions and challenged Parliament’s authority over taxation, the legislature was dissolved, sending the same unmistakable message that self-government existed only at the Crown’s pleasure.

Grievance 6 exposes what made these dissolutions so dangerous: “He has refused for a long time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining, in the meantime, exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and convulsions within.”

In 1767, when the New York Assembly refused full compliance with the Quartering Act, Parliament passed the New York Restraining Act, suspending the Assembly’s legislative powers until it complied. In 1774, the Massachusetts Government Act placed the colony under direct royal and military authority. The act transformed the elected council into an appointed body, sharply restricted town meetings, and drastically limited the operation of the elected House. Though not entirely abolishing elections, it effectively left Massachusetts without a functioning representative government.

As a result, colonists were increasingly deprived of lawful, representative self-government, even in times of crisis. The Founders understood that without representation, lawmaking authority “returned to the people” by necessity, not choice. The absence of functioning colonial legislatures helped to drive the creation of ad-hoc representative bodies, such as the First Continental Congress. It was, in effect, governance by necessity when governance by consent had failed.

Grievance 7 reveals how the Crown attempted to stifle the growth of American society itself: “He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose, obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

By the mid‑18th century, the American colonies were swelling with immigrants. Many were farmers, artisans, and dissenters from the state‑church model of Europe, attracted by land, freedom of conscience, and a chance at self‑rule. Yet, these settlers were a threat from Britain’s perspective.

By the early 1770s, the Crown and Parliament began tightening control over the colonies, restricting naturalization laws and blocking western land grants. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 drew a firm line along the Appalachians, forbidding settlement beyond it. Measures that might have helped settlers gain citizenship were denied, and opportunities to expand westward were restricted.

These policies were not simply about managing borders; they were about asserting control. From the Crown’s perspective, a growing population of independent, land-owning colonists posed a direct threat to imperial authority.

Taken together, Grievances five, six, and seven reveal a clear pattern: the Crown attempted to choke off self-government at its roots, namely representative assemblies, democratic elections, and the very population capable of sustaining them. When assemblies opposed royal overreach, they were dissolved. When people demanded representation, elections were denied, and when communities grew, laws were passed to halt migration and restrict land ownership.

The Founders recognized that this was not mismanagement; it was the systematic dismantling of the consent of the governed. Their response was bold and historic: if government rejects its obligation to represent, the people have a duty to replace it. Representation is the safeguard of liberty, and when the Crown attempted to extinguish it, the American people did not just resist—they chose independence.

Yet, these grievances still carry lessons for today. The Founders understood that procedural abuses like dissolving legislatures, delaying elections, and obstructing participation pose as great a threat to liberty as unjust laws themselves. Self-government is not merely about policy outcomes but about protecting the mechanisms that allow free people to debate, dissent, and decide.