An Independence Day Truth Bomb?!

Gear System: Philosophy, Set Up, Use, Fitness & Mindset.
July 1, 2017
Combat Patrol / Direct Action August 3 – 6: 3 Spaces Available
July 6, 2017

To be truly dangerous to your enemies, train at MVT.



The below article popped into my inbox this morning, and thus I could not resist posting it. Feel free to give your thoughts and reactions. Hopefully something a bit more substantial than yelling ‘Merika!’ to refute it. Then, go back to grilling in your yard.

I can see the conniptions already! LOL

Email reproduced below:


Tricked on the Fourth of July

Gary North – July 04, 2017 I do not celebrate the fourth of July. This goes back to a term paper I wrote in graduate school. It was on colonial taxation in the British North American colonies in 1775. Not counting local taxation, I discovered that the total burden of British imperial taxation was about 1% of national income. It may have been as high as 2.5% in the southern colonies.

In 2008, Alvin Rabushka’s book of almost 1,000 pages appeared: Taxation in Colonial America (Princeton University Press). In a review published in the Business History Review, the reviewer summarizes the book’s findings.

Rabushka’s most original and impressive contribution is his measurement of tax rates and tax burdens. However, his estimate of comparative trans-Atlantic tax burdens may be a bit of moving target. At one point, he concludes that, in the period from 1764 to 1775, “the nearly two million white colonists in America paid on the order of about 1 percent of the annual taxes levied on the roughly 8.5 million residents of Britain, or one twenty-fifth, in per capita terms, not taking into account the higher average income and consumption in the colonies” (p. 729). Later, he writes that, on the eve of the Revolution, “British tax burdens were ten or more times heavier than those in the colonies” (p. 867). Other scholars may want to refine his estimates, based on other archival sources, different treatment of technical issues such as the adjustment of intercolonial and trans-Atlantic comparisons for exchange rates, or new estimates of comparative income and wealth. Nonetheless, no one is likely to challenge his most important finding: the huge tax gap between the American periphery and the core of the British Empire.

The colonists had a sweet deal in 1775. Great Britain was the second freest nation on earth. Switzerland was probably the most free nation, but I would be hard-pressed to identify any other nation in 1775 that was ahead of Great Britain. And in Great Britain’s Empire, the colonists were by far the freest.

I will say it, loud and clear: the freest society on earth in 1775 was British North America, with the exception of the slave system. Anyone who was not a slave had incomparable freedom.

Jefferson wrote these words in the Declaration of Independence:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

I can think of no more misleading political assessment uttered by any leader in the history of the United States. No words having such great impact historically in this nation were less true. No political bogeymen invoked by any political sect as “the liar of the century” ever said anything as verifiably false as these words.

The Continental Congress declared independence on July 2, 1776. Some members signed the Declaration on July 4. The public in general believed the leaders at the Continental Congress. They did not understand what they were about to give up. They could not see what price in blood and treasure and debt they would soon pay. And they did not foresee the tax burden in the new nation after 1783.

In an article on taxation in that era, Rabushka gets to the point.

Historians have written that taxes in the new American nation rose and remained considerably higher, perhaps three times higher, than they were under British rule. More money was required for national defense than previously needed to defend the frontier from Indians and the French, and the new nation faced other expenses.

So, as a result of the American Revolution, the tax burden tripled.

The debt burden soared as soon as the Revolution began. Monetary inflation wiped out the currency system. Price controls in 1777 produced the debacle of Valley Forge. Percy Greaves, a disciple of Ludwig von Mises and for 17 years an attendee at his seminar, wrote this in 1972.

Our Continental Congress first authorized the printing of Continental notes in 1775. The Congress was warned against printing more and more of them. In a 1776 pamphlet, Pelatiah Webster, America’s first economist, told his fellow men that Continental currency might soon become worthless unless something was done to curb the further printing and issuance of this paper money.The people and the Congress refused to listen to his wise advice. With more and more paper money in circulation, consumers kept bidding up prices. Pork rose from 4¢ to 8¢ a pound. Beef soared from about 4¢ to 100 a pound. As one historian tells us, “By November, 1777, commodity prices were 480% above the prewar average.”

The situation became so bad in Pennsylvania that the people and legislature of this state decided to try “a period of price control, limited to domestic commodities essential for the use of the army.” It was thought that this would reduce the cost of feeding and supplying our Continental Army. It was expected to reduce the burden of war.

The prices of uncontrolled, imported goods then went sky high, and it was almost impossible to buy any of the domestic commodities needed for the Army. The controls were quite arbitrary. Many farmers refused to sell their goods at the prescribed prices. Few would take the paper Continentals. Some, with large families to feed and clothe, sold their farm products stealthily to the British in return for gold. For it was only with gold that they could buy the necessities of life which they could not produce for themselves.

On December 5, 1777, the Army’s Quartermaster-General, refusing to pay more than the government-set prices, issued a statement from his Reading, Pennsylvania headquarters saying, “If the farmers do not like the prices allowed them for this produce let them choose men of more learning and understanding the next election.”

This was the winter of Valley Forge, the very nadir of American history. On December 23, 1777, George Washington wrote to the President of the Congress, “that, notwithstanding it is a standing order, and often repeated, that the troops shall always have two days’ provisions by them, that they might be ready at any sudden call; yet an opportunity has scarcely ever offered, of taking an advantage of the enemy, that has not been either totally obstructed, or greatly impeded, on this account…. we have no less than two thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight men now in camp unfit for duty, because they are barefoot and otherwise naked…. I am now convinced beyond a doubt, that, unless some great and capital change suddenly takes place, this army must inevitably be reduced to one or other of these three things: starve, dissolve, or disperse in order to obtain subsistence in the best manner they can.”

Only after the price control law was repealed in 1778 could the army buy food again. But the hyperinflation of the continentals and state-issued currencies replaced the pre-Revolution system of silver currency: Spanish pieces of eight.

The proponents of independence invoked British tyranny in North America. There was no British tyranny, and surely not in North America.

In 1872, Frederick Engels wrote an article, “On Authority.” He criticized anarchists, whom he called anti-authoritarians. His description of the authoritarian character of all armed revolutions should remind us of the costs of revolution.

A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.

After the American Revolution, 46,000 American loyalists fled to Canada. They were not willing to swear allegiance to the new colonial governments. They retained their loyalty to the nation that had delivered to them the greatest liberty on earth. They had not committed treason.

The revolutionaries are not remembered as treasonous. John Harrington told us why sometime around 1600. “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

The victors write the history books.

What would libertarians — even conservatives — give today in order to return to an era in which the central government extracted 1% of the nation’s wealth? Where there was no income tax?

Would they describe such a society as tyrannical?

That the largest signature on the Declaration of Independence was signed by the richest smuggler in North America was no coincidence. He was hopping mad. Parliament in 1773 had cut the tax on tea imported by the British East India Company, so the cost of British tea went lower than the smugglers’ cost on non-British tea. This had cost Hancock a pretty penny. The Tea Party had stopped the unloading of the tea by throwing privately owned tea off a privately owned ship — a ship in competition with Hancock’s ships. The Boston Tea Party was, in fact, a well-organized protest against lower prices stemming from lower taxes.

So, once again, I shall not celebrate the fourth of July.



General Info / Links:

19 Comments

  1. JC Dodge says:

    So here’s the question, “How many Americans emigrate to Britain, and how many Brits emigrate to America?”. You came here, did you not Max? Why? History is great, but the Present is reality.

    • Max says:

      That isn’t really the point of reposting this article. No one is saying that the US should go back under the UK. It is a question of critical thinking, questioning your premises. Rather than people trotting out the usual Liberty myths around the santa-version-of-history, how about questioning the true levels of Liberty in the US today? How about starting with the tax code?

      Or, ‘MERIKA!

      Critical thinking folks. And if the posted article is true, what does it say about the First Civil War (1776) and Founding Father myths? Motives? How about Jefferson and Rightful Liberty.

      And don’t forget, whatever the state of the UK now, it provided the basis of everything in the US now, once the split happened between Brits on both sides of the Atlantic. But I blame the Germans, for ruining Liberty when they emigrated en masse in the 18- whatevers……;-) LOL.

  2. Gene Wells says:

    While the facts may be true, (I didn’t Vet them personally) I find it a flawed argument and somewhat self serving. It is at best a one dimensional premise promulgated by an individual who (based on an assessment of his website content) serves himself to
    Make money as a contrarian financial advisor. The “usurpations and abuses” were not solely tax related at all. He cites Hancock as a Smuggler, fair enough, Many of the founding Fathers were. But the reasons for the Declaration were not solely based on Taxation. Just my $0.02 ymmv. Interesting read, thanks!

  3. Gary Miller says:

    The history of the American Revolution is a messy story despite all the myths. There were lots of reasons for the dissatisfaction felt by the colonies. And there was a huge disconnect between Great Britain and the colonies. The fault lays on both sides. My ancestor served under Washington with the Bucks County militia. If I could ask him why, I am pretty sure his reasons would not line up with the myths or be in lockstep with others who fought against Britain.

  4. JC Dodge says:

    My point was YOU are a better person to judge (and speak about) what makes this country the place to emigrate too than those Americans that have never experienced any place else. I don’t remember you ever talking about why you came to the US on the blog (maybe I missed that post), and this would be the perfect place to talk about it. In response to North’s post, I’d say, “Why are you still here Gary? I bet you still enjoy the holiday conveniences, don’t you Gary?”. No matter what people say about America, it is still the “Last, best hope” when it comes to freedoms. It’s now all about choices (what State you live in and pay taxes), sacrifices (are you willing to take the time to home school or pay the money for a private school or rely on the “convenience” of public edukashun), and what you’re willing to put up with in the name of convenience (everything you want to do within walking distance, but under draconian laws concerning firearms, vehicles, etc.).

    • Max says:

      I agree with the ‘last best hope.’ It does, however, make me sad that so many live a myth of Liberty when so much of it has been lost here. So many will denigrate the UK (and I do not excuse the place that it is at) but as an Brit who settled here I do not see the huge differences between the UK and the US. Other than Firearms. I think one of the greatest services the Founders did was the 2A, because I believe that the 2A is the only thing that has stopped UK/Australian gun confiscation. And don’t tell me ‘cold dead hands’ because when does anyone really flount draconian gun control laws? Never, we all scramble to comply.

  5. JC Dodge says:

    Here’s something else I would say about the premise of “It was about taxation” that North promotes. Saying the Revolutionary War was about taxes is like saying the Civil War was about slavery. I agree with your thoughts about the utility of the 2A, especially when you consider that as a teenager, I looked at the pics and read about all the “Practical Gun” competitions in the UK, using any of the popular military style semi autos that were used here at that time (HK’s, Sigs, FAL’s). How far they fell in such a short time without a clearly written Constitutional guarantee of governmental compliance with the basic, God given right of owning efficient, effective means of protection.

    • Max says:

      You asked about how I came here. My wife, I married an American. It was not a plan, before we met. I switched on to what could be done with firearms after I arrived here, after a periof of deprogramming. My first time in a gun store to buy, I could not shake the feeling of doing something wrong! I soon got over that. Hence, MVT!

      Here’s the thing: I see so much about the UK having no guns and being all socialist and cowards and all that. In the UK they look upon America with condescension. After all, the opinion is that all sorts of crazy comes out of America! It is not seen as a fount of freedom, but more as the source of madness such as over-litigation and political correctness.

  6. JC Dodge says:

    Since you’ve been here, how much of your second paragraph is reality and how much is the BS propaganda pushed by those who hate America?

    • Max says:

      It is reality for what Europe thinks of America. Big fat brash loudmouths. How much is deserved? Over litigation and PC madness do have their viral origin in the US. The problem is that the US population is spoiled by over-abundance, and has given up liberty for perceptions of security.

  7. JC Dodge says:

    There’s a lot to be said about those facts you mention, but I always come back to who is it the Europeans always ask for help when they’re in a tight spot (whether for defense or funding some failed program like global warming). NATO was more of an immediate protection for Europe than the US, but we bore most of the brunt of paying for it and supplying the personnel, and now Europeans are mad that Trump has said they need to pay their fair share. with NATO!

  8. JC Dodge says:

    I understand what you’re sayin’, but it kinda is about Europe, or more specifically, England. The premise of the post that you reposted was that Gary North doesn’t celebrate July 4th because among other reasons, those that lived here were snookered into supporting a separation from England because taxes were terribly draconian, and that England was so free at that time. As I said, saying that the Rev War was just about taxes is a simplistic assessment made by someone (North) looking for an excuse to bash the Founding Fathers and the reason for the war they started. I’d say if nothing else, they were refuting the idea of a monarch running the show indefinitely (whether through a parliamentary watchdog or not). Being in charge because of their bloodline is contrary to the premise of a free society governed by the people who live in it, and I’m not even gonna bring up the whole Church of England issues. The premise North espouses tries to convince Americans that the founding of our nation was based on a lie. To that I say, “Take your loyalist ass to Canada and suck up to Trudeau.”. In many ways, our taxes and laws suck, and depending on what party (is there really more than 1?) is running the show, our taxes APPEAR to go up a little or down a little, but all the while they incrementally creep up overall. As I’ve said many times, even with all it’s faults and issues, where else would you have the freedom to speak your mind and protect yourself like you have here? We’ve been shown a number of times recently it’s surely not in the UK, Holland, France, Germany, etc.. Ask Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon AKA “Tommy Robinson”, or any of the other activists in different European nations speaking out about the state of their countries, and being arrested for it. All the while not even being able to own a firearm to protect their families from those they speak out about or those who want to silence them. I don’t know if anything in North’s post is true or not, and I really don’t care to use the time required to find out. My time is better spent dealing with the here and now and following through on my responsibilities are as a Father, a Husband, and Citizen.

    • Max says:

      How’s the state of your Liberty? Not in comparison to Europe, or North Korea, or whatever, but in absolute terms? Do you have Rightful Liberty?

  9. JC Dodge says:

    Of course not, and I don’t believe you can point to any civilized society that ever actually had rightful liberty, because as Jefferson said, “Law is often but the tyrants will.”, and all civilized societies have laws. I believe the Founding Fathers aspired to that, but settled just like every
    well intentioned leadership/government group in history. I believe we have “Liberty” and “Freedom”, how much of them you have would be determined by what State you live in because they are not all equal. How much freedom and liberty you have is also relative to what you have been indoctrinated to expect. Someone coming here from a communist country would believe there is no place freer, while someone coming from Amsterdam might be upset by the lack of store front drug markets. Generally speaking, I feel I have the freedoms that matter most. I have the right to responsibly speak my mind (irresponsible words should have consequences, whether it’s a punch in the mouth for disrespecting a man’s Wife, or jail time for yelling fire in a crowded theatre that is not on fire, and people are trampled to death), I have the right to protect myself and my family. I have the right to worship as I see fit. I have the right to travel freely without the impediment of checkpoints. I have the right make sure my children are educated as I think they ought to be. Although I think the taxes on us are ridiculous, I don’t see them as a reason to commit violent acts bent on revolution. Violence needs to be reserved for the communists that want to take over here. I believe it will come to that.

  10. shooter says:

    ‘Murica, f*ck yeah…

    I’d say this whole thing, North’s article, and all the commentary, is a pretty strong argument for anarcho-capitalism… which IS the ideal that Thomas Paine et al were alluding to, or at least is the logical end-state of what Paine was preaching.

    They might not have called it “propaganda” in 1775, or 1860, or 1917, or 1941, but propaganda is the very heart of why any otherwise sane person, anywhere, any time, would voluntarily submit to something called “authority”, where you give some hired guns a special costume and with it the power of life and death. A uniform, a badge, a robe, a necktie, etc.

    The irony is that the very personality traits that make those “hired guns” (cops and soldiers) such good people at heart, are the same personality traits that make them most susceptible to the propaganda that convinces them to oppress their fellow citizens, or invade countries many thousands of miles from home in a bid to “protect our freedom”.

    http://warisaracket.com/ was true in 1935, before, and after.

    Happy 4th of July!

  11. Average Joe says:

    I expect the author suffers form a rather severe case of historic myopia. The bid for independence in 1776 was no more all about tax rates than the bid for Southern independence in 1861 was all about slavery. I expect this bit of history better states the case than any feeble attempt on my part….

    In Congress, July 4, 1776.
    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    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 mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    He has endeavoured 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.
    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

    Y’all have a nice day.

      • Average Joe says:

        The article posted give the impression that the bid for independence from England was merely about taxes. The Declaration of Independence clearly states there we MANY reasons to seek the separation…..

        “Facts be submitted to a candid world.
        He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
        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.
        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.
        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.
        He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
        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 mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
        He has endeavoured 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.
        He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
        He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
        He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
        He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
        He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
        He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
        For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
        For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
        For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
        For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
        For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
        For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
        For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
        For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
        For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
        He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
        He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
        He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
        He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
        He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
        In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

        I hope I have understood your “?” correctly.

        Y’all have a nice day.