The Rights of the Colonists - Page 3


© Brian Tubbs
Page 3
Before Otis gets too far down this road, he takes a brief detour, seizing on the opportunity to condemn slavery. "The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black. No better reasons can be given for enslaving those of any color than such as Baron Montesquieu has humorously given as the foundation of that cruel slavery exercised over the poor Ethiopians, which threatens one day to reduce both Europe and America to the ignorance and barbarity of the darkest ages."

After emphasizing his condemnation of slavery a bit more, Otis returns to the context of the current dispute. He writes: "The colonists, being men, have a right to be considered as equally entitled to all the rights of nature with the Europeans, and they are not to be restrained in the exercise of any of these rights but for the evident good of the whole community." He adds that, while the king's subjects in North America have submitted to British authority, "they have not renounced their natural liberty in any greater degree than other good citizens, and if 'tis taken from them without their consent they are so far enslaved."

Otis nevertheless concedes that "one of the first principles from whence I intend to deduce the civil rights of the British colonies" is that the American colonists are "subject to and dependent on Great Britain." Within this context, Otis admits that that Parliament "has an undoubted power and lawful authority to make acts for the general good that, by naming them, shall and ought to be equally binding as upon the subjects of Great Britain within the realm." With a hint of humor, he adds: "This principle, I presume, will be readily granted on the other side the Atlantic."

Otis, however, returns quickly to the point that being politically dependent upon Great Britain and lawfully subject to Parliament and the king is not tantamount to surrendering one's civil rights. On the contrary, he writes: "That the colonists, black and white, born here are freeborn British subjects, and entitled to all the essential civil rights of such is a truth not only manifest from the provincial charters, from the principles of the common law, and acts of Parliament, but from the British constitution, which was re-established at the Revolution with a professed design to secure the liberties of all the subjects to all generations..."

Otis writes that no one ever "dreamed" that these basic, fundamental rights only belonged to those living in England. Yet, he asks: "Now can there be any liberty where property is taken away without consent? Can it with any color of truth, justice, or equity be affirmed that the northern colonies are represented in Parliament?"

Go To Page: 1 2 3 4


The copyright of the article The Rights of the Colonists - Page 3 in American Revolution is owned by . Permission to republish The Rights of the Colonists - Page 3 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo


Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: View all related messages

5.   Jun 20, 2000 9:05 PM
My first article on the origins of the war - titled "No Taxation Without Representation" - touched briefly on the British point of view of the war as well as that of modern American critics of the col ...

-- posted by BrianTubbs


4.   Jun 20, 2000 1:46 PM
It would be interesting to read the legal opinions
of the pro-British on these documents. Somebody
must have written refutations of them.

Those of us who are relatively ignorant of history
of l ...


-- posted by Prometheus


3.   Jun 20, 2000 10:18 AM
I like your attention to detail. I also like the way you bring up *all* sides of a question when dealing w/ your analysis. And, you don't go off on needless tangents.

So, in my opinion, keep do ...


-- posted by DollChique


2.   Jun 20, 2000 8:36 AM
There can NEVER be too much detail in historical articles!

-- posted by Marella


1.   Jun 20, 2000 7:52 AM
What have you all thought about these last few articles on the origins of the American Revolution? Am I going into too much detail? Do you agree/disagree with the analysis? What are your thoughts o ...

-- posted by BrianTubbs





For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Brian Tubbs's American Revolution topic, please visit the Discussions page.