1 Answer | Add Yours
If I were an American loyalist, I would be able to counter Paine's arguments with strong points. First, the colonies were England's colonies. It was within their right to run them as they saw fit to do. Second, the British had a responsibility to protect the colonists. The Proclamation of 1763 was clearly passed to protect the colonists. It was the colonists who chose not to follow this law. Because the colonists made this decision, other laws were passed by Britain. If a parent makes rules, and the child chooses not to follow them, it is natural to expect consequences. As the child (colonists) chose to break more laws, it is only natural for the parent (the government) to respond with harsher laws. Third, it wasn't unreasonable to ask the colonists to help pay for some of the costs in running the colonies. As the colonies were growing, so were expenses. It wasn't an unreasonable expectation to ask the colonists to pay some of the costs. If the colonists would have been a bit more understanding of what Britain was facing, we might have been able to work things out at this time. Too often, British actions were viewed with sinister motives which, at least early on, wasn't the case.
We’ve answered 319,647 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question