Was the US revolution justified?

[Duuring]

Technically the new Spanish laws that enforced centralization were against a document signed half a century before by the Bourgoundiers that made clear what the rights of the provinces were. The prosecution of protestant was not really written in any law, in favour or against, but on the other hand, the treaty of Augsburg said that every ruler could decide on the religion of his people within his 'country'. Then you can argue that Filip was the direct ruler of the Netherlands, and so on and so on.

I'm not talking about those countless grievances. I'm talking about that on thing. Are you saying I can't say that reason was slightly ridiculous to use as a sign of tyranny because they had other, good, reasons to rebel?

The Quartering act was necessary. You can't have your men sleep outside, catching diseases, while there are perfectly good houses inhabited by the people those soldiers help protect? Constructing forts would be time-consuming and expensive, and we already know that the colonials weren't all too keen on paying taxes. I'm discussing the Quartering act, because that (the garrisoning of soldiers within the civilian populace) is simply something I know quite a bit about. As for as those other reasons - I simply don't know all that much about it. I'm discussing one point, not the entire revolution.

[joer5835]

The problem was, by the time British soldiers entered people's homes, they already were so angry about the taxes that something like this made everything even worse.

[Nipplestockings]

The quartering act required colonists to provide housing for soldiers when necessary. The quartering act had been first enacted during the French and Indian war, at a time when it was deemed necessary, and many colonists were fighting the French themselves anyway, so no grievances were had with it at that time. Once the war ended, British soldiers had no reason to lodge anywhere besides their designated barracks, which were commonplace all throughout Europe and perfectly reasonable establishments. Barracks weren't as expensive as forts to maintain, and they were generally kept out of the way of civilian populations, so they were deemed acceptable. However, in 1765 a new quartering act was passed. The colonies had been at peace for some time now, and the reason for these acts was simply because the crown could not afford to quarter them elsewhere. These acts were illegal under the English bill of rights passed in 1689, which also applied to the colonies.

The colonists refused to comply with this law, and following the Boston tea party, a new quartering law was passed in 1774. This law was aimed at quelling radical sentiment in the colonies, and amended the previous one by stating that colonists now did not have to provide food, goods, and equipment to British soldiers, and that soldiers could now only lodge in colonial establishments with the consent of both parties involved. This would have been well and good, if British soldiers had complied. Many soldiers completely disregarded the law, and continued to quarter in colonial inns, shops, and homes without consent, and often looted establishments that they stayed at. This, among other things led to the colonists writing up a list of "Intolerable Acts", which included several other acts that most people are familiar with.

[Aiello]

^ Basically this, breaches of British law angered colonists who considered themselves British.

Great Britain continued to act like a country at war in the colonies despite there being no significant enemy at the time or in the foreseeable future. Britain prior to the French and Indian War had a very indirect approach to rule. The colonies were in charge of their own governments, local economies, and defense for the most part up until this point. What made the French and Indian War, or rather the Seven Years War overall, different is the British saw an opportunity to become the world's most prominent colonial power. As a result of this desire, Britain basically took direct control over the war effort in its colonies with the objective to shut out the French competitors once and for all. After the war was won, Britain stuck with a more direct control over the colonies and did not plan on reverting back to the old ways.

The colonies never had political representation because they didn't need it, they handled themselves and the mother country rarely intervened. As long as America supplied raw materials and consumed British manufactured products the King and Parliament were content. However, when the British began to divert from the traditional relationship it sparked the revolutionary tendencies. Colonists believed that their rights as British citizens were being breached, despite that they are de facto British, many aspects of British law at the time differed between the mainland and colonies. Britain's new role as the world's leading world wide colonial power changed their method of rule to a hands-on approach and that deeply agitated colonists.

A significant portion, but more likely a majority of revolutionaries rose up to restore liberties rather than to gain them. As with many events in history its easy to make a simplification of an event to show cause and effect, but its always much more complicated than that. The volume of reasons for the American Revolution coming to pass is so great that in the United States there are multi-part college courses you can take on the subject and still not have all the reasons nailed down.