There were a great number of grievances that the Founding Fathers had with The King of England, and these grievances were what led to The Colonies declaring independence from the crown. Not all of these grievances are equal, and some are more significant than others are. Of these grievances, the three most grievous were making judges dependent on his will, maintaining a military force against The Colonies and cutting off fair trade. The three least grievous were taxation without consent, taking citizens of The Colonies captive on the seas and preventing immigration to The Colonies by people from other countries (Roark, Johnson, Cohen, Stage & Hartmann, 2014). The multitude of grievances that the Forefathers had with the King is both in quality and quantum evidence that the relationship between The Colonies and Great Britain would need to eventually sever, however it is important to synthesize these grievances and argue the degree to which some are the best and others are the worst examples.
What made maintaining judges dependent on his will so grievous was that the judicial branch is responsible for deciding on the freedom of people who are accused of crimes. Judges who are sympathetic to The Crown could make decisions on the innocence or guilt of anyone and inhibit the freedom of anyone brought before them. This included anyone who would speak against the government of The King. In addition, maintaining a standing Army on Colonial soil was grievous as it was an intimidating force and the Armies themselves took up Colonial resources. It was also a threat to the argument for independence (Roark, Johnson, Cohen, Stage & Hartmann, 2014). The military inhibiting free trade was grievous because without trade, The Colonies could not maintain themselves. They would eventually starve themselves out without trade.
In consideration of all of the grievances that The Colonies had with The Crown, taxation without representation was perhaps one of the least grievous. This is because while paying taxes without consent is unethical and put an economic drain on The Colonies, it was a small fee to pay to be distanced from The King and to eventually escape. Taking colonial citizens captive on the sea was grievous, however, this act did not do a great deal to inhibit freedom, in comparison with other acts taken by the government. People taken captive on the sea were not on land and could not take part in defense of The Colonies (Roark, Johnson, Cohen, Stage & Hartmann, 2014). Preventing immigration was an action that could lead to entropy and stop any growth, however, it was not an act that was openly aggressive or directly consumed the resources of The Colonies.
References
Roark, J.L., Johnson, M.P., Cohen, P.C., Stage, S. & Hartmann, S.M. (2014). The American Promise, Vol. 1: To 1877. New York City: Bedford/St.Martin’s.
