Sigh.
This is a good question for a student to have, and the answer is to the history is that it is complicated, but not really complicated just full of details that exhaust the mind.
2nd) Remember to some people in America it was an all or nothing thing, they did not want some members in parliament for the amount of power they have would be small (aka a faction) and they feared this small faction will not have enough power to protect their financial and other interests. In other words they used the rallying cry of No Taxation without Representation but at the same time they did not want representatives, but instead they wanted self rule for only self rule would protect certain interests they had involving international trade and blah blah blah. Put another way it was never in good faith.
Which doesn't change the legitimacy of their excuse. Just because you are going to use states' rights to uphold slavery doesn't abrogate the principle of states' rights. The legalisms behind the Emancipation Proclamation were bullshit, the CSA was not in rebellion, they had seceded. But Lincoln's motive was not military expedience, he wanted to free the slaves. It was a legalistic excuse. I wouldn't have been satisfied with parliamentary representation either, but it's the legalism that gives teeth to my claim of independance. You want to put Al Capone in jail, but you've got no proof that he ordered murders, so you get him on tax charges.
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
