What does the colonists’ search for independence 250 years ago mean today? | Column
Published 1:30 am Friday, July 3, 2026
By Susan F. Martin
League of Women Voters of the San Juans
Most Americans — those born in the United States and those who migrated — are familiar, at least in broad strokes, with the Declaration of Independence, the backbone of our democracy. Signed by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, the Declaration formally severed the political bonds between the 13 American colonies and the British Crown. It is the founding argument for self-government.
The Preamble to the Declaration is known throughout the world: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
This concept — that governments derived their powers from the consent of the governed — was in direct contrast to the interests of the British Crown and most other monarchies at the time of the American Revolution.
The declaration goes well beyond the preamble in setting out the reasons the colonies should be independent. In fact, the remainder of the document sets out the colonists’ grievances against King George. Previously, the colonists tended to accuse the Parliament of wrongdoing, rather than the king.
The declaration makes clear that the king was at fault, as his history was one of “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”
In support of this conclusion, the declaration lists 27 specific abuses that justified independence. Some grievances related to what is now known as the separation of powers. The king was accused of dissolving colonial legislatures and obstructing the administration of justice. For example, the document stated that the king made “Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” Also, the king “has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.” In addition, “he has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”
Another set of grievances focused on the impact of King George’s actions on the populace. For example, the king was accused of sending “hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” He was also condemned for protecting the military “from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States;” for “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury;” and transporting colonists “beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.”
Economic and social harms were also discussed in the grievances. The king was condemned “for cutting off Trade with all parts of the world” and “for imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.” The latter led to the well-known call for “no taxation without representation.” The declaration also faulted the king for obstructing the laws of naturalization and discouraging migration to the colonies, thereby endeavoring “to prevent the population of these States.”
Having named the various ways in which the king harmed the colonies, the declaration recalled the repeated petitions sent to the king, Parliament and British public, “all unanswered.” The signers of the declaration, upon declaring the colonies free and independent states, then mutually pledged “to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
To anyone who has attended protests of the current administration’s policies, the grievances may sound familiar. Millions of patriotic Americans fear for the loss of our democracy. The separation of powers that the Constitution promised is fragile, as is the due process that has been at the core of our representative government. The economic and social harms raised by the founders — trade and taxation policies — remain areas of debate. When and how the country will again be a “nation of immigrants” is also under threat.
As in 1776, we the people must continue to remind our elected representatives that they have a responsibility to protect our democracy. The League of Women Voters is committed, as its mission requires, to empower voters and defend democracy.
As Benjamin Franklin responded when he was asked if the United States would have a republic or a monarchy after the signing of the Constitution, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Being an informed and committed voter is the best way to keep our republic.
Susan F. Martin is a member of the board of directors of the League of Women Voters of Washington.
