Opening Statements (This is read by Andrew)

OPENING STATEMENT: Since the establishment of the first British colonies in North America in 1629, Great Britain provided them with protection, the transportation of goods, and an opening to the trade and marketing enterprise of the British Empire. Now, weve all heard the expression, dont bite the hand that feeds youand yet this is exactly what the colonies did: they bit the hand of the British Empire whose purpose was to protect them and provide for them. In the following arguments, you will hear convincing evidence against the colonies position. You will learn about: The colonies virtual representation in Parliament and the impracticality of a colonial representative in Parliament; The kings right, within law, to tax the colonies; The practicality of the Proclamation of 1763 and its benefit to the colonies;

And the cost to the entire British Empire of the protection of the colonies during the French and Indian War

In the end, you will agree that Parliament, representing the whole of the British Empire which included the colonies was acting in the best interest of those colonies and the Empire. (Btw Sarah, this is good^)

Free for all:

Sarah: "The Colonies' dispute of representation in Brit. Parliament" Andrew: "The legality of the King taxing the colonies (More specifically the matter of the colonists having right to tax themselves)" Marie-Therese: "The Proclamation of 1763(NO Colonists west of the Appalachians)"

Chris: "The Colonies paying for an English war"

Closing Statement (This is read by Chris):

CLOSING STATEMENT: The King of England always had the right to tax his subjects, and the Colonists status of being British subjects gave the King the right to tax them. The British National debt during and before The French and Indian War was 74.6 million. As a result of this war, the National debt increased to 129.6 million. This debt had to be paid by the British people, and so the governments set about making it happen. People in England and in the colonies were both taxed; this was all part of the national effort to pay off their debt. It was hard on everybody, but it had to be done. The Bible says a couple things relating to the subject of the king. (1 Peter 2:17) says that you must Fear God, Honor the King. The revolution did neither; it threw off the natural order, and through the revolution, Heretics set about harassing the Church for years to come. Also, by revolting, the colonies slapped the king in his face, proclaiming that they, by the power of the people, could do a better job of governing than the anointed King, whose power was given to him by God. The Bible, in the Ten Commandments, says to Honor thy Father, and Mother. This applies to respecting the proper authorities, and in this case, it was the English government that was the proper authorities. In these points, and the ones that have already been stated, I believe that we have made our case; the colonies did not have the right to separate from England. Thank you