As the assemblies come into power, the colonists centered their allegiance to British colonial discontents and increasingly more on their Parliament. During the late 1760s and early 1770s, the legislative bodies got a de facto right that allowed them to confront Britain on behalf of their own people (Greene & Pole 2003, p. 29). While, however, the legislative bodies remained integral to their imperial structure of ruling, and led their ways to various places with the Crown and with Parliament (p. 29). During the crisis of self-governance, for example, the Pennsylvania Assembly just declined to renounce British power, and finally swept away by the commotion of American Revolution (p. 29).
In 1754, a very beginning of the French and Indian War, Great Britain ruled over a huge empire, which contained nearly thirty colonies in the Americas alone (Greer & Lewis 2004, p. 450). French and Indian war was a great effort for power. Its results in North America had huge impacts on the future of those who won and lost. For Americans, the removal of France as an authority in North America removed a necessary counterbalance against British development and opened its way towards their elimination (p. 450). For Britain, this war has exposed crucial weak points in the formation of its realm (p. 450). Therefore the thirteen North American mainland colonies were only a part of the First British Empire, the kingdom that crumpled as a result of the American Revolution.
Britain governed her wide-reaching kingdom under the autonomous economic goal of Mercantilism. To employ this highly “patriotic” objective, Britain created an incorporated commercial empire including the mother state and several other deprived colonies (Greer & Lewis 2004, p. 452). Assembly passed various taxes and then cancelled them in the face of American objections and protests, not including a tax on imports of tea, which it preserved for representative reasons – to highlight its right to levy British peoples all over. But the Americans, who did not send any member to a far-flung British Parliament, repudiated to admit that particular right. “No taxation without representation!” has become a rallying sob of colonial gripe (Sidlow & Henschen , p. 26).
The British were indifferent to these objections and in rapid series the Sugar Act (1764), the Currency Act (1764), the Stampt Act (1765), the Townshend Duties (1767), the Tea Act (1773), and the Intolerable Acts (1774) taxed and synchronized the colonial market and enforced the severest limitations upon colonial sovereignty (Heffner, 2002, p. 5).
English heads and leaders argued in vain that the colonies have greatly benefitted from “virtual representation”, since Members of legislative body, theoretically, represented not individual electoral regions but nationwide and majestic interests entirely; actions and counter-actions were building to new embedded positions and sensitive obsessions (Morton, 2003, p. 10). Although a few remained faithful to the British nationalism and British rule, most colonists were moving toward the point of no return (p. 10). They considered themselves as successors of the upheaval of 1688 and the British King and Legislative Body as oppressors who went beyond their legal confines (p. 10).