Misconceptions About King George III - He was an Evil Man, Right?

*First I feel I need to say I AM NOT UNPATRIOTIC. I was challenged to offer an argument that King George III is not the tyrannical ruler that the US accepts him as. Again this does not reflect my views of the United States or Colonial Times.*

During the revolutionary era (~1760 to ~1783) the colonies were relatively young. Britain, on the other hand, was an experienced nation. The colonies can be viewed as a child and the parent being Britain. Like most growing children, the colonies start to question and defy their parents, Britain. The colonists believed that the king actions were intended to harm them, when in reality the king was just trying to protect his "children" from getting into a big mess. The Declaration of Independence was just a list of grievances the colonists made against the King George III, like those a child in a tantrum would make.

If the colonists wanted to proliferate they needed to have a strong and stable structure. The colonists complained that King George III was establishing governments in the colonies designed to destroy them; "He has erecter a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance." They are saying that the king chose leaders who had malice in their hearts and hoped to ruin the colonies. In reality the king understood that they were not being successful, so as a good ruler he felt that he should help them and not just let them fend for themselves. If he had not made the attempt to give the colonies structure, they would have fallen apart. Their economical conditions and lack of centralization would have prevented them from expanding; the king did what he saw to be fit, helping his subjects. The colonies, like children need that structure to be able to grow. If a parent lets their child make up their own rules, the kid would be watching TV and eating candy all day; they would not spend a minute on getting their homework done, it is all about pleasuring ones self. The colonists, in general, hoped to be rich and live a lucrative life. Their main goal was not to do their homework, to centralize and expand; it was all about monetary gain. King George III did what any good leader would do, he gave structure for his wayward subjects.

King George III knew that the rebelling colonists would not be able to form good strong laws for them selves, so he helped them out. "He has forbidden his Governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operations till his Assent should be obtained." The colonists are saying that the king will not let any laws be passed without his approval. The king knew that the colonies were rebelling against his rule; he knew if they were let to govern themselves, they may try to endanger the lives of those following his rules. For instance the stamp men, men who taxed all written goods, were often targets of abuse from rebellious colonists. Also the colonists attacked soldiers who were placed in the colonies. Instead of letting the rebellious and ambitious endanger the lives of his subjects, he set up law and restrictions that protected everyone. In time the oppressed would he rose up and retaliated against the rebels; this would have started a civil war in the colonies. If the king wanted his subjects to fall into tyranny, he would have left them to fend for themselves. Instead King George III decided to make the hard but only reasonable call; he had to control the laws that the colonial governments made.

King George III was viewed by many colonists as a ruthless tyrannical leader. In reality he attempted to better the colonies; bulk of the colonists' grievances was actually them failing to see the Kings' greater plan. One of the grievances the colonists made was "He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States...refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of lands." The colonists thought that the king arbitrarily stopped migration into the colonies. This is one of the miss interpretations; the King really wanted the colonies to be stable. If too many people were introduced to the colony, which was already in a poor economical state, there would be no hope of living as good life. With too many people trying to enter colonies there would not be a sufficient number of jobs for the newcomers to hold. If King George IIIs' goal was to destroy the colonies he could have easily done it by inundating the colonies with too many people; imagine how long the colonial economy would have lasted in that condition. Some may argue that he should have repealed The Proclamation of 1763 opening the lands west of the Appalachians for settlement. First, if this region was opened immediately after the Seven Years War, then the colonies would not have a sense of centralization. The colonies needed to learn to interact with one another so they could be one entity rules by the King, not thirteen separate chucks of land. He understood that the colonies need to form this bond; if they could not form this bond in relative proximity to one another, there was little hope for interaction when the chucks was further apart. Unfortunately for the colonies, they only decided to interact with one another to join forces against their King. If they had centralized the King would have felt that expansion was now a possibility and he would have let more people enter into the colonies. The King only made these controversial decisions to better the colonies.

King George III is given an unfair reputation of being some kind of tyrannical and malicious ruler bent on making the colonies suffer. In reality he only had what was best for the colonies at heart. His rule starter during a major conflict and from there on out he did not have much to work with. He was forced into making those tough calls, but someone had to. He mad tough calls to prevent major problems for arising and completely ruining the colonies. He preformed a service that no on else could have successfully. What does he get in return for his hard work? He gets a piece of paper with an endless list of complaints director at him. King George III in no way was an evil man; he was a man who was forced to make controversial calls.

-All material quotes are from The Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776.