Americans, in the 1700, were apprehensive that King George of England would promote tyranny and in so doing compromise their freedom. The Americans were strongly opposed to monarchy and were looking forward to self-rule. In illustration, they preferred taxation devoid of tyrant-oriented representation. It can be argued that the British were generally tyrannical, form a colonial perspective. This fact was accentuated through the imposing of new legislation without having a colonial representative in Parliament (Womersely, 2006). There was a fierce debate concerning virtual as opposed to actual representation as well as the legitimacy of representation viewed from the perspective of the empire and not the British mainland. Americans felt that it was tyrannical for them not to have a voice and subsequently there was no platform guard against any further abuse by the British. The House of Commons took inestimableefforts to indoctrinate that in all monarchies, including America, the people had to in effect themselves immediately hold the power of surrendering their own money that no sleuth of liberty could exist(Womersely, 2006).
The political position was overwhelmingly strengthened through two ancillary influences namely; religious and legal. As pertains to religion, the nature of the colonists was such in a manner that the obligation to liberty which regulated their actions during the working days was also prescribed to them on the Sabbath, this coming with an incontestable authorization(Womersely, 2006). Religion played a crucial role with the Great Awakening allowing New Englanders to appreciate that institutions could actually be created and upheld with an aim of serving the individuals as opposed to them being served. It is pertinent to note, that as regards tolaw, the pervasiveness of legal proficiency amongst the colonists blended with proceduralexecution an accessory to liberty which mayelse have been effortlesslysidestepped by the politicians of Westminster.