Think the American Revolution was just about taxes, tea parties, and representation?
Think again.
The real conflict wasn’t about a few policies. It was about power – a British claim to unlimited, centralized power “in all cases whatsoever.”
James Madison later called this the “fundamental principle” on which independence itself was declared.
And he was far from alone.
John Hancock, Thomas Paine, John Dickinson, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and many others all agreed.
Yet, you won’t hear about this in government-run schools. Because teaching the truth means exposing the real problem: unlimited, centralized power.
A REPEAL THAT WASN’T REALLY A VICTORY
In response to what Murray Rothbard called “the people’s nullification of the Stamp Act,” Parliament repealed the act to save face. But on the very same day, March 18, 1766, they passed the Declaratory Act to assert they still had power to do whatever they wanted.
Officially titled “An act for the better securing the dependency of his majesty’s dominions in America upon the crown and parliament of Great Britain,” the law was far more dangerous than the Stamp Act itself.
It claimed total, unlimited, and centralized power over the colonies and the people.
“Parliament had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”
But wait, there’s more!
The Declaratory Act didn’t just claim absolute power – it also declared that any formal rejection of their power was null and void:
“…all resolutions, votes, orders, and proceedings, in any of the said colonies or plantations, whereby the power and authority of the parliament of Great Britain, to make laws and statutes as aforesaid, is denied, or drawn into question, are, and are hereby declared to be, utterly null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.”
Parliament wasn’t just asserting control – it was attempting to wipe out any legal or political challenge to its authority. Any colonial measures rejecting British rule were now dismissed as if they had never existed.
IT’S A TRAP
At the time, people were desperate for a win. The repeal of the Stamp Act felt like a victory, and many celebrated without realizing they had just walked into a much bigger trap. Even Benjamin Franklin fell for it.
Testifying before the House of Commons in February 1766, Franklin reassured Parliament that the colonists wouldn’t care about the Declaratory Act – so long as it wasn’t enforced:
“I think the resolutions of right will give them very little concern, if they are never attempted to be carried into practice.”
Like many at the time, Franklin assumed Parliament was just making a symbolic gesture. The British had passed a similar Declaratory Act over Ireland in 1719 but rarely used it. Franklin thought America would be treated the same way.
“The Colonies will probably consider themselves in the same situation, in that respect, with Ireland; they know you claim the same right with regard to Ireland, but you never exercise it. And they may believe you never will exercise it in the Colonies, any more than in Ireland, unless on some very extraordinary occasion.”
But some immediately saw the danger.
John Adams, writing in April 1766, wasn’t convinced Parliament would leave its power unused:
“The 1st. Resolve is that K., Lds. and Commons have an undoubted Right to make Laws for the Colonies in all Cases, whatever. I am solicitous to know whether they will lay a Tax, in Consequence of that Resolution, or what Kind of a Law they will make.”
Adams saw what others didn’t at the time. This wasn’t just a claim of power. It was a warning of what was coming next.
FROM THEORY TO REALITY
Just 15 months later, Parliament proved the Declaratory Act wasn’t just symbolic. In 1767, they put their claim to unlimited power into practice with the Townshend Acts, imposing duties on glass, lead, paints, paper, and tea – all of which had to be imported from Britain.
John Dickinson immediately recognized what Parliament was really doing:
“…instantly on repealing the Stamp Act, an act passed, declaring the power of parliament to bind these colonies in all cases whatever. This however was only planting a barren tree, that cast a shade indeed over the colonies, but yielded no fruit.”
By 1772, John Adams warned that this wasn’t just a legal theory – it was a recipe for total control.
“If K[ing], Lords and Commons, can make Laws to bind Us in all Cases whatsoever, The People here will have no Influence, no Check, no Power, no Controul, no Negative.”
WORSE THAN ROME
The danger was clear. In November 1772, Joseph Warren pointed directly to the Declaratory Act as the root of British oppression.
“The British Parliament have assumed the Powers of Legislation for the Colonists in all Cases whatsoever, without obtaining the Consent of the Inhabitants, which is ever essentially necessary to the rightful Establishment of such a Legislative.”
But it wasn’t just about Parliament claiming power – it was about how they intended to use it. Warren warned that Britain had already begun exercising that power in the most oppressive way possible: by seizing wealth without consent.
“They have exerted that assumed Power, in raising a Revenue in the Colonies without their Consent; thereby depriving them of that Right which every Man has to keep his own Earnings in his own Hands until he shall, in Person, or by his Representative, think fit to part with the Whole or any Portion of it.”
Warren made it clear: this wasn’t just about taxation – it was about total economic subjugation. He warned that Britain had already begun enforcing this power with blatant disregard for colonial rights, treating them with even less dignity than the Roman Empire afforded its conquered provinces.
“In this respect we are treated with less Decency and Regard than the Romans shewed even to the Provinces which they had conquered.”
The Romans at least allowed their provinces some degree of autonomy in collecting taxes. The British, on the other hand, dictated not just how much would be taken – but how and when, with no regard for the will of the people.
“They only determined upon the Sum which each should furnish, and left every Province to raise it in the Manner most easy and convenient to themselves.”
To Warren, this was a level of tyranny beyond even that of an empire infamous for conquest.
SHIFTING THE DEBATE TO TOTAL POWER
By 1773, Samuel Adams saw the bigger picture. He understood that Parliament wasn’t just focused on taxation – it was attempting to set a precedent. If the colonies accepted its power in one instance, there would be no limit to what they could impose.
“By assuming the Power of making Laws for America IN ALL CASES, at the time when the Stamp Act was repealed, it was probably their Design… if they could once establish the Precedent in an Instance of so much importance to us, as that of taking our Money from us, they should thenceforward find it very easy to exercise their pretended Right in every other Case.”
He understood the long-term danger: Once Parliament forced the colonies to accept taxation without consent, it would be easy to extend its power to every other aspect of colonial life.
Richard Henry Lee noted how the debate had evolved over time.
“At first it was a tender point to question the authority of parliament over us in any case whatsoever; time and you have proved that their right is equally questionable in all cases whatsoever.”
What once seemed too radical to even question – Parliament’s authority in any situation – was now becoming more widely accepted in every situation.
NO LONGER JUST A THEORY
By 1774, Parliament’s claim of unlimited power had already been in practice for years. What had started as a legal declaration in 1766 had become the daily reality of British rule.
In his Massacre Day Oration, John Hancock left no doubt: every British action – taxation, military occupation, and crackdowns on colonial resistance – was an outgrowth of the Declaratory Act.
“They have declared that they have, ever had, and of right ought ever to have, full power to make laws of sufficient validity to bind the colonies in all cases whatever.”
And it wasn’t just empty words. Hancock made it clear: Parliament had already acted on this claim, proving it wasn’t just a theoretical power grab – it was the direct cause of their oppression.
“They have exercised this pretended right by imposing a tax upon us without our consent; and lest we should shew some reluctance at parting with our property, her fleets and armies are sent to inforce their mad pretensions.”
Later that year, the First Continental Congress backed him up in their Declaration and Resolves, making it clear that everything – taxes, standing armies, restrictions on trade – was an outgrowth of Parliament’s unlimited power claim.
“Since the close of the last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power, of right, to bind the people of America by statutes in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts, expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue…”
The Congress understood that it wasn’t just about taxation – it was about the British treating the colonies as subjects under complete legislative subjugation.
And Alexander Hamilton obliterated the claim that the conflict was just about a minor tax. In A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress, he ridiculed the idea that the colonies were fighting over “three pence a pound on tea.”
Hamilton saw the bigger picture – this wasn’t just taxation, and it wasn’t just tea. It was about Parliament’s assertion of unlimited power over the colonies. If that claim was accepted, there would be no limit to what laws they could impose.
“The parliament claims a right to tax us in all cases whatsoever: Its late acts are in virtue of that claim. How ridiculous then is it to affirm, that we are quarrelling for the trifling sum of three pence a pound on tea; when it is evidently the principle against which we contend.”
THE REAL ROOT CAUSE
Decades after the war, James Madison didn’t mince words. The true cause of the American Revolution wasn’t about a minor tax or a list of grievances – it was about a fundamental battle over power.
“The fundamental principle of the revolution was, that the colonies were co-ordinate members with each other, and with Great-Britain; of an Empire, united by a common Executive Sovereign, but not united by any common Legislative Sovereign.”
The colonies rejected the idea that Parliament had any rightful power over them. Great Britain, on the other hand, claimed absolute power “in all cases whatsoever.” That was the true source of the revolution.
“A denial of these principles by Great-Britain, and the assertion of them by America, produced the revolution.”
And the final result? Britain’s claim to total control was shattered.
“The assertion by Great Britain of a power to make laws for the other members of the Empire in all cases whatsoever, ended in the discovery, that she had a right to make laws for them, in no cases whatsoever.”
THE TRUTH THEY WON’T TEACH YOU
The real root cause of the American Revolution wasn’t just about taxes, tea, or representation.
Hancock, Paine, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison – and many others – all pointed to the Declaratory Act of 1766 as the true catalyst. It was the moment Britain claimed the power to do anything it wanted “in all cases whatsoever.”
Everything that followed:
- Taxation without consent.
- Military occupation.
- Crackdowns on resistance.
- And more..
stemmed directly from that sweeping assertion of total power.
But you won’t hear this in government-run schools. Because teaching the truth means exposing the real problem: unlimited, centralized power.
And that’s a lesson they don’t want you to learn.
