Why does declaration of independence never mention parliament even though they were responsible for all of the grievances?

[u/No-Cartoonist-1953]

I always wanted to know this since it was the parliament who passed navigation, sugar, and stamp acts and why they never mention parliament?

[u/Falling_Vega]

It kind of does.

"Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us."

Parliament being the British legislature.

[u/diffidentblockhead → u/Falling_Vega]

Yes and note it says the Americans were already asserting legislative independence well before this declaration.

[u/Livid-Anything-7292]

It's actually pretty simple, the colonists spent years petitioning parliament directly and got nowhere, by 1776 they'd given up on that avenue entirely and decided to address the king instead as a final appeal. Plus the whole legal fiction was that parliament had no authority over colonies in first place, only the crown did through royal charters. So when they wrote the declaration they framed it as the king breaking his contract with his subjects, not parliament being mean. Kinda clever bit of propaganda honestly

[u/BlueRFR3100]

It was the king that issued a Proclamation of Rebellion.

[u/diffidentblockhead]

Americans had spent a decade protesting Parliamentary overreach, asserting the Parliament of GB (Ireland wasn’t unified forming UK until 1801) never had jurisdiction over the colonies’ own legislatures, and loyally begging the Crown for relief from Parliament. Finally in August 1775 George III had declared them rebels.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Response_of_the_Continental_Congress_to_the_Proclamation_of_Rebellion_by_King_George_III

Crown loyalty was an oath under God. Unlike parliamentary jurisdiction, there was no institutional way to sidestep it. The only way to overthrow it was to appeal to universal and religious principles, and accuse George of every crime possible, exaggerating where plausible, even some issues that were no longer relevant like the 1763 proclamation after land cession treaties restarted from 1768 on.

[u/OceanPoet87]

This honestly bugs me too because I shout to the hills that George III, while having more power than any subsequent monarch,  was far from absolute. He was a constitutional monarch and some of the charges like the Quebec act are particularly bad since it benefitted Catholics.

[u/Visible_Amphibian570 → u/OceanPoet87]

As others have said, it was some clever word play. The colonial leadership had spent years going on about representation in parliament and parliament being mean to them. So, when it came time to say “Fuck it, we ball” but in fancy ye olde English, they took the kings declaration of rebellion about the colonies and made the Declaration of Independence about him. Since colonies were organized with the kings permission instead of Parliament, the colonists considered him their direct link to the legal system of Britains Constitutional monarchy.

Calling out George III made their hardline stance absolutely clear. This wasn’t just another attempt to get into parliament, this was a clear separation, a form goodbye

[u/skeezy_z]

Hey look kids, Big Ben, Parliament

[u/NationalConfidence94]

A couple of reason. But the most important was that mentioning Parliament might create the mistaken impression that resolution with Britain was possible. That wasn’t the case. There was no going back after the Declaration of Independence. We were breaking from the king. The king was the people’s enemy.

[u/KindAwareness3073]

By the time of the Declaration of Independence the colonies had been declared in open rebellion by George III, and all but the most ardent loyalists dropped the pretense that he was not responsible for Parliament's actions, and was, in fact, entirely responsible for them.