Except, as UDS has said, it wasn’t a government by George III; it was a government drawn from Parliament, and exercising policies and making decisions that had the support of Parliament. George III was in general agreement and support of those policies, but it was Parliament and the King that made the policies, collectively. You wouldn’t know that from reading the DoI, which puts it all on George’s shoulders, personally.
I stand to be corrected, but Parliament didn’t much care who the governors were and they turned out to be pretty much George’s political lackeys. They would come from England because of political patronage and had absolute power to withhold assent from colonial legislatures. All without being from Virginia (let’s say) and really doing the King’s bidding.
They may have also been doing Parliament’s bidding, but as I said, one of the issues was that Parliament left the government of all colonies (including the U.S. and Canada) to the king because they really didn’t care about us: which was one of the reasons we got upset and you all later got upset (but broke away through peaceful means).
So when you look at it, although Parliament was largely the problem, the King could have addressed Jefferson’s concerns if he wanted, but obstinently refused to do so.
I wouldn’t agree. One of the flashpoints for the revolution was the Intolerable Acts, all passed by Parliament. George III could not unilaterally change those laws:
Those were follow-ups to the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act, also passed by Parliament. Again, George III could not unilaterally change those laws.
Some of the things listed in the Declaration were executive acts, but some were legislative, and some of the executive acts were authorised by the legislation. It’s not possible to separate the executive acts from the legislative; they were all actions of the British government.
And it’s also not possible to say that the executive actions (including the selection of governors and the terms of instructions given to governors) were ultimately driven by the King or by his wishes. They were driven by ministers, but the ministers could have been (a) doing mainly what the king wished/thought was a good idea; (b) doing what they themselves wished/thought was a good idea; or (c) doing something at the behest of/in order to please this or that faction in Parliament.
Yes, the 18th century British constitution was rather murky in its actual operation …
But the king was—intentionally—the symbolic representation of the nation, the state, and sovereignty generally. So the king is the most logical target for what is ultimately not a legislative or constitutional political or administrative proposal but rather a general declaration of sovereign ideals and an appeal to the public for support.
It wasn’t written for the prime minister’s government to consider and bring to bear well-considered ministerial action on. It was written for egging on an entire people to develop a concept of nationhood and revolt against the authority, committing what in that context was treason.
Thus it makes perfect sense for it to be addressed to—or rather at—his majesty and not his majesty’s government.
I agree. It was a political document, not an academic outline of the British government. But as a political document, it does not accurately state the structure of the British constitution, which was more complicated than one could tell from the Declaration.
Also not really the purpose of the Declaration of independence. Someone wanting to learn about the actual constitutional and political structure of British government was not its audience.
Yes, but for that reason it shouldn’t be cited as an accurate statement of the British Constitution, as happened up-thread in some posts.
Absolutely, all this.
Plus, formally the king was the source of all power in the UK and, as a formal document, the conventions of the time required it to refer to the king. Had it been sent to the king - I don’t know whether it was or not - he would have referred to Minsters for advice, and ministers would have considered it, and advised how to react.
Which is not to say that the King wouldn’t also have formed his own views and discussed them with Ministers, but no action would be taken without first getting advice from ministers. And while the king could reject his ministers’ advice and/or direct them to act other than as they had advised, if he did that he faced the risk of the ministers resigning, and he would then need to find other ministers, more amenable to the king’s own views, but still capable of commanding the confidence of parliament.
So, yeah, this was a delicate balance. The king was certainly not without influence in this matter, but he wasn’t in control of it. And I don’t think the framing of the Declaration of Independence should be take to mean that its authors and signatories and intended audience believed he was in control of it.
Completely agree.
As the whole focus of this thread gets to - the Parliament could not easily do things the king did not like, and the king could not do things parliament did not like. This see-saw slowly tipped to the favour of parliament as time went on. Kings found that they pretty much had to appoint the prime minister that had the full confidence of parliament, and then listen to him, or nothing would get done. (right up to the reason why Edward VII abdicated). The king had far less leverage as time went on.
The whole Boston Tea Party thing was a result of parliament allowing the East India company to ship tea directly to the colonies from India (instead of via England) and collect taxes on it there - since the company was having a financial crisis. Whether this was the king’s instigation because of his friends, or the parliament catering to their fellow economic/social elite was less of an issue for the colonies than the idea that the tax process was upended without their consent. The whole British system was a form of crony-cracy.
(One fun fact I read was that in fact, the new arrangement meant that in the end, India tea would actually be cheaper. Americans have never let the facts ruin a good argument… 
)
Sure, absolutely, the Intolerable Acts were a source of consternation and it is a good historical debate (for another thread) whether the powers that be over here were just itching for a fight to begin with. But just to quote the first page that I copied from the DOI, Jefferson complained of:
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
These seem like executive actions which, as others have stated, would have had to had the support of the King in those days (unlike today). IOW, he couldn’t unilaterally repeal the Stamp Act, but he could have told his governors to quit being so strict and let the colonies self govern on more issues.
But is it incorrect to say that as of 1760-1780 that the King would not have been able, as a practical and constitutional matter, without breaching any customary understandings or courtesies, to tell the PM that he really needed to tone down this stuff? And is it correct to then say that the PM would have listened?
I know it is sort of foggy, but I always got the impression (maybe from American schools. 
) that although, sure, the King was centuries removed from absolute power, unless Parliament and the King were at loggerheads on an issue of constitutional importance, they worked with each other on things, and ultimately Parliament still respected the King’s words and advice because they clung to the believe that still had the “divine right” to rule and pretty much did what he said, unless he got too invasive on their rights.
I guess my TLDR response is that if King George had said, “Hey Mr. Lord North, lay off of the colonies” that Lord North would have done so. Therefore, we can sort of blame the King.
Look at the very first thing on the list: He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
By 1774, it had been several generations since a British monarch had refused to assent to any law passed by Parliament (as noted above, 1708, when Queen Anne on the advice of her ministers refused assent to the Scottish Militia Bill). The last monarch to refuse royal assent on his own initiative was William III in 1696. To what law(s) was Jefferson referring?
I believe that was refusing his assent to several laws in the colonial legislatures.
Even there, what laws, specifically, were refused assent by the king personally, as opposed to laws refused assent by the colonial governor, by Parliament, by the Secretary of State, etc.? The King and the King-in-Parliament are not the same.
I don’t remember the specifics.
The Declaration of Independence isn’t making accusations against the King as a person (who happens to be the sovereign), but the King as the sovereign (who happens to be a person).
Isn’t that the crux of @UltraVires argument though, that the DofI is making accusations that the King personally in his individual royal capacity did bad things? I think you are correct, that the DofI is about the King-in-Parliament (mostly meaning the PM and his cronies rather than George III), but that’s not the only view being expressed in this thread.
I did a quick browse of Wikipedia for some context. (I had heard a radio documentary decades ago about the Expulsion of the Acadians and how the governor responsible had been very arbitrary, but London declined to sort him out). I ran across William “Don’t call me” Shirley, a governor of Massachusetts. The Wikipedia article mentions his connections to the off-and-on prime minister, the Duke of Newcastle. The impression I get is that the selection of overseas officials, much like everything else at the time, was as much a decision of the government as it was of the king. Prospective candidates appealed to the powerful connections they had and that was what determined who got the plum positions.
(IIRC one of the perks of the colonial administration was the opportunity to enrich oneself.)
Keep in mind, too, that the principle that “the truth is a defense against libel” came from one of the colonies’ more “interesting” governors.
When the complaint is “he has refused his assent to laws” etc., are they talking about George himself or the actions of the local governor(s) in the name of the king? I assume “He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual” is solely on the governors. From what little I know, the period leading up to the revolution was a constant conflict between governors acting as if they were absolute rulers, and scrappy legislatures trying to get the governor to agree to measures that cut into his power.