King George III a "bad" guy???

[Kmcglothen]

In my personal opinion, I have mixed emotions with King George III. First, most of the decisions that brought these unwanted taxes to the colonists were coming not from King George III himself, but rather Parliament. During this time in history, King George III was not in the best of health. The reason I have mixed feelings is that why could not King George III been strong enough to try and put a stop to Parliament. The colonists were very pro-British. They enjoyed the British culture and style. However; when they tried to attempt to protest, both violently and smoothly, the British government would retaliate. For example, their last protest was more of a peace treaty when they created the Olive Branch Petition, it was the colonists last attempt to construct peace with Britain. (page 53-55) According to many historians, King George III refused their effort for peace, proclaimed the colonists in open rebellion, and prepared for war (page 55). This resulted with the Revolutionary War.

[nicolesmith]

George III wasn’t necessarily a bad guy, he just wasn’t very intelligent. He was described as being young, impetuous, shy, and inexperienced in politics. He was also described as stubborn. He did not want to run things the way his grandfather and great-grandfather had. He did not choose ministers that Parliament supported, and he was said to have violated political conventions. He was imposing decisions on the leading Parliament rather than governing through them. “By diligently attempting to shoulder what he thought was his constitutional responsibility for governing in his own stubborn, peculiar way, George III helped to increase the political confusion of the 1760’s,” (pg. 19).
George III noted that there were insurrections and tumults in every part of the country, but I don’t think he realized the severity of the situation. He was naïve and inexperienced, and this led to the situation worsening. There were violent attacks on members of Parliament. John Wilkes became an important crowd leader. He pointed out to the people what was going on, and caused tempers to flare. “London crowds, organized by substantial shopkeepers and artisans, found in Wilkes a symbol of all their pent-up resentments against Britain’s corrupt and oligarchic politics. The issue of Wilkes helped bring together radical reform movements that shook the foundations of Britain’s narrow governing class,” (pg. 21).