In Boston, Massachusetts of 1750 Jonathan Mayhew wrote A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher in order to spread his opinion on the British government, saintship, martyrdom, and kingship. During this time there was only some unrest between Colonial America and Britain, but Mayhew's discourse became an extremely interesting bridge between the radical Puritan past and the American Revolutionary future. When a nation of people are being abused by their leader Jonathan Mayhew says that a "reasonable way of vindicating their liberties and just rights; it is making use of the means, and the only means, which God has put into their power, for mutual and self-defense."[Mayhew, pg. 9] Mayhew makes the point that if there is evidence that a ruler abuses their trust and power, then neither the law of reason or religion requires obedience or submission. The ruler should be dethroned, and the authority which they were vested with transferred to others. Jonathan Mayhew justified overthrowing the King by proving that intentional unjust laws are considered abuse. Stepping into the shoes of an American colonist in the 1760's, one would find these unjust laws to be unfair and controlling. One would see petitions overlooked and the foolish and harshness of the crown (a.k.a. the King). The main thing one would come to know is that Parliament was making unjust laws (and not fixing them) and it is not sinful but just to overthrow an abusive power. The British American colonists were sufficiently justified in fighting against the British, because the British were making unjust laws against the colonists.
In the British government in the 1700's there were three main classes. Each class had certain rights, jobs, responsibilities, ect. and the crown treated each class a certain way. In Colonial America, the colonists were not treated as if they were in Britain but as if they were simply people who manufactured for Britain.