The colonies would never have dreamed of revolting or even trying to reform Britain's way of government if they didn't come to the new world. I think they take some sort of pride in being independent and running their government themselves. But the thing is they don't even want completely independence, at least not yet. The settlers and colonists in the colonies also are tired of being pushed around, and once again, not even being in Britain makes them somewhat feel unfairly controlled. The fact that the English colonists could complain and reform the way they were lead by the British gave them more and more confidence. Colonists realized they had the power to revolt and protest against their mother country. For example, when the stamp acts (and other taxes I honestly can't remember) were repealed. Eventually the British kept taxi g and controlling the colonies to an extent that the colonies were fed up. I always think of the "17 year old who's never had any rules until now" analogy.

Free write:

Britain did not give its colonies consent of the governed. They had no fair form of representation. America responded by holding economic sanctions on British products like tea, they turned to homespun, etc. England obviously started losing money, they responded by repealing pretty much al, taxes except for tea. So the colonists decide to boycott the tea and buy cheaper, smuggled tea from the Dutch. Britain lowers the price of their tea lower than the Dutch. The colonists obviously decide to buy the new and cheaper British tea. Buying britains tea gives the leadership the colonists' consent.