Was the American Revolution a Violation of Romans 13?

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Romans 13:1-2 ESV)

Fear God. Honour the king. (1 Peter 2:17b KJV)

When studying Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2, Americans might be prompted to consider our own national history. Were the "Founding Fathers" of the United States violating New Testament commands in their struggle against England? On the January 11, 2023 edition of The Briefing, Dr. Albert Mohler gave an excellent, short consideration of the American Revolution in light of Romans 13: 

In the years leading up to the Revolution, you need to understand that the Americans, by means of the Continental Congress and by other legal mechanisms, were actually making appeals to King George III to rule over them, to exercise his authority as king. Technically, the American colonists were not seeking, first of all, to become un-British or to revolt against King George III. They were asking, by means of remonstrances and other official statements, they were asking King George to save them from the threat of the British Parliament, taxation without representation. At this stage, the American colonists were asking the king for relief. They were basically saying, "See us as your subjects. And by the way, your subjects are [or should be] represented in Parliament. And by the way, your subjects have the right to call upon you for relief against tyranny."

King George III did not respond in such a way to respect his colonists there in the United States (or what later became known as the United States). So there arose a second or a next phase. And in this phase, the big question among Christians in the United States was whether or not George III was, in the sense of Romans 13, actually the ruler over them. If he wasn't exercising his rule, if he wasn't responding to them as subjects, then what sense did it make for them to recognize that a king thousands of miles away across a vast ocean was actually legitimately the ruler over them?

Or to put it another way, most of those colonists came to the conclusion that King George III was not the legitimate ruler, and his government was not the legitimate government. And thus, the argument at this stage among the majority of the Christians involved in the Continental Congress was not that some kind of revolt against a lawful king was authorized, but rather that, by his actions and by the geography, King George III was by no means the actual rightful ruler over them. And that led to what became known as the Revolution. [Emphasis added.]

Key to a consideration of how a Christian should view the American Revolution is an understanding that not every claim to authority must be considered legitimate. Just because someone says, 'I'm your ruler, you owe me taxes and loyalty above local connections,' that does not mean they are correct. For a current example: Russia currently claims to own sections of Ukraine. That does not mean that the Ukrainians in those areas have to forsake their own government to give allegiance to Russia.

Paul and other Christians in the Roman Empire submitted to taxation of Roman emperors–even when those emperors were oppressive–because the emperors were the acting authority, and–on a day-to-day basis–Christians, like–other members of the general populace–enjoyed some concrete benefits of Roman rule. Paul travelled on Roman roads and (on occasion) appealed to his Roman citizenship against injustice. (See, for example, Acts 16:35-40.) It would have been implausible for Paul to claim, 'Rome isn't the authority in this region–they are not really running the government–someone else is.'

Many American Christians during the revolutionary period came to view the assertions of King George III and English Parliament as bare claims of power, without any rightful claim to authority. They felt they were being given nothing positive from England, they were not being effectively ruled by England, and so it made no sense to continue paying taxes to England or to consider themselves English subjects. The American Revolution, on this view, was an establishment of a legitimate, effective local authority in place of an illegitimate, ineffective foreign claim to authority. It was not the decision of a single person to stop paying taxes, but a collective decision to re-order society more in line with real conditions and needs on American soil.