The evidence suggests no such thing. The evidence I am currently seeing is that I have boxed you into a philosophical corner with a question you dare not answer.
If you say, "We must stay under the rule of a King who has not abused us." This will be an offensive position to pretty much everyone on this message board.
If you say "We have a right to self governance, even if a King has been benevolent to us." Then your "grievance" argument is totally debunked.
You are, as most Americans are, mentally invested in the idea that America had a right to be free of England, but you want to make this natural law right conditional on how badly the King of England treated us.
It is not. Men have a right to self govern and therefore they had an unconditional right to reject the Monarchy.
They are the ones that wrote and signed
- Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes
- To prove [Tyranny over these States], let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Hardly, because in historical fact, that's exactly what our Founders originally believed.
Their great slogan was "no taxation without representation" and they wanted their rights as Englishmen to seats in Parliament.
Had such been granted in, say 1773, Americans achieving representation and some political say-so in Parliament, the fire would have been gone from rebellion and any actual fighting considered mere civil war amongst various factions of Englishmen.
Of course, such representation in Parliament may not have been, in 1773, politically practical, but movement in that direction was the first stated goal of men who later became our Founders.