No, i did not "go to Wikipedia" for my argument. It may surprise you to learn this, but people have for most of time gotten educated in literate societies by reading books. I first read history at university, when the internet did not exist, and when personal computers did not exist. Although i don't recall the exact source for Pownall's letter the Lords of Trade, i suspect that it can be found in the seventh and final volume of Francis Parkman's history of the French in North America, which is entitled: Montcalm and Wolfe, the French and Indian War
. I really don't care what you believe about the English defending the colonies, because what you believe is not evidence from the historical record. Read Parkman some time--all seven volumes. It's not that hard, and he writes well. You might learn something worth knowing--which is usually more than can be said about going to Wikipedia.
In 1628, King Charles prorogued Parliament, and attempted to run England without a Parliament. That lasted about ten years, until he tried to invade Scotland got his military ass handed to him, at which point he was forced to call a Parliament because the tricks he attempted to use--principally levying ship money in inland counties--didn't work as people refused to pay his taxes (an old tradition in England by then, the refusal to pay taxes unless one's representatives had levied the tax). By 1640, after calling and dismissing one Parliament, and calling another with which he argued and lost, he went to war with Parliament.
Throughout that entire period, and throughout the subsequent civil wars in England, and throughout the Protectorate, the English colonists in North America were on their own. Both in Virginia and in Massachusetts, there were uprisings by the aboriginal populations, and the colonists had to find the means to defend themselves, and organize themselves to that purpose without the aid of England, sunk in the mire of civil war and regicide.
The m0narchy was not restored until 1660. Thereafter, the new King Charles II, obviated the quarrels with France by secretly taking subsidies from his cousin, King Louis XIV of France. There was not trouble again until after 1688. Charles died in 1685, was succeeded by his pigheaded brother James, and James was run out of England by the Protestants who feared he would attempt to return England to the Catholic Church. There followed three wars--the Nine Years War, the War of the Spanish Succession and the War of the Austrian Succession.
Each of these wars were played out in North America, too, because the principal enemy in each case was France, which had a colony to the north of what we call New England. In North America, they were known respectively as King William's War, Queen Anne's War and King George's War. In each of these three cases, the colonists had to rely on their own resources to protect them from the French and their aboriginal allies, largely the Migma of what is now New Brunswick. They had a powerful ally in the Iroquois Confederation, which hated the French with a burning passion. They got little to no help from the English, who kept derisory Royal Navy squadrons in North American waters largely to protect trade and to enforce the excise. Their interest at that time was in stealing as much as they could from the French in the West Indies, and the colonists of North America be damned. So the colonists organized their own defense, provided supplies to the Royal Navy and to the laughably small army detachments who never marched out against the French, and outfitted their own expeditions against the French. In King George's War, the colonists, without outside aid, mounted an expedition which took the great French fortress of Louisbourg which guarded the entrance to the estuary of the St. Laurent River. The English gave it back to the French during the peace negotiations.
But the nub of this is that you still don't understand what motivated the rebellion. The colonists didn't object to paying taxes, they objected to paying taxes levied by a legislature in which they weren't represented. They had been paying taxes to their own legislatures for 150 years, and usually for the good and sufficient reasons of maintaining ports and roads, and paying for arms and gunpowder to defend themselves against the French and their aboriginal allies.
Mercantilism was a dismal failure. That was the theory that you set up colonies, and then bleed them white by taxation and import and export duties, as a part of an imperial administration. All of England's colonies were a dead loss to the government, and only benefited private individuals who invested in them, and then expected the government to provide a shield behind which they would operate. The North American experience was more egregious because they had no powerful friends in Parliament as did the sugar planters of the West Indies, and the merchants who traded into India. Which is why there was a rebellion, even if your view is too simple-minded for you to understand it.