Words: 1326
This meant that the colonist had no say on what kind of taxes there were, or how much they were taxed. The phrase “No taxation without was coined, and seed during the asses to tell Great Britain that they wanted representatives in their parliament. These request, however, were denied by their parliament. There were a few different acts and laws placed on the colonists by Great Britain. One of these acts was called the Sugar act. This was a revenue-making act, passed by the parliament of Great Britain in 1764.
This act raised tax on imported molasses and sugar, and also raised security, making smuggled molasses more difficult to buy and smuggling the molasses into the country more difficult to do. CO] Another act imposed on the colonists was the Stamp act, passed in 1765. This act taxed all printed materials in the colonies, including newspapers, legal documents, and magazines. This created a larger push on the colonists to give more of their money to taxes, and a reminder of who was really in control of them. [5] Another act Was called the Quartering act, passed in 1765.
This act allowed British soldiers the right to live in abandoned homes or factories; any quarters that were not currently being lived in or used by anyone. [6] It also made it a law that towns and communities would have to provide for the oldie’s by giving them food or supplies. [J Another British act that caused tension in the colonies was passed in 1 767, and was called the Townsend act. This act was imposed to replace the Stamp act, since that act had created an uproar among the colonists; it highly taxed the things that most of the colonists used everyday.
The Townsend act placed a tax on imported things like glass, lead, paints, paper, and most notably, tea. [8] The reason for all these taxes was to defer and pay for the cost Of the Seven Years War. Great Britain’s national debt rose from in 1755 to El in 1764. 9] They need to pay their debts, so they raised the taxes on the colonists. At first this act was seen as a better alternative to the Stamp act, but eventually it turned out it wasn’t. The tax on tea was so high, eventually the colonist boycotted it. This was cause of the Boston Tea party.
The colonist also started to riot, running in the street protesting the British soldiers that lived in their town, and ordered them to follow the laws. The rioting eventually got out of hand, so Great Britain sent troops to the colonies to enforce the laws and to keep the peace. The troops ere tormented by gangs of colonists until eventually, on March 5, 1770, a group of British troops fired on a rioting gang of colonists, after being provoked and hit with various small objects, like rocks and snowballs. The soldiers killed 5 people, and injured 6 more. [1 0] part C.
Evaluation of sources The Boston Massacre[11] was written by Robert J. Allison in 2006. It was written to inform people about the details of the Boston Massacre, and the events of both parties involved in the Massacre that led up to it. A value of this book is that it describes the events in detail leading up to the Boston Massacre. It gives both sides, colonial and British, in this book. This helps the reader understand a unbiased version of this story. Another value is that this book is that it tells the reader the different rules and regulations placed on the colonists, and the resulting rebellion by the colonists.
Another value of this book is that the author is a credited historian, who writes factual and researched material. A limitation of this book would be that it is a secondary source. The author could have used biased or inaccurate material to write his book, resulting in a biased or inaccurate book. The source is also limited by the authors opinions. The author has free reign over his own book, so he can put small discrepancies in the book, in regards to his own opinions. The Boston Massacre[12] was written by Hillier B. Cobble in 1970. Hillier B.
Cobble is a historian, and the purpose of his book was to inform people about laws and events of colonist, British parliament, and British military that led to the Boston Massacre. A value of this source is that it is a highly accurate piece of reasoned, historical research which dispels a great myth surrounding the Boston Massacre. Another value is that Hillier B. Cobble is a historian, which which gives his work accreditation. A limitation of this book is that it has a negatively slanted viewpoint on the subject, making one of the sides in the story seem the villain, which is not the case.
Analysis During the years between 1754 and 1763, Great Britain was in a war called The Seven Years War, or the French and Indian War, as it’s known in the united States. During this time, they acquired a massive amount of debt. In order to pay off this debt, they taxed their own citizens, and the people that lived in their territories. This is why the various acts: The Sugar Act, The Stamp Act, The Quartering Act, and the Townsend Act, were passed; they needed money to pay off their debts. This, however, did not agree with the colonists. They saw themselves as an independent people.
They also did not like that they had no representation in British Parliament. The British Parliament taxed the colonists as much as they liked, and ordered them to pay it, under the threat of the British Military. The Boston Massacre[131 which was evaluated in part C, tells the colonial side of the story. It shows the massive amount of taxes the colonists had to ay. This show how much burden was placed upon the colonists. This story leads the reader to believe that the British taxes had the biggest impact on the occurrence of the Boston Massacre.
This is crucial in understanding the context of the situation, as this source tells the colonial aspects of the Massacre. The Boston Massacre[14], which was also evaluated in part C, tells the British side of the story. It not only informs the reader on the taxes the colonist had to pay, but also the taxes the British citizens had to pay living in Great Britain. There were revolts in Great Britain as well as in the colonies hat had to do with the exorbitant taxes they had to pay there.
British Parliament wanted to evenly disperse their taxes among their subjects, so as to not have one group of people paying an insane amount of tax, so they taxed the colonists as well. This is also crucial, since it shows how taxes were not only given to the colonists; that they were given to British citizens as well. Based on this evidence, the Boston Massacre occurred for number of reasons. One of these reason was the taxes imposed on the colonists. These taxes were too high, and were the reason for the riots in the city.
The colonist ad no representation, which they felt was wrong, since none of the British Parliament knew what it was like to like in the colonies. Another reason for the Massacre was the occupation of British troops in Boston. The colonists felt this was an invasion of their privacy, so they revolted and rioted. If the British army would have lowered the number of soldiers in towns, they Massacre might not have happened. One fault of the colonist was the harassment of the British soldiers. If they had not yelled, taunted, or thrown things at the soldiers, they might not fired into the crowd of rioters. E.