BOSTON MASSACRE
During the Boston Massacre neither the British or the colonists were justified. Both were wrong in their actions and the Boston Massacre's severity could have been avoided. Lives could have been spared if things were done a little differently. My reasoning behind this decision is that both sides did things to provoke the opposite side. The British put acts and taxes on the colonists that they didn't think were fair so they didn't abide by them. That agitated the British even more than they were. The British treated the colonists like they were an extension of Britain, when in reality they went to the New World to get their own country and live by their own rules. It was wrong for the British to treat the colonists like children by taking away their rights and basically some of their freedom. The colonists did things to provoke the British as well. They treated the British soldiers as the lowest rank in society. Not only did they verbally abuse them but they actually threw stones and snowballs at them. They also hit them with clubs. The colonists were wrong in the way they treated the British. The night of the actual massacre, the colonists were abusing the British like normal and they finally cracked. When the shots were fired it was partially in self defense, but the colonists fought back in self defense as well. So one thing led to another and 5 people were killed in something that could have been avoided if they had just stopped pushing each other's buttons.
BOSTON TEA PARTY
During the Boston Tea Party, the colonists were justified in their actions against the British. The British were unfairly taxing the colonists on everything they could think of. The colonists decided they could live without some of the things the British were taxing. So the king and Parliament put a small tax on tea from India. The tea was cheaper even with the tax than the tea they normally bought. But that wasn't the point. The point was that the colonists were still being taxed. The governor of MA said to the colonists that the tea shipped in would be sold. The colonists refused to buy it and so to get rid of the unfairly taxed but cheap tea, they could only think of one thing to do so they wouldn't give in to the British; and that was to dump the tea on to the docks and let the tide take it away into the harbor. This act was not violent and didn't destruct and British property except for a lock which was then replaced. It's not like they destroyed ships and killed millions of troops. The colonists didn't want to give in to the British and be taxed and become puppets to Parliament. I think they were right ultimately because they kept their beliefs and dealt with them in a nonviolent way as if to tell the British government that they had a mind of their own.
INTOLERABLE ACTS
Again, I think the colonists were justified. Britain really had no good reason to put these harsh laws in order in the colony of MA. One of the laws was that Boston Port would be closed. That port is needed for supplies. Colonists need supplies from other places to survive in their communities. Another was that the King would appoint the governor. The colonists should have been able to choose their own leader because they had to live under and listen to him. Why should the King choose if he is not living there to deal with the person? The answer is he shouldn't. Only one town meeting could be held a year and it was to elect officials. Towns need to communicate to survive. If they don't, they will fall apart. These acts made the colonists angry and anxious. This added to their fury against their mother country. This added to the start of the American Revolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment