Please answer one of the following questions. Please remember the rubric when answering. Organization with topic sentence, thoroughly answer the question, grammar and on time. You have until next Saturday, December 4th at Midnight.
1- What was the British argument for restricting the westward movement? Consider the frontier line in relation to the Proclamation Line and then assess the strengths and weaknesses of the British position.
2- From the outset, Massachusetts was a leader of the anti-British protest studied in this chapter. Why?
3- How did Americans justify their revolution? Discuss the sources and development of the philosophy of revolt.
Massachusetts became a leader in the uprisings and outsets against the British because, it was the colony that was most affected by all the taxation's and new laws being made. It was also where rules were more strongly enforced. After the Boston Massacre had taken place colonists became outraged. Political outlook gained a following and this would ultimately justify revolt in the colonies. So when the Tea Act, Sugar Act, and Townshend Act were pronounced many were angered because the parliament had taxed without representation. (To the English “representation” didn't mean or matter much to them. So in other words the parliament believed in “virtual” representation and Americans believed in “actual” representation.) In the following of being taxed many colonists began to rebel and boycott . For example, the Boston “Tea Party”. An incident in which three companies, of fifty men, went aboard three ships, and dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbor. When word quickly spread about what had happened, colonists in other seaports staged similar acts of revolt. So in a way Massachusetts became a leader by their example.
ReplyDelete..Sisilia Tausinga..
..Period 1..(:
They were mad, let’s just face it. They were so mad, that Sam Adams brother of John Adams (second US president.) Started a revolt group called the Sons of Liberty, why? Because he read a document, which the King said he wouldn’t charge taxes without approval of the colonists. They, being the colonist didn’t approve of the taxes. They thought it was wrong. So wrong they started to “Tar and Feather” people who made sure the taxes where happening. They would “jump” a tax collector, and dump, hot tar on them .Then afterwards throw a bag of feathers on top of them. They tax collectors then wrote the king complaining that they needed soldiers to protect them. So he being the king sent them. They were called “Red Coats”, because well, they had red coats. As the year started to pass, they grew less angry, but then the Boston Massacre happened. A bunch of drunken sailors, road into the harbor and started throwing ice balls at the Red Coats. They take it as an assault shot into the crowd, and killed five people. This mad them even madder, they boycotted every single new tax the king put on them. The Townshend Act, the Stamp Act, all of them, but when the King put on the Tea tax, they got more mad, and started the Boston Tea Party, where the Sons of Liberty dressed up as Indians and dumped two hundred, thirty-six, barrels of tea into the Boston harbor. The king was not at all happy, he made them apologize, pay for the tea, and the King closed off the harbor. So I guess what I am trying to say is that, they made it so there were no taxes in the Thirteen Colonies.
ReplyDeleteThe colonists were sick of being ruled over by the king and they did many things to show they wanted to be independent. The revolting happened in many different ways. Some of the ways were mean and cruel. Some colonists would tar and feather tax collectors who were just doing their job by gathering taxes for the King. Colonists believed that there should be, “No taxation without representation.” In 1773 the colonist in Boston, Massachusetts were fed up with the new Tea Act that the King had passed. So in December 16, 1773 the Boston Tea Party occurred. Colonist dressed up as Native Americans, went to Boston Harbor, went onto one of the ships opened the crates of tea, and started to dump them into the harbor. The King wasn’t very happy about that. Those are a couple things that the colonists did to defy the king. ~Alicia Johnson~
ReplyDeleteThe British's reasons for telling the colonists that they could not move westward was fair, I think. They had just finished the French and Indian War, and that was expensive! After this happened some of the Indians got upset and the alliance between the Iroquis and British unraveled fast. The British wanted to be on their good side, so they told the Indians that the land west of the Apalation Moutains was reserved for them. This was called the Proclamation Line of 1763. In other words: " Get out of your houses, and leave the land you've been living on for hundreds of years! You have to move to some land we resvered for you." I don't think that was the greatest way to get on the Indians good side.
ReplyDeleteThe Proclamation Line was a law/imaginary line, that restricted the colonists to move west. The Frontier Line was the original line showing were the settlements ended. The Frontier Line boundaries are smaller that the Proclamation Line boundaries. You should understand that when the colonists fought the French and Indian War, they were figuring they could move west, so when this line was "drawn" it was a major shock, and it was not welcomed by most colonists.
From a military stand point, this line was not a good idea. They lost many forts that they had just earned, and could be very helpful. Also, if an enemy decides to attack it will be qutie tramatic. With everyone in such close headquarters, an enemy could kill alot of people in one day.
From a political stand point, it wan't a too bad of idea, but it wasn't the greatest. For example they now have all of the colonists close together and not spread out every where. The colonists can also stop pestering him to send troops over to protect them from the Indians. There are bad things too, though. It's not all hunky-dory. The Indians are not too happy about being pushed out of their homes. The colonists aren't too happy either. Although, I think that they brought it upon themselves. They were the ones who wanted the war any ways right! Now that they live so close together disease can spread alot easier. Lots of people are going to die.
I can tell that the British have mostly good intentions in their decisions, but the colonists and Indians are not too happy about it. The colonists offerd little finacal support during the war, and now that they have to pay for it, they don't like it. I feel like sometimes the colonists are very "hot headed" an aren't exactly 100% right about everything.
Question 2: Because Mos of the rebellion was in Massachusetts, like the Boston Massacre. Most of the big things were there at the very beginning. The Son's of Liberty were in Massachusetts, The Boston Tea Party, and so much more were there as well. Paul Revere rode from Massachusetts to Lexington, but was caught there as well.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-British rebellion was centered mainly on the Massachusetts colony. Resistance grew fastest in this colony because tavern and pubs were most elaborate for discussing resistance against the British government. Resistance was mainly talked about because of certain British acts that angered the colony. They were the Boston Massacre, the Tea Act, and the Intolerable Acts. The Boston Massacre angered the local civilians because the British troops fired into the crowd of Bostonian men and killed a five of them. The tax on tea was also involved in the British dilemma because some of its results made colonial merchants fear that they would lose their jobs. This led to a major uprising known as the Boston Tea Party to. After the tea dumping in the harbor, the Intolerable acts were passed by the now angered British government. They cut off Boston’s seaport because of the damage until the Massachusetts colonists apologized and paid for the tea. This devastated many citizens of Massachusetts. Anti-British protesting were all the main results of the British crisis in Massachusetts than in any of the other colonies.
ReplyDelete-Taylor Huggett
Firstly, the British were angry because of the restriction, secondly Britain wants to be in control of the colonies. However, the British weren’t angry over a stupid thing. The British fought in the French and Indian war and the reason behind this was in hope of winning the land west of the Appalation Mountains. Therefore, they fought, fought, and won. However, King George the III made a proclamation saying none of the settlers could settle west of the Appalation Mountains. The British were angry over this because they fought lost men over the French and Indian war; this is what they fought for so they could settle west of the Appalation Mountains. Now secondly. Britain is far away from the colonies, if they let colonists pass the Appalation Mountains, they would most likely lose all control over the colonies. Britain was already in a lot of debt from the French and Indian war, so they taxed goods. The bonds of the British and of the colonists became feeble. As you know the British were angry because of the restriction, secondly Britain wanted to be in control of the colonies. Personally, I think none of this would have happened if they had a better king.
ReplyDeleteThe Americans justified their revolution. The Americans by doing all of these Acts (stamp, tea, intorable) became very angry with the King. The King wanted was money that’s why he started all of these acts. A revolution was when it’s people rise up and felt like they needed to get rid of the King. The people should make the laws not the King and Queen which they don't know what it feels like to have all these problems. Our war was for our Independence, it was for what we wanted and what we felt was necessary. The Americans justified their revolution by standing up for what they believed in. They made that Declaration of Independence because they wanted to be their own thing, they didn’t want the King controlling them anymore, and the King didn’t live in America, so why should they have to listen to all of what he has to say when he doesn’t know of what is all happening in America.
ReplyDelete-Kimarie Larsen
Tensions were building a great deal around the 1700's because the British/ England were creating new taxes and laws such as the intolerable acts, navigation acts. Massachusetts, as well as many of the other colonies created more and more propaganda about the British and English and also began to boycott many British goods. Meaning that they reflected of the information people gave them and didn't like it. Boston was a big part of the war before anything even happened. Boston was also a billeted place for british soldiers. And even spokesmen were coming from Boston. Boston was a big and busy place to be at the time.
ReplyDeletePayden Ramirez
From the outset, Massachusetts was a leader of the anti-British protest studied in this chapter. Why? Conflicts were building a great deal around the 1700's because the British and English were creating new taxes and laws like the Intolerable Acts, Stamp Act, Sugar Act, Tea Act, etc. So, Massachusetts, as well as many of the other colonies, created more and more incorrect information about the British and English and began to boycott many British goods. Most of the people leading these revolts were from Massachusetts, making Massachusetts the leader of the anti-British protest I read in this chapter.
ReplyDeleteJoshua Jensen
2-
ReplyDeleteMassachusetts was a leader of the anti-British protests for many reasons. One of the most important was they were very much against all of the taxes. Not all of them had the money for the seemingly unnecessary tax laws. They didn’t think it was fair for them to be taxed when the people in England weren’t. Also, there was the quote ‘no taxation without representation.’ Many colonists felt that Britain had no right to tax them without their consent. The heart of these people was, of course, Massachusetts. Samuel Adams, a Bostonian, was the leader of these people. There was the Boston Massacre, which caused quite an uprising in Massachusetts especially. Boston was the center of the rebellion.
The anti-British rebellion was centered mainly on the Massachusetts colony. Resistance grew fastest in this colony because tavern and pubs were most elaborate for discussing resistance against the British government. Resistance was mainly talked about because of certain British acts that angered the colony. They were the Boston Massacre, the Tea Act, and the Intolerable Acts. The Boston Massacre angered the local civilians because the British troops fired into the crowd of Bostonian men and killed a five of them. The tax on tea was also involved in the British dilemma because some of its results made colonial merchants fear that they would lose their jobs. This led to a major uprising known as the Boston Tea Party to. After the tea dumping in the harbor, the Intolerable acts were passed by the now angered British government. They cut off Boston’s seaport because of the damage until the Massachusetts colonists apologized and paid for the tea. This devastated many citizens of Massachusetts. Anti-British protesting were all the main results of the British crisis in Massachusetts than in any of the other colonies.
ReplyDelete-Taylor Huggett
Massachusetts was an anti-British leader. Let’s first look at all of the acts. This would include the Sugar act, the Stamp act, the Townshend act, the Tea act, and the Intolerable acts. Now, let’s look at the colonist’s responses to the acts. The colonists smuggled in sugar from the West Indies in response to the Sugar act. Colonists from Boston tarred and feathered the tax collectors in response to the Stamp act. The Boston Massacre happened because of the Townshend act. The Boston Tea Party was the way that the Boston colonists choose to show their anger about the Tea act. Finally, the Intolerable acts were assigned to Boston to punish the Boston colonists for the Boston Tea Party. As you see, all of these “responses” to the acts happened in Massachusetts this is how you know that Massachusetts was a big anti-British leader. I learned in my U.S. history class that for one main reason that they assigned George Washington to be in charge of the army because he was from Virginia. This showed me that even though Massachusetts was a leader, they still couldn’t do it alone. All of the colonies needed to work together if they were going to become a whole nation. I feel like we need to the same thing today. We need to work together like our founding fathers.
ReplyDeleteMegan Earl:)
Why was Massachusetts a leader of the anti-British protest? Well, when government created the stamp act, Massachusetts wasn’t happy. They created mobs, and would tar and feather stamp collectors. British government was angry with the intense harassment done in Boston. So they decided to send British troops; many British soldiers had poor money and would look for jobs. This made competition for local workers. Clashes were frequent between the two groups. Then, a mob of dockworkers began throwing snowballs and rocks at the customs house. British soldiers lined up to protect it and one was knocked down; several soldiers fired into the crowd, killing five people. This was the Boston Massacre, which made Massachusetts very unhappy with the British. And since they weren’t happy with the British, they would make a likely leader to lead an anti-British protest.
ReplyDeleteThe 4 acts of 1774, Tea act, Stamp act, Sugar act, and Intolerable acts caused Parliament to retaliate by closing the Port of Boston. This reduced the powers of self government in Massachusetts in America this was called Coercive acts. Massachusetts colonist were the largest group of people leading revolts. They boycotted British goods and women goods created substitutes for boycotted supplies. Because Massachusetts started the boycott other colonies soon followed creating new resistance.
ReplyDeleteJordan Bryant
The British had their reasons for stopping the westward movement. The French Indian war was now over, but it had left England with a huge debt, and England was already taxing its subjects. The colonists were asking not only to be allowed to go into Indian territory, but also be protected. The king didn’t have the money to send troops over to defend colonists, and he didn’t want them to be hurt or killed. He put the Proclamation Line up to keep colonists safe. The Indians agreed with the line and were ready to defend their land. But the colonists had already mostly spread to the edge of the line in 1763, and in one place had passed it. They wanted to continue moving west. The Indians wanted their homes. I don’t think there was an exactly right thing to do, and having the proclamation line was the best thing to be done at the time. I don’t think the colonists really understood it.
ReplyDelete-Darcy Christiansen
The laws and tolls set strictly upon the Massacusetts colony impacted greatly on the rebellious protest of all the colonies towards the British. Taxations placed on everyday items caused an uprising in Massachusetts more than the other colonies. The Sugar Act, the Stamp Act and the Townshend Duties were the start of the protest; colonist refused to buy taxed items and boycotted manufactures of said items. These taxations were eventually repealed; however, tolls upon tea remained. Before the word of the repeal reached Boston’s ears, a fight had broken out between some colonists and British soldiers. The fight concluded with the death of five colonists, later becoming known as the “Boston Massacre.” The Tea Act later became established and the colonists of Boston were most enraged with this taxation; nearly fifty Boston colonists dumped the newly taxed and imported tea--342 chests-- into the Boston Harbor. This act of this revolt spread across the colonies, encouraging others to join the rebel.
ReplyDelete-Kayla Gile
First of all, the British were angry about the restriction, and second of all the British wanted to be in control of the colonies. Then, the British fought the French and Indian war, which cost them a lot of money, and while they were fighting it, they were hoping that they would win, so that they could win the land west of the Appalation Mountains. They won it, King George the third wrote a proclamation saying that the Indians could have the land, and none of the colonists could. They colonists weren’t to happy about this. It some of the colonists passed the Appalation Mountains, and then they would lose all control of the colonists.
ReplyDeleteThen after the French and Indian war, the British lost a lot of money and were deep in debt. So the king put taxes on in ported goods. Again, the colonists weren’t too happy about the taxes. I think that this would have been better if they King was different.
Brooke Clark
How did Americans justify their revolution? They had ideas that would support their revolution, and that emerged from many sources. Like the religious (Puritan) sources or from political experiences of the colonies and others came from outside one’s country. Most important ideas were the radical ideas of the political opposition in the Great Britain. Some were Scots and Country Whigs. The Scots considered that the English state tyrannical, and the Country Whigs felt to keep them out from power and considered that the existing system was morally bad and hard to bear it. One of the philosophical minds of earlier generations, John Locke-these English dissidents framed a powerful argument against their government.
ReplyDeleteIt says in my book that most of the people in both England and America considered the English constitution the best system that they would think to be extreme needed. But by the distributing power among the three elements of society- government by a king, queen or a ruler, people having a high position in society because of birth, rank, or title, and the belonging equally to all people.
Americans wanted a change. They didn’t want to be ruled by the king and his ministers and pay taxes. The king and his ministers were becoming so powerful that it could not be effectively checked. And if Americans don’t start a revolution, then the only one of authority is the English government of the king and Parliament.
How did Americans justify their revolution is by using their resources, ideas, the philosophers, and the three elements of society.
-Jessil Salazar
The british restricted the westward movement because they feared the fighting between the indians and the settleters would threaten the western trade. So the british governement decided to forbid settlers to advance beyond the appalation mountains, which is called the proclomation line of 1763. The indians supported this line, they thought it was a great deal. The cherokee especially supported this idea, they thouht it would reduce white men moving and taking their land. The relationship between the western tribes and the british improved for a while. But, in the end the proclamation line of 1763 was ineffective. Settlers didn’t want to stay behind the appalation mountains and came in for possesion over the land.
ReplyDeleteOne of the weaknesses of the british was how they were unsuccessful to keep settlers behind the proclomation line of 1763. One of the strengths was that they had great relations with the indians. The cherokee in particular, they helped them keep the line.
annie stoll 1st period
Massachusetts was a leader of the anti-British protest in this chapter. They got madder each time the British made a new act. They knew that the king was just doing it to get their money and they weren’t okay with it. A couple men started a group called The Sons of Liberty. They would do things to tax collectors such as: tar and feathering them and pouring hot tea down their throats. That was their way of telling the king that they weren’t okay with what was happening and they weren’t going sit back and do nothing about it. They also started boycotting and over-exaggerating everything that happened in the newspaper.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Olson
Many people came to the New World to break free of some of Great Brittan's laws. They came in hopes of having a better life, in which they had more freedom. Well, they came to find out that the king was only going to tax them and create new laws.
ReplyDeleteMost of the colonists were not happy about this. They did not want to be taxed. So, the Americans justified the revolution by writing The Declaration of Independence, which stated that they had the right to break free from Great Brittan. They felt as though, they were their own group of people who didn't need the ruling of a king.
-Brandie Mounteer(:
The colonies were mostly frustrated about "taxation without representation". The British were deciding where all the money was going. British troops were stationed permanently in the colonies and the colonists were required to support the troops, even though they didn't even want the troops there. The Sugar Act of 1764, The Stamp Act of 1765, The Currency Act of 1764, and The Townshend Act of 1767 all raised taxes. These taxes were all decided without any representation, meaning the colonists had no say in what became taxed. Taverns and pubs became popular meeting places to discuss politics. They could quickly distribute pamphlets and leaflets planning protests. In 1773 The Tea Act undersold American merchants and angered colonists even more. Continually being over taxed and undersold, colonists had had enough and wanted their own freedoms.
ReplyDelete-Samantha Darby(:
Period 1
After the French and Indian War, the King of England, King Goerge the III, gave everything west of the Appalachian mountains to the Indians. It was hard for the Indians when the newcomers came and took the land they had had for centuries. The King thought it was a fair rule and didn't expect the colonists' reactions. They wanted his army to guard them while they went to the west. Wasn't that the reason they had fought the whole French and Indian War? The Proclamation of 1763 worked for awhile, and the Indians liked the idea of not moving. But then, since of all the space, the colonists went into the Indians' territory again and again. They pushed the border back so they could explore more. They made both the king and Native Americans angrier. So the king taxed the colonists.
ReplyDeleteBy Laura Johnson
Massachusetts was the leader in the anti-British protest because of how affected they were by the taxations and new laws. The Stamp Act had an effect on the sailors and gamblers found in the northern colonies. The Sons of Liberty protested the Stamp Act by burning stamps and terrorizing Stamp Agents. In protesting the Townshend Acts some Bostonians were killed in the Boston Massacre, which made the situation personal for many Massachusetts citizens. During the Quartering Act, the colonists were forced to house British troops. Massachusetts and New York were especially mad about that. The laws were also enforced more in Massachusetts because of the number of British Troops present. The people in Massachusetts knew firsthand of the things the British Government was doing to gain money off the colonists. The way they were affected by the new laws played a major role in the way the people reacted. Mostly, I think the people in Massachusetts understood that things needed to change. They had the courage to voice their opinions and make a stand for their rights. That is why I think Massachusetts was a leader in the revolt against the British.
ReplyDelete-Camille Daniels
After the war between France and Spain, England lost a lot of men and money. To gain some money the king decided to tax the colonists. Most of the colonies didn't mind the taxing and paid them without a second thought. The taxes mainly affected Massachusetts and their trade. It affected them because they decided to tax tea. Merchants depended on the trading to earn money to support their families. Since no one could import tea because of the taxes, many people's jobs were lost. The taxes also enraged many people. The whole colony went into rebellion mode, and when the king sent over "red coats" to stop the rebellion. The colonists' tarred and feathered them. The colonists were so mad at the king because they thought they should've had an opinion in the matter. Massachusetts was a leader in this because of the effect it had on their colony specifically.
ReplyDeleteThere are many reasons that Massachusetts was the start of the anti-British protest. First of all, everything that the British were doing was greatly effecting the Massachusetts economy. For example when the Intolerable Acts happened it shut down the boston harbor. This harbor was a major part of the economy. Without the Boston harbor they couldn't fish or shipbuild. Another thing they did was the Tea Act. You have to remember that these people are from Britain, they drink a lot of tea. but this act said that only a British company could sell tea to the colonists. This lead to the Boston Tea Party. Sam Adams lead the Sons of Liberty, who were dressed in indian suits. They went to the British ships and dumped all the tea into the harbor. When the Boston Massacre happened five colonists were killed. I think this was the event that really got the colonists to think about war. These are some of the reasons Massachusetts started the anti-British protest. Connor Lightfoot
ReplyDeleteOut of all the colonies, the taxes and new laws affected Massachusetts the most. Their whole economy was based on trade and the new taxes made doing this very difficult. They soon read a document that said “no taxation without representation.” This document outraged many of the citizens because the king was taxing them without representation. As a result many people started to rebel against the king. There was a group created by Sam Adams called the Son’s of Liberty. They would go around and tar and feather the tax collectors. After the Tea Act was passed the Son’s of Liberty dressed as Indians and sunk aboard three of the kings ships. They dumped hundreds of crates of tea into the Boston Harbor. This is known as the Boston Tea Party. Before they knew it Massachusetts had become the leader of the rebellion. Madeline Tingey
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Massachusetts got hit the hardest. The New England colonies had less money, because they didn't get cash crops like the Southern colonies. The Southern colonies had more money, and were willing to pay the extra money. But the New England colonies were very mad because how could the king think he could get away with taking extra money. "The Sons of Liberty" group was started among the New England colonies. They helped encourage the people in Massachusetts to rebel against the king.
ReplyDelete-Rebecca Robertson
There were many things that happened that the Colonists used to justify their their revolution. The first one was before the French and Indian war. The king had sent over people to basically baby-sit them. These people were supposed to watch over them and make the rules. Well, they were corrupt and lazy. They payed people to do their job.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, there was taxation with our representation. The king gave the colonists no say in the laws. Sometimes it would seem like the colonists were property. In addition, the people were forced to let soldiers live in their house and feed them when they were barely surviving.
Lastly, it was on how different the colonists were treated. The king didn't force the people in Britain to have soldiers live in their house. He didn't tax them. It was like he just gave up on the people where they lived.
In all, the king treated the people so horridly that they were sick and tired of him. They didn't want to the the kings pets or property anymore.
~Emily Burgett
The reason why Massachusetts was the angriest about America's injustices was that they got the brunt of the impact. They were poorer than the southern colonies so the tax affected them more than it did the rich southerners. The already crowded colony was forced to house all of the british soldiers. If I were them, that would have set me off too. That is why Massachusetts was the leader of the rebellion. Taylor Hatch
ReplyDeleteTaxes were one of the things that affected the colonies the most. New laws were also a bio issue of problems. The colonists whole ecologica life was consisting of trading and all the new laws being made made this oppurtunity a really hard task. In later days, the colonists read a document that quoted" no taxation wothout representation." The colonists were pretty much appalled by this quoting, because the King was obviously not doing this. People were very upset and rebeled against the king. They made a group called The Son's of Liberty. THey did many things such as start the Boston Tea Party, and Tar and feather the tax collectors.
ReplyDeleteKAssey Pappa
Massachusetts became a big leader in the war because out of then new laws they were getting affected the most. There was a man by the name of Sam
ReplyDeleteadams who created a group called the sons of Liberty. He created this gang because the king was taxing them and they had no say in it. So the sons of liberty went around and made the tax collectors lives miserable. The king would be so unfair to them and made them house troops sometimes true. I think the patriots did the right thing to protest these actions that the king did
-Morgan DeGooyer