If the man who started annoying that one soldier didn't annoy him or stopped annoying him it never would have happened. THIS IS ALL THE COLONISTS FAULT!!!!!
Actually, that would be the Boston Massacre...
As far as the Tea Party goes, Loyalists were pretty much against it. Popular Loyalist opinion was that the Tea Act would actually drive tea prices down and that the Tea Party would only antagonize the Crown. Which it did and the Crown responded by closing Boston Harbor.
If the man who started annoying that one soldier didn't annoy him or stopped annoying him it never would have happened. THIS IS ALL THE COLONISTS FAULT!!!!!
Actually, that would be the Boston Massacre...
As far as the Tea Party goes, Loyalists were pretty much against it. Popular Loyalist opinion was that the Tea Act would actually drive tea prices down and that the Tea Party would only antagonize the Crown. Which it did and the Crown responded by closing Boston Harbor.
The colonists should stop complaining about the king of England.
It made the king mad so he closed the port of Boston and sent more troops. This was an economic issue at the heart of it. The British had lowered the taxes on tea ( not raised them) , in doing so they affected the smugglers in the colonies who made a good living from selling at below cost than the shops. When the tea tax was lowered it made the Dutch teas the smugglers sold higher, so this made them mad. Hamilton was one of the biggest smugglers in the colonies so he got his men together to attack the tea ships under the guise of "freedom" from the monopoly of the East India Tea Company who had a lot of control in the British government . If you think about it this makes much more sense than the fable we are told.
conflict between british soldiers ands Boston residents resulted in five deaths
Americans may reject a one-party system because each party represents a different point of view that citizens can identify with. A one-party system will have to compromise the values of both parties.
First person point of view
They agreed on it while the loyalist didnt
They wewre happy ind played lord of the rings ontheir computerr
They were protesting because parliament wasnt listening to them.
The colonists should stop complaining about the king of England.
I don't know and I am trying to find out. Anyone know?
A growing fear of immigrants & catholics
It depends on your point of view. If you supported England than a tory (loyalist). If you supported the revolution than a patriot solider in the Continental army
The Loyalist thought since Great Britain started the colonies they should rule the colonies, they believed God was against treason and that the people of Great Britain should obey the king. Yet, some just thought it was safest to be on the Kings side.
Their enemies were the Patriots, the Patriots were the colonists. A group of people who fought for the thirteen colonies. The Loyalists thought of them as untrained soldiers, and they were correct. From an Americans point of view a Loyalist was a traitor who turned against the colonists to go with the British government.
It made the king mad so he closed the port of Boston and sent more troops. This was an economic issue at the heart of it. The British had lowered the taxes on tea ( not raised them) , in doing so they affected the smugglers in the colonies who made a good living from selling at below cost than the shops. When the tea tax was lowered it made the Dutch teas the smugglers sold higher, so this made them mad. Hamilton was one of the biggest smugglers in the colonies so he got his men together to attack the tea ships under the guise of "freedom" from the monopoly of the East India Tea Company who had a lot of control in the British government . If you think about it this makes much more sense than the fable we are told.
way of getting the point of view across to be understood by the other party
The colonist's view of maverick-like freedom was put to full capacity, as they protested the Tea act of 1776, and told Britain to BTFU.