To overcome the colonists' reluctance about waging the 7 Years' War (1756-63), Britain promised the cfolonies they would not have to pay for the war; Britain would. But all the increased taxes of the following years were clearly to pay off the war. Also, Britain was curtailing freedoms and self-governance that had become part of colonial identity.
2007-11-06 06:25:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by kent_shakespear 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The colonists always agreed that Parliament had the right to enact external custom duties and taxes. But they did not have the right to enact internal tax laws, like the Stamp Act tax, because the colonists did not elect a representative to Parliament. Only colonial legislative bodies, which the colonists elected themselves (those that could vote), had the right to enact internal taxes. When the British hired Hessians to help fight the American colonists, the Americans pointed out that the British government did not seem to consider the colonists Englishmen any more because they hired private, professional soldiers to do their fighting.
2007-11-06 06:27:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by MrV 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
nicely i think of that we've been finally justified in doing so for numerous motives. There are despite the fact that numerous issues that we did that perhaps we could consistently no longer have ie: The Boston massacre, which replaced into began via a under the impression of alcohol Samuel Adams and his posse throwing rocks at British squaddies. interior the top thought there have been too many stuff that Britain did no longer understand suitable to the Colonies. attempting to rule a rustic from 3 months away replaced into in basic terms extremely no longer very useful. there have been a chain of undesirable British best ministers, and the King replaced into in basic terms an fool. As for the revolution, we did no longer extremely win, the British in basic terms gave up. there have been too many British squaddies over right here death and the British at abode have been bored with it. They have been additionally bored with the huge quantity of taxes they have been paying to combat what maximum observed as a stupid conflict. with the purpose to end, i think of that we've been justified to declare Independence from England.
2016-10-15 06:18:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well,for one thing,people in those day's really had guts,they really seemed to stand and be willing to fight and be willing to die for what they believed to be true.I was briefly watching last week on a PBS station about a cannon that was from the Rev. War era,that belonged to a lady and her family,and she wanted to know(she contacted the history detectives,name of the show i believe)if the story behind this cannon was true,and it was true.They went into a little detail of how very behind and ill equipped us americans were against the British army.You must remember,we DID NOT have a standing army or navy,and our army was made up of militia(farmers,cobblers etc) and men who had NO TRAINING joining a "rag-tag" army that was very disorganizes,we had very few muskets compared to the British army,and yet thru bravery,consistency,and most important,the belief that we are right and the Brit's were wrong to invade,is what gave our men the will to fight.My dad was watching that,and he commented that if today,we were to stand against the military and try to overthrow the gov'mnt,we wouldnt win.Can you imagine there were people in this country who thought the same thing when the Brit;s invaded us,doesnt matter how technical our warfare has become,it matters do we have the will to stand,fight and die for what is true? Most americans are not living for anything,so how can they be willing to die for anything?
2007-11-06 06:31:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, let's see. When you hand out exclusive contracts to import products, like let's use tea in our example, to companies (let's say the East India Company staying with the tea example) because members of Parliment and the royal family own stock in that company, make it illegal for others to import tea even when that was how they had earned their livelihood, then grant the British Governor of a cololny (like say Massachussets Bay Colony) the exclusive right to decide to who can do business with that company, and he gives it to his two nephews, crap like getting a bunch of tea dumped in the harbor happens.
The colonists were being squeezed by unfair trade practices in a cronyistic system, and they rebelled, and can you blame them?
2007-11-06 06:29:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Completely justified. America had a contractual agreement with the king that the king broke. Since the colonies had their own laws, courts, governors, and leaders in place, it wasn't even a "Revolution" in the true, modern sense of the word.
2007-11-06 06:30:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wasn't the issue about taxation without representation?
Boston Tea Party
2007-11-06 06:25:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Unsub29 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wars are started by people, who believe they can. Justification is in the eyes of the beholder.
2007-11-06 06:28:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋