How did Boston Massacre lead to Revolution?

Answer 1

Oh, come on--at least *try* to do your own homework!

Answer 2

It is a good question. The colonists had close ties with Britain. They thought of themselves as part of the British Empire. The Boston Massacre highlighted that Britain no longer treated them like their people back in England and Scotland. They faced additional taxation and they had little to say about it. The British Army would not have been as quick to take similar action in London or Portsmouth.
The fact that it happened in Boston is important. Massachusetts was almost entirely English by origin. Some of the colonies had more people from Holland and Germany. If Boston was unhappy with the British, the neighboring colonies were equally unhappy.
The Boston Massacre introduced violence into the discourse. Once blood is shed emotions run much thicker. Armed revolt becomes more of an option when people have seen friends and neighbors killed.

Answer 3

The cause(s) of the American Revolution can be defined in a number of events within the Americas, however, these events should be looked at in the context of the changes in England occurring since 1760. Specifically the Death of King George II and the ascension of his grandson King George III. Or more specifically the the diminishing of the influence of King George II’s advisors Secretary of State William Pitt and First Lord of the Treasury Thomas Pelham-Holles, the Duke of Newcastle. With the ascension of King George III his personal tutor (the Scottish Peer, John Stuart, the Earl of Bute) came into growing influence.

With the taking of the thrown by George III a different perspective of government came into being. In short this was a desire to restore the glory of the crown as written by George III’s father Frederick in a book named, “The Idea of a Patriot King” which had the basic idea the England needed a monarch to rescue the thrown from the dominance of factions. This meant to minimize the dominance of Parliament and enshrined the days when Parliament danced to the King’s tune. This went against the civil war fought a century before where Parliament won its independence from royal control. You could also make a case that this idea went against Magna Carta and the evolving Common Law.

In part this new royal perspective was a reaction against the cost of the 7 years war. During the reign of George II his advisors, Secretary of State William Pitt and First Lord of the Treasury Thomas Pelham-Holles, were ‘not’ supportive of raising taxes to pay for the war, but with the reign of George III the concept of raising taxes to pay for the war came to the fore. This laid the foundation for a changing relationship over the next 16 years with the colonies. The events which were to occur in the colonies would likely never have occurred if the preceding had not happened.