Stamp+Act

Editorial: The Sons of Liberty were not justified to let the mobs be used as a political tactic. There were too many bad outcomes to enforce that there was any good outcomes that would come out. To enforce mobs, it would cause more conflict then what was already going on. With the mobs going on, it made the british to cause consequences upon the whole town. The consequences included the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act was what had caused the town to make mobs which ultimately caused the consequences as to be taxed to everything they mostly needed. The outdoor meetings were also hard to handle, which gave them a loss of standing there as a more forceful group of people. This lack of authority claimed to show the officials that the mobs were a weakness and they handled that against the colonists. If they handled that against the colonist, then that would have gave the colonists a lesser chance to making themselves appear more dominate. With the less number of dominance against your opponents, you lose your sense of power, because they lost their sence of power, it showed to the officials that these mobs were not to be feared of, and could be easily over thrown of. With the colonist keeping on causing riots, it made the officials angry. With anger, there always come consequences. These consequences involved taxes, now with the British, they still had a debt and needed the colonist to pay a tax in some sort of way. With the Sugar act being repealed, they decided to enforce the Stamp Act, which meant everything that was paper had a tax. The mobs broke out even more, but the more they broke out, the more the consequences piled up. I feel that the Sons of Liberty were stupid to put the mobs as a political tactic, politics doesn't involve violence, they could have found a better way to sort things out. If they had made better tactics against the crown officials, they could have won over them. The lack of skill they had presented let them lose their fear more than anything. The loss of fear had let the crown officials see the meetings were so out of place that they could easily penetrate and retaliate against the mobs. The Sons Of Liberty had no justice to use the mobs as a political tactic, the mobs in a way was a more weaker sorce to the colonist more than anything. The usage of the mobs did not help as they were intended to, but hurt them more than anything.

Wordle:

Mark up: media type="custom" key="7318339" Slide Show: media type="custom" key="7318353"

Townshend Acts: The colonist didn’t have any chance to oppose the Townshend Act in a legal and legitimate way. If they were too oppose anything then they would have had to make a government and go against British Parliament, but in each case both would be overpowered in each others government, so there would be no win to either situation. If they tried to just not purchase all of these goods then that would just result into an impossible situation because they would have to use those resources. I think that either way the colonist were put into situations that were hard for them to handle. They were trapped either way because it was hard to find a balance between being legal and it actually being legitimate. I think the only way to have made things come out right would be doing something illegal in return to having a legitimate thing come out in return. The only legal and legitimate way that would work is to building an army and fighting against the British. This is legal because while the British were so busy apposing laws taxing anything they could, the colonist could build up their own army and rule over anything that they wanted too. This also could be a legitimate way because there were so many people against these taxes that they could easily assemble enough people to fight against the British army as well. With the numbers close to being even, they could fight and earn their rights and drop all the taxes against them.

The video on the Townshend Laws: Summary: In the video, the guy told us about how the Townshend acts came to be, how they were made by the British Parliament, and how they lead to the Boston Massacre,Charles Townshend's cousin was a good man, and helped with The Townshend acts.

LIst three people who won Elections, and what their new job is and what they have to do, 1. Deomcrat Chris Coons won the senate seat for Delware and now is in charge of passing laws and what to do in Delware. 2. Blumenthal of Conneticut was elected into the U.S Senate, and now is part of the decisons that will affect the United States as in the laws and everything that will be passed. 3. Frank Guinta becomes govenor of NH, and now chooses the path of that state with laws, taxes, and all other things.

List of ways the colonists protested the Townshend Acts: - Letters to Parliament - Smuggling - Boycott - Protest - Writs of Assistance = Bad.

I think it was the British's fault for establishing that fire would be the usage for actually making that their message to fire.

In the first image, it portrays the British having a clear win over the Colonist, and that the British were doing most of the killing and the Colonists were hopeless. In the second image, it portrays a closer type of fight, where the British and the Colonist are fighting against each other and its anyones game.

HW: Who is to blame for the Boston Massacre? Why?

I think that the Colonists are to blame for the Boston Massacre starting. I think they are because they were told to leave and just go home, but they resisted and caused more trouble. Then one colonist hit a British soldier and knocked the gun out of his hand, with the gun being knocked out it flew to the floor and fired. That was the signal for the British to fire. The British did as what they were told and killed five people on spot and injured 5 others. With even this going on, some still chanted "Shoot me I dare you to" I feel like the colonists were given a fair chance to be left without harm, but they were too foolish enough to realize that they weren't going to be given a second chance. Thats why in my opnion the colonist were the reason to starting the Boston Massacre.

At the Boston Massacre, a bunch of colonists tried to gang up on British soldiers, a colonist, hit a British soldier causing him to release his gun, causing a gun shot to be fired, which caused The British to open fire upon the colonists and 5 people died, and 5 were injured.

- Captain Preston was infront of his men. - Close enough to have touched him. - He was behind his men. - The Colonists were shouting "FIRE" - A man talked to Captain Preston before the fire went. (Richard Palms) - Richard Palms said that Preston replied it would be foolish for him to start shooting. - Captain Preston never ordered to fire, these words came from behind his men. - Robert Godard was behind the British and oredered fire.

- HW: Make a guess to how did the British government respond to the Boston Massacre?

I think the British government, started to become more strict with their tactics if they were rushed against a mob. I also think that they probably sent more soldiers into Boston. I also think they trained even more, and took situation much more seriously. I think that the British also established words that meant to fire that the colonists wouldn't have said.