Paul Revere's Critique Of The 'Bloody Massacre'

In their action of separating from the British, the colonists were justified. They were unfairly treated, taxed, and constantly had demanded the same rights as the other British subjects, but never had received it. When the british decided to tax the colonists to raise money, the colonies had grown even more angry. The Stamp Act for example, required colonists only in North America, to purchase special stamped paper for every legal document, license, newspaper, pamphlet, and almanac. This made many colonists angry since only North America had gotten taxed, and not any other colonies Britain had power over got taxed. Secondly, the Sugar Act, was a trade in law enacted by parliament in 1764 in an attempt to reduce smuggling in the british colonies …show more content…
The “Bloody Massacre” also had a part to play in the stirring of the colonists rebellion. Although it was overly exaggerated, Paul Revere’s engraving of the “Bloody Massacre” was true in the sense that, many unarmed colonists were shot. Lastly, the infringement of colonists rights was also factor in the rebellion. When the British had assumed power over the colonists, they had exerted it, in raising revenue in the colonies, without their consent, in which they had “deprived every man’s right of keeping his own earnings”. But in all of this, the British had felt that they were being fair in all of their actions and taxations towards the colonists. Since the British had fought against the Indians on colonists turf, the British had felt that the colonists were in debt to them for fighting the French Indian war. So when the colonists complained of Tyranny and unfair rule, the British felt they were over exaggerating and just needed to deal with it. The British also thought that they were justified in their taxes towards the colonists because they needed to pay up for the war the British had fought for the