As American’s, we have freedom of speech, press, right to bear arms, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and freedom of religion, just to name a few. These are understood to be civil liberties for United States citizens. In 1770, and the years leading to the Boston Massacre, these liberties were not in the picture for the government or the individuals. In this point in history, the thirteen colonies had settled in America, and the British parliament decided to inflict new taxes and rules to these colonist to try and pay for the war that just ended. The Boston Massacre was a result of mistreatment to the colonist by British parliament. When it comes to the topic of the Boston Massacre, most of us will readily agree that
…show more content…
To these colonist, they had just broke away from England, and now they are getting taxed from them, when they are not even on the same continent. The Sugar Act, or 1764 Revenue Act, was a tax that was put on all sugar imports. The colonist were being taxed to export the sugar out, and also taxed for receiving it back from England. In Mark Clemons’s article “Massacre on King Street,” he explains the steps the colonist took. Clemons states, “Colonist began boycotting, or not buying British goods.” In saying this, it shows that colonist were not going to back down, and give into the taxes being put on them. In saying all of this, if the British Parliament had not set forth the Sugar Act and the foreboding of settling west, the colonist would not have been so …show more content…
While I understand the reason behind the taxation, and the rules, I do not believe that it was fair, or right of the British parliament to evoke taxes on colonist who were under their own governments. The massacre itself could have very easily been avoided, if the troops had not been put into the city. The five that died that day should not have, because the colonist were unarmed. On one hand, the colonist got what they wanted, due to the American Revolution that followed, but on the other hand, they lost colonists who should have been able to bask in the glory of freedom from Great Britain. This event in history has largely influenced today’s
To these colonist, they had just broke away from England, and now they are getting taxed from them, when they are not even on the same continent. The Sugar Act, or 1764 Revenue Act, was a tax that was put on all sugar imports. The colonist were being taxed to export the sugar out, and also taxed for receiving it back from England. In Mark Clemons’s article “Massacre on King Street,” he explains the steps the colonist took. Clemons states, “Colonist began boycotting, or not buying British goods.” In saying this, it shows that colonist were not going to back down, and give into the taxes being put on them. In saying all of this, if the British Parliament had not set forth the Sugar Act and the foreboding of settling west, the colonist would not have been so …show more content…
While I understand the reason behind the taxation, and the rules, I do not believe that it was fair, or right of the British parliament to evoke taxes on colonist who were under their own governments. The massacre itself could have very easily been avoided, if the troops had not been put into the city. The five that died that day should not have, because the colonist were unarmed. On one hand, the colonist got what they wanted, due to the American Revolution that followed, but on the other hand, they lost colonists who should have been able to bask in the glory of freedom from Great Britain. This event in history has largely influenced today’s