When looking back at the American Revolution most history books between the grades of 1st-12th majority public schools, have it written that the British were unfair and unjust in their ways with how they treated/ handled the colonies. After taking this particular course on American history it's come to my attention that it may not have been the case and the British were completely in their rights and standings politically. Also, that we as a colony were being like children when they don’t get their way and threw a quite a few temper tantrums as we see though out the course of the revolution.
It's important to understand history with accuracy and learn from those instances for a better future. Choosing to blatantly disregard what might actually be true and correct will only make the future of whatever institution those histories are founded on a mess and more than likely corrupt. So, taking a step back and taking a deeper look at the American revolution and seeing what was actually going on might show prideful/ ego driven America that we were actually in the wrong (pause for shock and ah from Americans).
For most red, white and “true” Americans defacing the revolution may come off as an insult to the founding fathers and “what we stand for” because of course they were the best thing to happen to the world since the wheel! The problem is that most people don’t understand that we weren't being mistreated, taxes weren't truly that bad, a good chuck of people didn’t even want this to happen, and the intolerable act was completely lawful. Also, the Boston massacre was overly exaggerated and the only reason they didn’t want them to move west was because they just finished the French and Indian war and didn’t want another one to try and pay off.
Firstly, I’d like say that the taxes such as the stamp act were completely legal and justified. The reason behind their taxing in the first place was because of the French and Indian war, they needed a way to make money to pay for the war and the only way to do it is through taxes we do that even today. The Stamp Act was to directly raise money in the colonies and the taxes weren't even that high. “Based on notions of fairness in taxation at the time, stamp duties were an appropriate and widespread form of revenue exaction […] The attraction of stamp duty as a revenue-raising measure to the state, compared to other forms of taxation'. That’s not including other taxes such as land taxing in Britain or slave tax in America.
Not to say that the way it was implemented was right seeing as the colonies had other taxes within their system already. The British parliament didn’t take into consideration on integrating the stamp act into the already existing system they just kind of threw it in there but still they had the right in doing so “One factor which was not taken into account in deciding what form an imperial tax should take, which is also a neglected area in the historiography of the Stamp Act crisis, is the extent to which the colonial assemblies imposed other forms of taxes, often with great ingenuity. It seems that the British government failed to consider adequately the nature of the other taxes in place or had been previously imposed in the individual colonies”.
With the complete stationing of the British troops in the colonies I can see why that may make them a bit nervous but I mean we kind of do the same thing now with all of our military stations all over the world. With them being based through the colonies it insured that the tax would be implemented, seeing as Britain still owned America they had every single right to do so but as we all know that didn’t take well and that leads me to my next point of the Boston massacre.
The thing about the Boston massacre is that it really wasn’t even a massacre at all is was an over exaggeration and eventually used as propaganda. What started out as throwing snowballs between the Bostonians and the British troops turned to an armed standoff and then left five dead and many injured. If not antagonized or had rock filled snowballs thrown at them the instance wouldn’t have happened. “Soon afterward, on the night of March 5, 1770, a file of regulars, provoked beyond endurance, shot into a crowd of their tormentors, slaying five and injuring others. The tragedy was purely an affair of the moment, but the Whig chieftains, quick-wittedly capitalizing on the propaganda possibilities, at once labeled it the 'Boston Massacre and acclaimed the fallen-whose very names were unfamiliar to most of the townsfolk- as martyrs to the cause of American liberty. Not all the patriots, however, agreed. Two of the most respected, indeed, John Adams and Josiah Quincy, Jr., acted as legal counsel for the soldiers at their trial and secured their acquittal of the charge of murder”.
After the instance of the Boston massacre America only saw the British as a bad parent and aren't for their interests at all. So began the down fall of the British control over the colonies and where we begin out temper tantrums as the young group of colonies we were. We then see where we take the biggest stab at Britain and where they begin to implement their correct powers even more so to regain control of what is rightfully theirs. Which will transition us to look at the most notable and memorable part of the revolution the Boston Tea Party and the Intolerable act where I'm sure everyone knows what's happened by this point.
On to the main event of the Boston Tea party and Intolerable act, the basic run down which I hope a good majority of Americans will know by now. The Boston tea party was one of the biggest and notable forms of protest through the revolution, this protest arose from the towns people of Boston to show their revolt to the tea tax which was really to lower the cost on tea trade. The major ports of Boston were flooded with angry colonists and protestors. Once the tea shipment had arrived a group of colonists dressed as Indians, boarded 3-4 ships, and threw over 300 containers of tea into the harbor. That cost of the tea to the trading company that Britain had to pay back was £10,000 and that’s over $4,000,000 in damages by today's standards. So, you can only imagine what would take place next with British parliament, that’s right the Intolerable Act.
Now the only reason the Intolerable Act was written and implemented was because one: obviously because of the damages and obstruction of property that the colonists caused to the Indian tea company and Britain and two it was a form of punishment for Massachusetts specifically Boston because that’s where this all happened. So, this punishment included shutting down the ports in Boston to all trades till damages were payed for, which in turn severally changed the charter and it then started to rally the colonies together. “The Intolerable Acts, passed in retaliation for the Boston Tea Party, permanently deprived the entire province of cherished democratic privileges and closed the port of Boston to seaborne commerce until the East India Company should be reimbursed and the King be otherwise convinced that the Bostonians henceforth would be law-abiding. Parliament further took away from the Whig-controlled town meetings the right of choosing juries and gave it to the sheriffs, who were creatures of the Crown- appointed Governor; and, to make assurance doubly sure, it provided that anyone accused of murder while quelling an outbreak might be tried in another colony or in England”.
The Intolerable Act was in no way shape or form outrageous of the British parliament it was within reason for the most part except for maybe completely shutting off all the trade and ports that may have been a bit much. Other than that, the colonists had no right to obstruct property, the riots were out of hand and these “liberties” they're speaking of they’ve had them majority of the time the only difference now is that they're tightening thier grip on laws and regulations and trying to prevent further corruption like you would with an out of control child such as we were at this point.