No Taxation Without Representation!
The colonists were really angry that no one listened to what they had to
say, and that they could not vote on whether or not they had new taxes.
They wanted someone to speak for them and represent their interests in
Parliament. That is why they boycotted British goods. In your
discussion, tell whether or not you agree with the colonists. Would you
have agreed to the boycott? Why or why not?
5 comments:
i agree i think that it was absurd to tax them for everything it was very rude .... the bible says that all men were created equal . And i think this apply's to everyone man or woman, child or adult
I do agree with the colonists on boycotting. I mean how would you like it if you lived in a perfectly fine world and then all of a sudden you get taxed for something that was not taxed before. I would be upset to.
Well, whether I would have agreed with the colonists then would depend on my position. If I was running a business that relied on British goods, I might be reluctant to stop buying from them. However, in the present day, I agree with their decision to boycott British goods.
They had to make a choice to get their resources elsewhere or be taxed to the point of not being able to feed their families. I agree with them that the laws that were written were only to stronghold the colonists. This was the way they could still hold some ground for as long as possible, even though in the end the lawmakers still kept some taxes in place.
Yes I would agree to the boycott because the British did not give the Colonists rights to decide about who would be taxed for what or how much. Then when the Colonists didn't buy their tea and pay the taxes, they enforced the Intolerable Acts and cut off their food supply.
i agree i think that it was absurd to tax them for everything it was very rude .... the bible says that all men were created equal . And i think this apply's to everyone man or woman, child or adult
I do agree with the colonists on boycotting. I mean how would you like it if you lived in a perfectly fine world and then all of a sudden you get taxed for something that was not taxed before. I would be upset to.
Well, whether I would have agreed with the colonists then would depend on my position. If I was running a business that relied on British goods, I might be reluctant to stop buying from them. However, in the present day, I agree with their decision to boycott British goods.
They had to make a choice to get their resources elsewhere or be taxed to the point of not being able to feed their families. I agree with them that the laws that were written were only to stronghold the colonists. This was the way they could still hold some ground for as long as possible, even though in the end the lawmakers still kept some taxes in place.
Yes I would agree to the boycott because the British did not give the Colonists rights to decide about who would be taxed for what or how much. Then when the Colonists didn't buy their tea and pay the taxes, they enforced the Intolerable Acts and cut off their food supply.
Post a Comment