British fired into boston crowd of colonists. First example of colonists resistance is the boston tea party. Boston colonies dump 300 barrel of tea into boston harbor. The second example of colonies resistance in the first continental congress. The colonies talk about how to get revenge on the british.…
Isabel Kliethermes Prof. Paton HIS101/United States History to 1877 6/16/2024 Were the Coercive Acts Tolerable? The Coercive Acts, also known as the Intolerable Acts, were a series of disciplinary laws passed by the British Parliament in 1774. The Intolerable Acts triggered outrage in the Thirteen Colonies, leading to the First Continental Congress and eventually the Revolutionary War. Many argue that rebellion was justified, however. Due to the Quartering Act, the Administration of Justice Act, and the general violations of the colonial rights by these laws, the rebellion was justified.…
The Glorious Revolution was also known as the bloodless war probably because relatives were involved.The more in depth version of the story is that James baptized his son and the Parliament was not so pleased with that decision.That led the nobles to ask his daughter Mary Stuart to banish the king out of his palace.She agreed and became the new queen along with William Orange.There was hardly any violence involved when the king attempted to gain power back.It is important because it was a demonstration to the government and is taugtht as a lesson for multiple people including…
The Revolutionary War is a clear example of rebellion against obstructive Governments. Another would be The Civil War, where republican southerners fought for their right to keep slaves. The Whiskey Rebellion was about farmers who disagreed with wisky taxation. These events represent times when people believed their governments were being unfair to them.…
Colonists were mad at Britain because they had much more acts in place caused taxes to raise, this took place in the colonies with King George III, the colonists got mad and they decided to taunt British soldiers and they also decided to dump tea in a harbor. These two events caused the Revolution to start. What evidence shows why America started the American Revolution? Americans were justified in waging war with Britain because taxes and acts were being put in place one by one rapidly, the colonists were being harmed and being made fun of, and King George III ignored the colonists.…
should have authority over the colonies. People wanted to govern themselves, but were not ready for such a task and this caused scruples over who should be in charge. With Britain’s acts of tyrannical authority, they slowly began to be pushed out of the authority struggle. Barbarism only increases this divide between the colonies and Britain in their fight for authority. Slavery also played a part in the authority struggle when patriots were trying to fight for liberty while simultaneously trying to gain authority to put themselves in a position to abolish it.…
Conflicts and violence in society are nothing new to the human race. Whether it's between the “haves” and the “have nots,” the government versus it's citizens, or citizens verses each other, constant conflict seems to be an aspect of civilization that humanity cannot live without. The most detrimental of conflicts that influenced the Revolution were factors of economic strife, the brewing conflict between colonists and the British rulers, as well as the discord between the colonists themselves. Although there are different theories as to how or why the initial conflicts started, there is no denying that America has a bloody history and a common usage of violence as an end to its means. A constant factor throughout history is the bloodshed…
George Washington helped us in many ways in the revolutionary war. Despite his losses he knew how to run the military. He was a really tough and brave man. Those two characteristics helped us in the military because you have to be brave and take risks t get rewards. Lastly toughness helped us out a lot. When our solders are sick or don't feel good they don't get to call in sick. They have to tough it out and if we were not tough enough then our soldiers would have gave up.…
All in all, we as a people should know that violence is never the answer to certain things, but in some cases in history, violence has been used to change things for the better. Civil disobedience is always the best but often times not practical choice because of lack of people or organizations. For example in the 60s Dr. Martin Luther King has organized countless anti-violent, peaceful protests around the…
Only fifty years after defeating the British at Yorktown, many American citizens had forgotten the contributions African Americans had given during the eight years of fighting and defending our country in the American Revolutionary War. In the year of 1876 at the Centennial Celebration of the Revolution in Philadelphia, not one speaker gave any form of acknowledgment to an African American who contributed to establishing our nation.…
People can have two different views on this question, and its one that can cause much debate. In my opinion, I believe it is completely wrong to use violence to prove something, since I think it makes every matter worse. Violence is always wrong, even in self-defense. Usually if someone is threatening you it's because that person feels threatened themself; if you make it clear you're no threat to that person they’ll probably stand down. And in the few cases where they don’t it's much better to die knowing that you have refrained from violence than to live knowing that you have hurt or killed another person. Another reason why I think violence isn’t right to prove a point is that it actually can kill more people than it can save. America and Germany fought for power even though some suggest it was to solve conflict. Yet after the war, Russia tried going after America, and since then, there as been unrest between the two. Now they have created weapons of mass destruction in order to scare each other off and try gain peace. But what happens when the time comes to use those weapons to "solve the conflict"? Will there be anyone left to save? Violence is the WORST way to solve conflict, and if you try to prove a point it only makes things worse. Overall, I believe violence is never good. It will never be good. Violence only causes a vicious cycle. Two wrongs do not make a right. No matter what happens, do not use violence, violence will only make matters worse, not better. There are many better ways of sorting out things, rather than violence.…
I am speaking about the war as the conflict of interests and state that yes, in certain situations war is necessary and even turns out into a thing to be proud of. War may be offensive and defensive and, just like in the case of self-defense, in the event of armed attack from another country any kind of violence used in retaliation is acceptable, because any other course of action will mean suicide. Looking at the same analogy, there is no much difference between a country attacking another country from a mugger on the street. The fact that the offenders are numerous, wear uniforms and deliver speeches makes absolutely no difference.…
Violence is not always necessary during a revolution, but the exceptions are few. When a ruler treats the people so poorly they have to revolt, most are not likely to care about peaceful demonstrations. An example of a peaceful a revolution, which succeeded with the help of peace, is when the Indians revolted from the British in 1948.Ghandi’s plan on not using violence and only revolt using peace worked, for the Indians. The British used a large amount of violence to stop the revolt, and a lot of Indians got hurt. So even though the Indians revolted using peace, violence still played a large role.…
Some people may think that having a war or a rebellion is their last chance, last hope to bring peace and order for their lives but not only for their lives but also for the entire country. They are lucky enough if it resulted on the way they wanted to. However, in some cases due to the armed rebellion it causes the citizens to be aware about violence and brutality. They even learn about no limits and no concerns which lead them to kill anybody without minding the age, sex, location and family ties. Just like what happened in the rebellion of 1837 in Upper and Lower Canada. Both colonies had a rebel against the ruling government. Mostly, they have the same thoughts of discontent and unrest. Consequently, not all of them succeeded the rebellion where many of them had been killed with an extreme violence, no signs of mercy can be seen.…
I think violence to achieve ones goal as an effective strategy is injustice and ineffective. I disagree that violence is that key to solve everything. For one, it is harmful. All actions create reactions; there are better ways to deal with anger and disappointment then lashing out at someone. Some people don't know their own strength, or don't have the ability to stop once they get going.…