Which Law Resulted In Violence And Property Destruction?

Which Law Resulted In Violence And Property Destruction
Which law resulted in violence and property destruction, causing the closing of Boston Harbor? Tea Act.

Which law resulted in violence and property destruction causing the closing of Boston Harbour?

On March 25, 1774, British Parliament passes the Boston Port Act, closing the port of Boston and demanding that the city’s residents pay for the nearly $1 million worth (in today’s money) of tea dumped into Boston Harbor during the Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773.

  • The Boston Port Act was the first and easiest to enforce of four acts that together were known as the Coercive Acts.
  • The other three were a new Quartering Act, the Administration of Justice Act and the Massachusetts Government Act.
  • As part of the Crown’s attempt to intimidate Boston’s increasingly unruly residents, King George III appointed General Thomas Gage, who commanded the British army in North America, as the new governor of Massachusetts.

Gage became governor in May 1774, before the Massachusetts Government Act revoked the colony’s 1691 charter and curtailed the powers of the traditional town meeting and colonial council. These moves made it clear to Bostonians that the crown intended to impose martial law.

  1. In June, Gage easily sealed the ports of Boston and Charlestown using the formidable British navy, leaving merchants terrified of impending economic disaster.
  2. Many merchants wanted to simply pay for the tea and disband the Boston Committee of Correspondence, which had served to organize anti-British protests.

The merchants’ attempt at convincing their neighbors to assuage the British failed. A town meeting called to discuss the matter voted them down by a substantial margin. Parliament hoped that the Coercive Acts would isolate Boston from Massachusetts, Massachusetts from New England and New England from the rest of North America, preventing unified colonial resistance to the British.

  • Their effort backfired.
  • Rather than abandon Boston, the colonial population shipped much-needed supplies to Boston and formed extra-legal Provincial Congresses to mobilize resistance to the crown.
  • By the time Gage attempted to enforce the Massachusetts Government Act, his authority had eroded beyond repair.

READ MORE: American Revolution: Causes and Timeline In one of the darkest moments of America’s industrial history, the Triangle Shirtwaist Company factory in New York City burns, killing 146 workers, on March 25, 1911. The tragedy led to the development of a series of laws and regulations that better protected the safety of,read more The first colonists to Maryland arrive at St.

  1. Clement’s Island on Maryland’s western shore and found the settlement of St. Mary’s.
  2. In 1632, King Charles I of England granted a charter to George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, yielding him proprietary rights to a region east of,read more In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, King Faisal is shot to death by his nephew, Prince Faisal.

King Faisal, son of King Ibn Saud, fought in the military campaigns in the 1920s and ’30s that helped forge modern Saudi Arabia. He later served as Saudi ambassador to the United Nations and in,read more On March 25, 1957, France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg sign a treaty in Rome establishing the European Economic Community (EEC), also known as the Common Market.

  1. The EEC, which came into operation in January 1958, was a major step in Europe’s,read more Yugoslavia, despite an early declaration of neutrality, signs the Tripartite Pact, forming an alliance with Axis powers Germany, Italy and Japan.
  2. A unified nation of Yugoslavia, an uneasy federation of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, was a response to the collapse of the Ottoman and,read more The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., leads a march of 5,000 antiwar demonstrators in Chicago.

In an address to the demonstrators, King declared that the Vietnam War was “a blasphemy against all that America stands for.” King first began speaking out against American involvement,read more After being told by Defense Secretary Clark Clifford that the Vietnam War is a “real loser,” President Johnson, still uncertain about his course of action, decides to convene a nine-man panel of retired presidential advisors.

The group, which became known as the “Wise Men,”,read more On March 25, 1958, Sugar Ray Robinson defeats Carmen Basilio to regain the middleweight championship. It was the fifth and final title of his career. Robinson is considered by many to be the greatest prizefighter in history. No less an authority than heavyweight champion Muhammad,read more The U.S.

Customs Department confiscates 520 copies of Allen Ginsberg’s book Howl, which had been printed in England. Officials alleged that the book was obscene. City Lights, a publishing company and bookstore in San Francisco owned by poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti, proceeded to,read more To some, Oscar night is more about the fashion than the awards themselves.

  1. Much of the audience tunes in to see who looks fabulous and who takes the biggest risks.
  2. Of the latter, the infamous “swan dress” worn by the Icelandic pop singer Björk at the 73rd annual Academy Awards on,read more The Supreme Court hands down its decision in the case of Powell v. Alabama.
  3. The case arose out of the infamous Scottsboro case.

Nine young Black men were arrested and accused of raping two white women on train in Alabama. The boys were fortunate to barely have escaped a lynch mob,read more In conclusion to an extremely tense situation of the early Cold War, the Soviet Union announces that its troops in Iran will be withdrawn within six weeks.

Why did Loyalists oppose separation from England select the two correct answers?

Why did loyalists oppose separation from England? Select the two correct answers. They feared a loss of property, They were worried about mob rule. What ‘unalienable rights’ are included in the Declaration of Independence?

What was the Boston Massacre act?

The Boston Massacre – The Boston Massacre was a street fight that occurred on March 5, 1770, between a “patriot” mob, throwing snowballs, stones, and sticks, and a squad of British soldiers. Several colonists were killed and this led to a campaign by speech-writers to rouse the ire of the citizenry. “The Bloody Massacre” engraving by Paul Revere. Note that this is not an accurate depiction of the event. The presence of British troops in the city of Boston was increasingly unwelcome. The riot began when about 50 citizens attacked a British sentinel.

A British officer, Captain Thomas Preston, called in additional soldiers, and these too were attacked, so the soldiers fired into the mob, killing 3 on the spot (a black sailor named Crispus Attucks, ropemaker Samuel Gray, and a mariner named James Caldwell), and wounding 8 others, two of whom died later (Samuel Maverick and Patrick Carr).

A town meeting was called demanding the removal of the British and the trial of Captain Preston and his men for murder. At the trial, John Adams and Josiah Quincy II defended the British, leading to their acquittal and release. Samuel Quincy and Robert Treat Paine were the attorneys for the prosecution.

  • Later, two of the British soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter.
  • The Boston Massacre was a signal event leading to the Revolutionary War.
  • It led directly to the Royal Governor evacuating the occupying army from the town of Boston.
  • It would soon bring the revolution to armed rebellion throughout the colonies.

Note that the occupation of Boston by British troops in 1768 was not met by open resistance.

What was the Boston Harbor act?

The Boston Port Act, passed in March 1774 closed the Port from all commerce and ordered the citizens of Boston to pay a large fine to compensate for the tea thrown into the river during the Boston Tea Party, This Act helped unify the Thirteen Colonies in anger against the Crown, and the First Continental Congress met to coordinate a response to this and the other Intolerable Acts,

  1. Parliament of Great Britain Anno Decimo Quarto Georgii III. Regis.
  2. An Act to discontinue in such Manner, and for such Time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of Goods, Wares, and Merchandise, at the Town and within the Harbour of Boston, in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America.

Whereas dangerous commotions and insurrections have been fomented and raised in the town of Boston, in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, in New England, by divers ill-affected persons, to the subversion of his Majesty’s Government, and to the utter destruction of the public peace, and good order of the said town; in which commotions and insurrections certain valuable cargoes of teas, being the property of the East India Company, and on board certain vessels lying within the bay or harbour of Boston, were seized and destroyed: and whereas in the present condition of the said town and harbour, the commerce of his Majesty’s subjects cannot be safely carried on there, nor the Customs payable to his Majesty duly collected; and it is therefore expedient that the officers of his Majesty’s Customs should be forthwith removed from the said town; may it please you Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advise and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the first day of June, 1774, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons whatsoever, to lade or put, or cause or procure to be laden or put, off or from any quay, wharf, or other place, within the said town of Boston, or in or upon any part of the shore of the bay, commonly called the Harbour of Boston, between a certain headland or point, called Nahant Point, on the eastern side of the entrance into the said bay, and a certain headland or point called Alderton Point, on the western side of the entrance into the said bay, or in or upon any island, creek, landing place, bank, or other place, within the said bay, or headlands, into any ship, vessel, lighter, boat, or bottom, any goods, wares, or merchandise, whatsoever, to be transported or carried into any other country, province, or place, whatsoever, or into any other part of the said Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England; or to take up, discharge, or lay on land, or cause or procure to be taken up, discharged, or laid on land, within the said town, or in or upon any of the places aforesaid, out of any boat, lighter, ship, vessel, or bottom, any goods, wares, or merchandise, whatsoever, to be brought from any other country, province, or place, or any other part of the said Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England, upon the pain of forfeiture of the said goods, wares, and merchandise, and of the said boat, lighter, ship, vessel, or other bottom, into which the same shall be put, or out of which the same shall be taken, and of the guns, ammunition, tackle, furniture, and stores, in or belonging to the same; and if any such goods, wares, or merchandise, shall within the said town, or in any the places aforesaid, be laden or taken in from the shore into any barge, hoy, lighter, wherry, or boat, to be carried on board any ship or vessel outward bound to any other country or province, or other part of said Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England, or be laden or taken into such barge, hoy, lighter, wherry, or out of any ship or vessel coming and arriving from any other country or province, or other part of the said Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England, such barge, hoy, lighter, wherry, or boat, shall be forfeited and lost.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any wharfinger, or keeper of any wharf, crane, or quay, or their servants, or any of them, shall take up or land, or knowingly suffer to be taken up or landed, or shall ship off, or suffer to be waterborne, at or from any of the aforesaid wharfs, cranes, or quays, any such goods, wares, or merchandise; in every such case, all and every such wharfinger, and keeper of such wharf, crane, or quay, and every person whatsoever who shall be assisting, or otherwise concerned in the shipping or in the loading or putting on board any boat or other vessel, for that purpose, or in the unshipping such goods, wares, and merchandise, or to whose hands the same shall knowingly come after the loading, shipping or unshipping thereof, shall forfeit and lose treble the value thereof, to be computed at the highest price which such sort of goods, wares, and merchandise, shall bear at the place where such offence shall be committed, at the time when the same shall be so committed, together with the vessel and boats, and all the horses, cattle and carriages, whatsoever made use of in the shipping, unshipping, landing, removing, carriage, or conveyance of any of the aforesaid goods, wares, and merchandise.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any ship or vessel shall be moored or lie at anchor, or be seen hovering within the said bay, described and bounded as aforesaid, or within one league from the said bay so described, or the said headlands, or any of the islands lying between or within the same, it shall and may be lawful for any Admiral, Chief Commander, or commissioned officer, of his Majesty’s fleet or ships of war, or for any officer of his Majesty’s customs, to compel such ship or vessel to depart to some other port or harbour, or to such station as the said officer shall appoint, and to use such force for that purpose as shall be found necessary: and if such ship or vessel shall not depart accordingly, within six hours after notice for that purpose given by such person as aforesaid, such ship or vessel, together with all the goods laden on board thereon, and all the guns, ammunition, tackle and furniture, shall he forfeited and lost, whether bulk shall have been broken or not.

See also:  Which Practice Did Settlers Bring To Texas That Was Illegal Under Mexican Law?

Provided always, That nothing in this Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to any military or other stores for his Majesty’s use, or to the ships or vessels whereon the same shall be laden, which shall be commissioned by, and in the immediate pay of, his Majesty, his heirs and successors: nor to any fuel or victual brought coastways from any part of the Continent of America, for the necessary use and sustenance of the inhabitants of the said town of Boston: provided the vessel wherein the same are to be carried, shall be duly furnished with a cocket and let-pass, after having been duly searched by the proper officers of his Majesty’s customs at Marblehead, in the port of Salem, in the said Province of Massachusetts Bay; and the same officer of his Majesty’s Customs be also put on board the said vessel, who is hereby authorized to go on board, and proceed with the said vessel, together with a sufficient number of persons, properly armed, for his defence, to the said town or harbour of Boston; nor to any ships or vessels which may happen to be within the said harbour of Boston, on or before the the first day of June, 1774, and may have either laden or taken on board, or be there with intent to load or take on board, or to land or discharge any goods, wares, and merchandise, provided the said ships and vessels do depart the said harbour within fourteen days after the first day of June, 1774.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all seizures, penalties, and forfeitures, inflicted by this Act, shall be made and prosecuted by any Admiral, Chief Commander, or commissioned officer, of his Majesty’s fleet, or ships of war, or by the officers of his Majesty’s Customs, or some of them, or by some other person deputed or authorized, by warrant from the Lord High Treasurer, or the Commissioners of his Majesty’s Treasury, for the time being, and by no other person whatsoever; and if any such officer, or other person authorized as aforesaid, shall directly or indirectly, take or receive any bribe or reward, or connive at such lading or unlading, or shall make or commence any collusive seizure, information, or agreement, for that purpose, or shall do any other act whatsoever, whereby the goods, wares, or merchandise, prohibited as aforesaid, shall be suffered to pass either inwards or outwards, or whereby the forfeitures and penalties inflicted by this Act may be evaded, every such offender shall forfeit the sum of five hundred pounds for every such offence, and shall become incapable of any office or employment, civil or military; and every person who shall give, offer, or promise, any such bribe or reward, or shall contract, agree, or treat with, any person, so authorized as aforesaid, to commit any such offence, shall forfeit the sum of fifty pounds.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the forfeitures and penalties inflicted by this Act shall and may be prosecuted, sued for, and recovered, and be divided, paid, and applied, in like manner, as other penalties and forfeitures inflicted by any Act or Acts of Parliament, relating to the trade or revenues of the British Colonies, or Plantations in America, are directed to be prosecuted, sued for, or recovered, divided, paid and applied, by two several Acts of Parliament, the one passed in the fourth year of his present Majesty, intituled “An Act for granting certain Duties in the British Colonies and Plantations in America; for continuing, amending, and making perpetual, an Act, passed in the sixth year of the Reign of his late Majesty King George the Second, intituled, An Act for the better securing and encouraging trade of his Majesty’s Sugar Colonies in America; for applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said Act, towards defraying the expense of defending, protecting, and securing, the said Colonies and Plantations; for explaining an Act made in the twenty-fifth year of the Reign of King Charles the Second, intituled, An Act for the encouragement of the Greenland and Eastland Trades, and for the better securing the Plantation Trade; and for altering and disallowing several drawbacks on exports from this Kingdom, and more effectually preventing the clandestine conveyance of goods to, and from, the said Colonies and Plantations, and improving and securing the trade between the same and Great Britain;” the other passed in the eighth year of his present Majesty’s Reign, intituled, “An Act for the more easy and effectual recovery of the penalties and forfeitures inflicted by the Acts of Parliament, relating to the trade or revenues of the British Colonies and Plantations in America.” And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That every charter party bill of loading, and other contract, for consigning, shipping, or carrying any goods, wares, and merchandise, whatsoever, to or from the said town of Boston, or any part of the bay or harbour thereof, described as aforesaid, which have been made or entered into, or which shall be made or entered into, so long as this Act shall remain in full force, relating to any ship which shall arrive at the said town or harbour, after the first day of June, 1774, shall be, and the same an hereby declared to be, utterly void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That whenever it shall be made to appear to his Majesty, in his Privy Council, that peace and obedience to the laws shall be so far restored in the said town of Boston, that the trade of Great Britain may be safely carried on there, and his Majesty’s customs duly collected, and his Majesty, in his Privy Council, shall adjudge the same to be true, it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty, by Proclamation, or Order of Council, to assign and appoint the extent, bounds and limits, of the port or harbour of Boston, and of every creek or haven within the same, or in the islands within the precinct thereof; and also to assign and appoint such and so many open places, quays, and wharfs, within the said harbour, creeks, havens, and islands, for the landing, discharging, lading, and shipping of goods, as his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, shall judge necessary and expedient; and also to appoint such and so many officers of the Customs therein, as his Majesty shall think fit; after which it shall be lawful for any person or persons to lade or put off from, or to discharge and land upon, such wharfs, quays, and places, so appointed, within the said harbour, and none other, any goods, wares, and merchandise, whatsoever.

Provided always, That if any goods, wares or merchandise, shall be laden or put off from, or discharged or landed upon, any other place than the quays, wharfs, or places, so to be appointed, the same, together with the ships, boats, and other vessels employed therein, and the horses, or other cattle and carriages used to convey the same, and the person or persons concerned or assisting therein, or to whose hands the same shall knowingly come, shall suffer all the forfeitures and penalties imposed by this or any other Act on the illegal shipping or landing of goods.

Provided also, And it is hereby declared and enacted, that nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed, to enable his Majesty to appoint such port, harbour, creeks, quays, wharfs, places, or officers, in the said town of Boston, or in the said bay or islands, until it shall sufficiently appear to his Majesty, that full satisfaction hath been made by or on behalf of the inhabitants of the said town of Boston, to the United Company of merchants of England, trading to the East Indies, for the damages sustained by the said Company, bv the destruction of their goods sent to the said town of Boston, on board certain ships or vessels, as aforesaid; and until it shall be certified to his Majesty, in Council, by the Governor, or Lieutenant Governor, of the said Province, that reasonable satisfaction hath been made to the officers of his Majesty’s Revenue and others, who suffered by the riots and insurrections above mentioned, in the months of November and December, in the year 1773, and in the month of January, in the year 1774.

What did Loyalists fear?

The Revolutionary War was also in many ways a civil war. Approximately one-fifth of Americans supported Britain during the Revolution, although their exact numbers are uncertain due to the inherent difficulty in determining who qualified as a “Loyalist.” After the war’s conclusion, the British Parliament used a four-part scheme for determining which exiles were entitled to compensation for losses sustained in support of the king’s government.

Those entitled to the greatest compensation were individuals who had fought against the revolutionaries, lost property, faced physical assault, or had been forced into exile as a result of their behavior. Overt Loyalists are easier for historians to track. These Loyalists expressed their political dissent in some unambiguous manner, writing letters in support of Parliamentary action, spying on their rebel neighbors, defying the non-importation agreements, or fighting in the king’s forces.

However, many other colonists disapproved of the Patriot protests, or opposed American independence, but were quieter in their opposition. Patriot opponents found the Loyalists’s motives easy to explain: they were “self-interested men,” greedy parasites who profited from the imperial connection, or weak and cowardly individuals who feared anarchy more than they appreciated liberty.

The truth was more complex. Aside from Crown officials, who did generally side with what they called the “friends of government,” there was not a common determinant for who ended up on the Loyalist side. The Loyalists came from every social class in colonial society, every occupation, and every region on the continent.

Loyalist individuals were inspired to action or inaction by a variety of motives, only some of which had to do with ideological concerns. Crown officials might have become Loyalists because their careers were dependent on royal patronage—or because they better understood imperial politics, enough to discount claims of a grand British plot to reduce America to slavery. Which Law Resulted In Violence And Property Destruction Many ordinary citizens, inclined to neutrality, were reluctantly forced to choose between the two sides by unfolding events. The Patriots’ use of non-importation agreements and loyalty oaths in the late 1760s and 1770s pushed many neutrals into active opposition.

During the military conflict, the occupation of territory also put pressure on the inhabitants to choose a side, as neutrals tended to be harassed by both armies. Personal decisions might have little to do with one’s views on imperial policies. A significant number of pacifist Pennsylvania Quakers were forced into the Loyalist camp by Patriot demands for military service, even though their political views were often neutral or even sympathetic to the rebels’ cause.

Some decisions were driven primarily by economic concerns. Tenants in upstate New York, crushed by high wartime taxes and high rents imposed by Patriot landlords, staged insurrections that coincided with the British invasion of the area. Ethnic prejudice could also factor into the decision.

  1. In New England, recent Scottish immigrants faced considerable prejudice from the largely Anglo populace.
  2. This tended to make them less sympathetic to anti-British demonstrations led by many of their old antagonists.
  3. Many Native American groups, including five of the six Nations of the Iroquois, joined the British side because they believed British government would be more likely to honor their land claims than an independent United States.

Finally, British promises of freedom in exchange for military service lured thousands of slaves away from Patriot plantations. The British loss of the American Revolution meant that many Loyalists would never return to America. Between 60,000 and 80,000 Americans left the country by 1783.

Around 7500 of them settled in Great Britain, while others made homes in the Caribbean, Spanish Florida, or Canada, or alternatively attempted to return to the United States. Most Loyalists faced considerable hardship in their new homes. Although Parliament attempted to recompense them for their losses, many suffered from poverty and homesickness.

Most tragic was the fate of the thousands of Black loyalists. Most ended their lives dying of disease or in poverty in Canada or England, or were resold into slavery in the Caribbean.1 Even after the war’s conclusion, many Loyalists remained gloomy about the new nation’s prospects.

In February of 1786, merchant James Clarke wrote of his lost home in Newport: “My Attachment to our native Country is so fervent and sincere that I could freely give up my Life, and Ten Thousand more if I posses them, could I restore dear Rhode Island to its former happy, happy Situation.” 2 Others lived to regret their choice.

Massachusetts merchant Samuel Curwen, writing from Exeter, England in early 1777, admitted that he now would have faced “insults, reproaches and perhaps a dress of tar and feathers” rather than his present life of exile. He concluded, “Wherever I turn mine eyes I see ruin and misery all around me.” 3 Shannon Duffy, Ph.D.

Texas State University Notes 1. Cassandra Pybus estimates that of the approximately twenty thousand slaves who fled to British lines over the course of the war, only around two thousand successfully gained their freedom at war’s end. Pybus, “Jefferson’s Faulty Math: The Question of Slave Defections in the American Revolution.” WMQ 62, no.2 (Apr.2005): 243-64.2.

“James Clarke to Miss Coggeshall, Halifax, 5 February 1786,” quoted in Crary, The Price of Loyalty, 446-7.3. “Samuel Curwen to Jonathan Sewall, 19 January 1777,” The Journal of Samuel Curwen, Loyalist, edited by Andrew Oliver (Salem: Essex Institute, 1972): vol.1, 295, footnote 3.

Bibliography: Brown, Wallace. The King’s Friends: The Composition and Motives of the American Loyalist Claimants, Providence, R.I., 1965. Calhoon, Robert M., Timothy M. Barnes, and George A. Rawlyk, eds. Loyalists and Community in North America, Westport: Greenwood Press, 1994. Crary, Catherine S., ed. The Price of Loyalty: Tory Writings from the Revolutionary Era,

New York, McGraw-Hill, 1973. Glatthaar, Joseph T. and James Kirby Martin. Forgotten Allies: The Oneida Indians and the American Revolution, New York: Hill & Wang, 2006. Humphrey, Thomas J. “Conflicting Independence: Land Tenancy and the American Revolution.” Journal of the Early Republic 28, no.2 (Summer 2008): 159-82.

  • Jasanoff, Maya.
  • Liberty’s Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World,
  • New York: Alfred A.
  • Nopf, 2011.
  • Nicolson, Colin.
  • A Plan ‘To Banish All the Scotchmen’: Victimization and Political Mobilization in Pre-Revolutionary Boston,” Massachusetts Historical Review 9 (2007): 55-102.
  • Norton, Mary Beth.
See also:  What Is A Session Law?

The British-Americans: The Loyalist Exiles in England, 1774-1789, Boston, Little, Brown, 1972.-. “The Fate of Some Black Loyalists of the American Revolution.” Journal of Negro History 58, no.4 (Oct.1973): 402-426. Pybus, Cassandra. Epic Journeys of Freedom: Runaway Slaves of the American Revolution and Their Global Quest for Liberty,

What did the Loyalists do wrong?

Motives for Loyalism – Yale historian Leonard Woods Larabee has identified eight characteristics of the Loyalists that made them essentially conservative and loyal to the King and to Britain:

  • They were older, better established, and resisted radical change.
  • They felt that rebellion against the Crown – the legitimate government – was morally wrong. They saw themselves as Americans but loyal to the British Empire and saw a rebellion against Great Britain as a betrayal to the Empire. At the time the national identity of Americans was still in formation and the very idea of two separate peoples (nationalities) with their own sovereign states (the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America ) was itself revolutionary.
  • They felt alienated when the Patriots (seen by them as separatists who rebelled against the Crown) resorted to violence, such as burning down houses and tarring and feathering,
  • They wanted to take a middle-of-the-road position and were not pleased when forced by Patriots to declare their opposition.
  • They had business and family links with Britain.
  • They felt that independence from Britain would come eventually, but wanted it to come about organically.
  • They were wary that chaos, corruption, and mob rule would come about as a result of revolution.
  • Some were “pessimists” who did not display the same belief in the future that the Patriots did. Others recalled the dreadful experiences of many Jacobite rebels after the failure of the last Jacobite rebellion as recently as 1745 who often lost their lands when the Hanoverian government won.

Other motives of the Loyalists included:

  • They felt a need for order and believed that Parliament was the legitimate authority.
  • In New York, powerful families had assembled colony-wide coalitions of supporters; men long associated with the French Huguenot/Dutch De Lancey faction went along when its leadership decided to support the crown.
  • They felt themselves to be weak or threatened within American society and in need of an outside defender such as the British Crown and Parliament.
  • Black loyalists were promised freedom from slavery by the British.
  • They felt that being a part of the British Empire was crucial in terms of commerce and their business operations.

What did the Tea Act do?

Seventeen Million Pounds of Unsold Tea – With the passing of the Tea Act, the seventeen million pounds of unsold surplus tea the British East India Company owned could be sold to markets in the American colonies. The tea was to be shipped to the American colonies and sold at a reduced rate.

  • The Townshend Revenue Act tea tax remained in place despite proposals to have it waived.
  • American colonists were outraged over the tea tax, which had existed since the 1767 Townshend Revenue Act and did not get repealed like the other taxes in 1770, and believed the Tea Act was a tactic to gain colonial support for the tax already enforced.

The direct sale of tea by agents of the British East India Company to the American colonies undercut the business of colonial merchants. Prior to the Tea Act, colonial merchants purchased tea directly from British markets or smuggled from illegal markets.

  1. They then shipped it back to the colonies for resale.
  2. Outraged that American merchants were undercut, colonists initially in Philadelphia and New York refused the British East India Company tea to be offloaded and sent the ships back to England.
  3. In many colonial ports to protest the Tea Act, the shipment of British East India Company tea was unloaded and left untouched on the docks to rot.

The Beaver, Dartmouth, and Eleanor arrived in Boston in late November to the middle of December 1773. The colonists, led by the Sons of Liberty, wanted the ships to return to England, and refused the unloading of the ships’ cargo of tea. Lieutenant Governor and Chief Justice of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, refused to let the ships return to England and held the Beaver, Dartmouth, and Eleanor in Boston Harbor until matters could be resolved and the tea offloaded.

When was the Sugar Act?

“.The English government cannot long act towards a part of its dominions diametrically opposed to its own, without losing itself in the slavery it would impose upon the colonies.” — New York Gazette, June 6, 1765, reprinted in Boston Evening Post, June 24, 1765 Stamp Act of 1765 proof Smithsonian Institution Harbottle Dorr, a North End ironmonger, began collecting and annotating Boston newspapers in January 1765. Offering his opinions as a man of middling rank toward the Revolutionary struggle for liberty, he claimed that the June 6 New York Gazette article “first gave the Alarm about the Stamp Act.” Parliament passed the Stamp Act on March 22, 1765, to pay down a national debt approaching £140,000,000 after defeating France in the Seven Years War (1763).

  • A year earlier, Parliament passed the Sugar Act, their first revenue-raising measure.
  • Both taxes promised dire consequences in a post-war economy.
  • While the Sugar Act was a duty only on foreign goods, the Stamp Act taxed items within the colonies.
  • Previously, only colonial assemblies assumed responsibility for internal taxes,

Beginning November 1, 1765, legal documents, academic degrees, appointments to office, newspapers, pamphlets, playing cards, and dice required embossing with a Treasury stamp as proof of payment of the tax. Colonial essayists, orators, and ordinary people responded with cries of “slavery,” “tyranny,” and “No taxation without representation.” Death of British General Wolfe at the moment of British victory in the 1759 Battle of Quebec. Archives and Collections at Amherst College The same angry colonists who now attacked British taxation policies had proudly celebrated their country’s victories in the Seven Years War a few years earlier.

  • On October 16, 1759, Bostonians celebrated Britain’s defeat of France in the Plains of Abraham battle in Quebec.
  • Printer John Boyle noted: “the Regiment of Militia were mustered, and the Town beautifully illuminated in the Evening.” On September 26, 1760, “public rejoicing” accompanied news of Montreal’s surrender.

Finally, on May 24, 1763, Boyle declared Britain’s complete victory: “The Definitive Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the King of Great Britain, the French and Spanish Kings was sign’d at Paris February 10, 1763.” Massachusetts remained especially proud since thousands of her provincial soldiers served—and died—alongside British “regulars” in the New York and Canadian theaters of war. Map of Eastern North America in 1775, National Atlas of the United States. Under the peace treaty Britain gained vast new territory, including French Canada and French territory east of the Mississippi. How would Britain pay down its war debt and the additional expense of defending its enlarged North American empire? How would American colonists respond to Britain’s policies? Peace ended colonial contracts to supply the British military with weapons, uniforms, and provisions as well as the steady supply of gold and silver that paid for those goods.

After 1760, British merchants began tightening up credit to colonial merchants. Britain’s slowing economy led to a slumping West Indian economy, which reduced demand for New England livestock, lumber, and fish. Merchants in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia declared bankruptcy in alarming numbers. Artisans and laborers faced lower income and higher costs of food, firewood, and taxes.

On February 26, 1764, John Boyle wrote about another crisis—smallpox: “‘tis feared by many that it will be impractible to prevent its spreading thro’ the Town.” Paul Revere’s family was one of seven afflicted families in Boston’s North End. Though his family survived, Revere’s income from his previously thriving silver shop dropped from £102 in 1764 to £60 in 1765. Portrait of Prime Minister George Grenville Christ Church, University of Oxford British officials saw the situation differently. When George Grenville became Prime Minister in April 1763, he grappled with the national debt, a debt that included an annual estimated cost of £200,000 for 10,000 soldiers in America recommended by his predecessor Lord Bute.

The outbreak of Pontiac’s Rebellion, a major American Indian uprising in the Ohio country in May 1763, increased the urgency to maintain a military force in America. During the war, Britons at home bore a heavy tax burden. In contrast, the Crown requisitioned colonial assemblies for soldiers and supplies but could not force compliance, and reimbursed as much as two-fifths of the expenses.

It seemed reasonable that the colonies should contribute to their own defense, especially since the Board of Trade estimated that the American colonies annually smuggled approximately £700,000 of merchandise. It also seemed logical to examine existing trade laws as a starting point for new taxes.

In 1651 Britain passed its first Navigation Act and continued to update trade acts as needed. However, the goal was not to raise revenue but to impose a high enough duty on foreign trade to channel trade between Britain and her colonies. Grenville’s proposed duties would raise revenue and be strictly enforced, reducing the colonists’ ability to evade duties.

He began by revising the Molasses Act of 1733, due to expire in December 1763. Enacted on April 5, 1764, to take effect on September 29, the new Sugar Act cut the duty on foreign molasses from 6 to 3 pence per gallon, retained a high duty on foreign refined sugar, and prohibited the importation of all foreign rum.

  • This part of the act affected New England, where distilling sugar and molasses into rum was a major industry.
  • The Sugar Act also taxed numerous foreign products, including wine, coffee, and textiles, and banned the direct shipment of several important commodities such as lumber to Europe, upsetting the balance of trade for merchants in Northern seaports.

Passage of the Currency Act on April 19, 1764 (effective September 1, 1764) banned colonial paper currency, requiring the Sugar Act to be paid in gold and silver. More than half of the articles in the Sugar Act dealt with enforcement. It required Customs collectors to report to their colonial posts, instead of appointing underlings who were susceptible to bribery.

Masters of vessels had to post a bond and carry affidavits attesting to the legality of their cargo. At every stop in their voyage officials examined their paperwork, assisted in their efforts by the Royal Navy. Those caught with illegal cargo were no longer tried by a sympathetic local jury but at a new vice-admiralty court in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

On January 14, 1765, the Boston Evening Post printed a letter from London, dated October 20, 1764, about the new trade regulations: “.every cargo of the American product is deemed prohibited goods.if, therefore, this traffic is prohibited, the colonies must be ruined.” Their ruin was not complete.

  • In the summer of 1764, James Otis, Boston attorney and representative to the Massachusetts General Court, responded to the Sugar Act with The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,
  • After promising colonial obedience to King and Parliament, Otis emphatically upheld an essential right of all English citizens: “Taxes are not to be laid on the people, but by their consent in person, or by deputation.” On February 8, 1765, Arthur Savage, writing from London, informed his brother, merchant Samuel Phillips Savage, that the Stamp Act had passed “by a great majority.” Otis’s argument “has not been of any service.” The struggle for liberty was just beginning.

Learn about Boston’s reaction to the Stamp Act. Contributed by: Jayne E. Triber, Park Guide

When was the Tea Act passed?

When in the course of human events, The Tea Act, passed by Parliament on May 10, 1773, would launch the final spark to the revolutionary movement in Boston. The act was not intended to raise revenue in the American colonies, and in fact imposed no new taxes.

It was designed to prop up the East India Company which was floundering financially and burdened with eighteen million pounds of unsold tea. This tea was to be shipped directly to the colonies, and sold at a bargain price. The Townshend Duties were still in place, however, and the radical leaders in America found reason to believe that this act was a maneuver to buy popular support for the taxes already in force.

The direct sale of tea, via British agents, would also have undercut the business of local merchants. Colonists in Philadelphia and New York turned the tea ships back to Britain. In Charleston the cargo was left to rot on the docks. In Boston the Royal Governor was stubborn and held the ships in port, where the colonists would not allow them to unload.

Why was the Quebec Act passed?

Constitutional Act 1791 – The Quebec Act was followed in 1791 by the Constitutional Act, Much had changed since 1774. Thousands of Loyalists arrived in the Maritimes and in the Province of Quebec and settled north of the Great Lakes, After arriving in a British colony that had French property and civil laws and lacked British institutions, these Loyalists began pressuring British officials to establish English common law and a proper legislative assembly.

  • On the other hand, French Canadians feared that the increasing number of Loyalists would result in the loss of the rights they had gained with the Quebec Act,
  • The 1791 Constitutional Act was a compromise.
  • The Province of Quebec was divided into the colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada,
  • Upper Canada, where most Loyalists had settled, adopted English common law.
See also:  What Time Does Law And Order Svu Come On?

Lower Canada, where most French Canadians lived, kept French property rights and all of the privileges that French Canadians had gained in 1774. Both colonies also benefited from political representation with the creation of separate, elected Legislative Assemblies.

What did the Quebec Act do?

Quebec Act repealed loyalty oath, established religious freedoms – After the war ended with a decisive victory for the British and the defeat of France and Spain, France ceded Quebec and all its claims to the Ohio River Valley to the British Empire. The British established their colonial policy toward Quebec in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which provided for a royal governor and a loyalty oath that precluded Roman Catholics from service in Quebec’s colonial administration.

What were the 4 Intolerable Acts?

The four acts were (1) the Boston Port Bill, which closed Boston Harbor; (2) the Massachusetts Government Act, which replaced the elective local government with an appointive one and increased the powers of the military governor; (3) the Administration of Justice Act, which allowed British officials charged with

What was another name for Loyalist?

Home Politics, Law & Government Politics & Political Systems loyalist, also called Tory, colonist loyal to Great Britain during the American Revolution, Loyalists constituted about one-third of the population of the American colonies during that conflict.

They were not confined to any particular group or class, but their numbers were strongest among the following groups: officeholders and others who served the British crown and had a vested interest in upholding its authority; Anglican clergymen and their parishioners in the North, who had likewise taken vows of allegiance and obedience to the king; Quakers, members of German religious sects, and other conscientious pacifists; and large landholders, especially in the North, and wealthy merchant groups in the cities whose businesses and property were affected by the war.

The most common trait among all loyalists was an innate conservatism coupled with a deep devotion to the mother country and the crown. Many loyalists at first urged moderation in the struggle for colonial rights and were only driven into active loyalism by radical fellow colonists who denounced as Tories all who would not join them.

  • Loyalists were most numerous in the South, New York, and Pennsylvania, but they did not constitute a majority in any colony.
  • New York was their stronghold and had more than any other colony.
  • New England had fewer loyalists than any other section.
  • The loyalists did not rise as a body to support the British army, but individuals did join the army or form their own guerrilla units.

New York alone furnished about 23,000 loyalist troops, perhaps as many as all the other colonies combined. The loyalist fighters aroused a vengeful hatred among the patriots (as the American Revolutionaries called themselves), and when taken in battle they were treated as traitors.

George Washington detested them, saying as early as 1776 that “they were even higher and more insulting in their opposition than the regulars.” Congress recommended repressive measures against the loyalists, and all states passed severe laws against them, usually forbidding them from holding office, disenfranchising them, and confiscating or heavily taxing their property.

Beginning in March 1776, approximately 100,000 loyalists fled into exile. (This was between 3 and 4 percent of the total number of settlers in the colonies, which is estimated at 2,500,000–3,000,000 during the Revolutionary period.) The largest portion of those who fled ultimately went to Canada, where the British government provided them with asylum and offered some compensation for losses in property and income; those who met certain criteria (based, in part, on when they left America and their contribution to the British war effort) were known as United Empire Loyalists in Canada.

  1. Public sentiment in the United States against the loyalists died down significantly after government began under the new U.S.
  2. Constitution in 1789.
  3. In fact, one member of the Constitutional Convention, William Johnson of Connecticut, had been a loyalist.
  4. The remaining state laws against them were repealed after the War of 1812,

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica This article was most recently revised and updated by Amy McKenna,

What type of people were Loyalists?

Loyalists During the American Revolution Americans today think of the War for Independence as a revolution, but in important respects it was also a civil war. American Loyalists, or “Tories” as their opponents called them, opposed the Revolution, and many took up arms against the rebels.

  • Estimates of the number of Loyalists range as high as 500,000, or 20 percent of the white population of the colonies.
  • What motivated the Loyalists? Most educated Americans, whether Loyalist or Revolutionary, accepted John Locke’s theory of natural rights and limited government.
  • Thus, the Loyalists, like the rebels, criticized such British actions as the Stamp Act and the Coercive Acts.

Loyalists wanted to pursue peaceful forms of protest because they believed that violence would give rise to mob rule or tyranny. They also believed that independence would mean the loss of economic benefits derived from membership in the British mercantile system.

Loyalists came from all walks of life. The majority were small farmers, artisans and shopkeepers. Not surprisingly, most British officials remained loyal to the Crown. Wealthy merchants tended to remain loyal, as did Anglican ministers, especially in Puritan New England. Loyalists also included some blacks (to whom the British promised freedom), Indians, indentured servants and some German immigrants, who supported the Crown mainly because George III was of German origin.

The number of Loyalists in each colony varied. Recent estimates suggest that half the population of New York was Loyalist; it had an aristocratic culture and was occupied throughout the Revolution by the British. In the Carolinas, back-country farmers were Loyalist, whereas the Tidewater planters tended to support the Revolution.

During the Revolution, most Loyalists suffered little from their views. However, a minority, about 19,000 Loyalists, armed and supplied by the British, fought in the conflict. The Paris Peace Treaty required Congress to restore property confiscated from Loyalists. The heirs of William Penn in Pennsylvania, for example, and those of George Calvert in Maryland received generous settlements.

In the Carolinas, where enmity between rebels and Loyalists was especially strong, few of the latter regained their property. In New York and the Carolinas, the confiscations from Loyalists resulted in something of a social revolution as large estates were parceled out to yeoman farmers.

  • About 100,000 Loyalists left the country, including William Franklin, the son of Benjamin, and John Singleton Copley, the greatest American painter of the period.
  • Most settled in Canada.
  • Some eventually returned, although several state governments excluded the Loyalists from holding public office.
  • In the decades after the Revolution, Americans preferred to forget about the Loyalists.

Apart from Copley, the Loyalists became nonpersons in American history. : Loyalists During the American Revolution

What is a Patriot vs Loyalist?

Vocabulary: Loyalist- a colonist who supported the crown/king of England Patriot- a colonist who rejected British rule over the colonies during the American Revolution Activity: 1.

Who treated the Loyalists badly?

Because Loyalists were people who were very loyal to Britain. In my history textbook, it says, “Patriots were Americans who believed that the colonies had the right to govern themselves. Loyalists were Americans who felt a deep loyalty to Great Britain.” It also says, “The United States agreed to return all rights and and property taken from Loyalists during the war.

What were the Loyalists known for?

Loyalists were American colonists, of different ethnic backgrounds, who supported the British cause during the American Revolutionary War (1775–83). Tens of thousands of Loyalists migrated to British North America during and after the war. This boosted the population, led to the creation of Upper Canada and New Brunswick, and heavily influenced the politics and culture of what would become Canada.

This is the full-length entry about Loyalists in Canada. For a plain-language summary, please see Loyalists in Canada (Plain-Language Summary),) Loyalists were American colonists, of different ethnic backgrounds, who supported the British cause during the American Revolutionary War (1775–83). Tens of thousands of Loyalists migrated to British North America during and after the war.

This boosted the population, led to the creation of Upper Canada and New Brunswick, and heavily influenced the politics and culture of what would become Canada.(This is the full-length entry about Loyalists in Canada. For a plain-language summary, please see Loyalists in Canada (Plain-Language Summary).) Which Law Resulted In Violence And Property Destruction One wave of Loyalists came up the St Lawrence River in 1783 to Lake Ontario, where their encampment grew into the town of Kingston. Drawing by James Peachey.

Why were Loyalists treated so harshly?

End of Unit Assessment –

  1. Each lesson will have its own Assessment:
  2. Liberty and Loyalists
  3. To wrap-up the lesson, students create a short essay responding to Joseph Galloway’s Remarks upon a Union explaining:
  • Do you support Joseph Galloway’s viewpoint that the America should unify with the British Empire? Why or why not?
  • During the American Revolution, why would Joseph Galloway’s viewpoints be denounced by colonial patriots? Why would his viewpoints be viewed favorably to colonial loyalists?
  • Unfair Taxes and Loyalties
  • Have students choose either a Loyalist or patriot perspective, and create a poem describing their viewpoint on the Taxation Acts and a solution to “taxation without representation.”
  • Treatment to those Loyal
  • Using a compare and contrast Venn Diagram, students will indicate what are the similarities and differences of how revolutionaries viewed and treated the authors and Benedict Arnold from the primary source documents in the lesson of Treatment to those Loyal.
  • #2

: Rebels of the Revolution

What caused the Boston Harbor to close?

Boston Harbor was shut down. For weeks after the Boston Tea Party, the 92,000 pounds of tea dumped into the harbor caused it to smell. As a result of the Boston Tea Party, the British shut down Boston Harbor until all of the 340 chests of British East India Company tea were paid for.

Which law resulted in violence and property destruction causing the closing of Boston Harbor quizlet?

Which law resulted in violence and property destruction, causing the closing of Boston Harbor? Tea Act. Classify colonial responses to British policies after the French and Indian War as violent or nonviolent.

What caused the British to close the Boston Harbor?

On March 25, 1774, the British Parliament passed the Boston Port Act, closing Boston Harbor to commerce. The act was meant to force Boston into paying for tea dumped into the harbor four months earlier during the Boston Tea Party.

What was the result of closing the Boston Harbor?

The Boston Port Act takes effect – If you’d like to be added to the email list to receive “Today in RevWar History” to your inbox daily, click HERE On this day in history, June 1, 1774, the Boston Port Act takes effect, closing down Boston Harbor from all shipping and trade in punishment for the Boston Tea Party, Parliament was outraged at this act of defiance and set about bringing the rebellious Massachusetts back to order. A series of acts, known as the Coercive Acts in Britain, were passed in 1774, which shut down all self-government in Massachusetts, limited town meetings and moved the trials of government officials out of the colony.

Other measures required all the colonies to provide housing for government troops, extended the boundaries of British Quebec and granted Catholic Quebec residents the right to practice their own religion, which was seen by the colonists as strengthening the heavily pro-British Quebec right next door.

The piece of the Coercive Acts, or, as they were called by the colonists, the Intolerable Acts, that caused more outrage in the colonies than any other, however, was the Boston Port Act, This act closed down the harbor to all trade permanently until the ruined tea was paid for, the lost customs revenues paid and order restored in Massachusetts.

It placed armed warships in the harbor to enforce a blockade and filled Boston with troops to help patrol the wharfs. The Boston Port Act placed heavy fines on violators. If anyone was caught trying to sneak through the blockade, the ships, cargo and any other property, such as horses or wagons used to transport the goods, were to be forfeited to the government and a fine of three times the value of the cargo was levied.

Also, anyone caught trying to bribe officials into letting goods through and any officials involved in taking such bribes, were heavily fined. The Boston Port Act, and the other parts of the Coercive Acts, were really the spark that lighted the American Revolution. Colonists across America were outraged. They realized that if Parliament was willing to do this to Boston, they could do it anywhere in the colonies.

All of the colonies joined in a boycott of British goods and a plan was made to convene the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia in September. The Congress was to plan a joint colonial response to the Coercive Acts and was the first joint action of the colonies against Great Britain. The Boston Port Act did everything but bring Massachusetts back into submission.

Instead, it united the colonies in their resolve to protect their freedoms. The Continental Congress remonstrated with Great Britain to correct its grievances, but also recommended to all the colonies that they begin stockpiling weapons and ammunition in the event of war.

Read the text of the Boston Port Act hereYou can learn more about the Boston Tea Party hereRead what happened on other days in American history at our On This Day in History section here