Who was justified?

The Boston Massacre

I feel that the Boston colonist's as well as the British soldiers acted disrespectfully towards each other. First off, the British soldiers intruded where they were not welcomed, and to add to that they were also extremely rude to the colonist's. The British are not the only guilty ones in this situation; the colonist's acted as instigators towards the soldiers, also being very rude. Reading the Boston Massacre and all the facts to go along with it, it is very easy to point fingers at the British soldiers saying they wounded and killed innocent colonist's. Although the soldiers shot and killed innocent colonist's, the colonist's provoked the British to do so, therefor neither party is justified.


Boston Tea Party

The Boston Tea Party was a great step for the Boston colonist's. They got to prove that they could out-smart the British as they did by pouring 342 chests of tea into the ocean. The colonist's acted against the British in a very subtle, non violent way. Although the British attempted to trick the colonist's by lowering the tax on tea, colonist's did not buy the cheaper tea either. During the colonist's act against the British there were no intentions on having violence in any way, the only object broken was a lock which was replaced. No one got hurt, nothing got broken that couldn't be immediately replaced, and the colonist's got to prove their point to the British; making the colonist's justified in this situation.


The Intolerable Acts

The Intolerable Acts was created by the British because they had felt weak, not one colony wants to feel weak; therefor they created this ridiculous act for the Boston colonist's. The British were very unjustified in this situation as they made very strict, unreasonable rules for the colonist's. This act was so unreasonable and unnecessary that I think the British are unjustified for making it so strict.