The British and the colonists had many conflicts in the time before the American Revolution. What conclusion can be made about why so much conflict occurred in Boston?

The king wanted to control Boston because the wealthiest colonists lived there.

The British did not like Boston because most colonists there did not own slaves.

The people of Boston were taxed by the king, while Southern colonies were not.

The king was enforcing more policies in Boston as an example to all the colonies.

The answer is D, as they said above.

What do you think? Which colony protested the loudest over the Stamp and Townshend Acts, prompting a crack-down by the Crown?

The word "justification" is the one that I'm hung up on here, because there was no explicit "justification" for the Stamp Act, although it's intent was clear.

Ok i'll put Stamp Act. Thanks for your help :D

Okay, as I read the history, the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts were both intended to tax the colonies to help Britain pay off it's debts from the War. The Declaration did not impose any new taxes, but justified making the colonies more dependent on the Crown/British government, so I interpret that as "justification" for the taxes. It's not a word that was used at the time, but our interpretation of it in our own time.

So what is it?

To determine why so much conflict occurred in Boston before the American Revolution, we can evaluate the given statements and consider the historical context.

The statement that the king wanted to control Boston because the wealthiest colonists lived there does not provide a conclusive reason for the conflicts. While it is true that Boston was one of the most prosperous colonial cities, it alone does not explain the conflicts.

The statement that the British did not like Boston because most colonists there did not own slaves is not directly relevant to the conflicts in Boston. Slavery was a contentious issue during this time, but it was not the primary cause of conflict in Boston.

The statement that the people of Boston were taxed by the king while the Southern colonies were not holds some weight. One of the main causes of conflict in Boston was the imposition of various taxes by the British government, such as the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act. These acts were seen as unfair taxation without representation, which infuriated many colonists, including those in Boston.

The statement that the king was enforcing more policies in Boston as an example to all the colonies is more accurate. Boston was viewed as a center of resistance to British authority, primarily due to the presence of influential patriots and the organization of protests, such as the Boston Tea Party. The British government aimed to exert control over Boston to set an example for other colonies and discourage similar acts of resistance.

Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn is that conflicts in Boston were fueled by various factors, including unfair taxation, the city's role as a center of resistance, and the British government's desire to establish control and set an example for other colonies.

I think D?

Yep, you got it! As for the other question about "justification," Ms. Sue seems to disagree with me. The Stamp Act WAS designed to impose taxes to help Britain with it's French and Indian War debt. Maybe that IS what would be considered correct.

Yay! Thank you! So the last one I did is Stamp Act?