SS essay test
Use the graphic organizer below to take notes about the Intolerable Acts. In the second column, sum up what each act said. In the third column, sum up why colonists were against the act.
Act: 1, What It Said: The Port of Boston would be closed until colonists paid for the tea destroyed in the Boston Tea Party. Why Colonists Were Against It: With the port closed, boats could not carry goods into and out of Boston Harbor, which was a major hub of trade. Merchants' ability to sell goods was hindered and the economy suffered. Act: 2, What It Said: Massachusetts colonists could not hold town meetings more than once a year without the governor's permission, and public officials would now be selected by the governor, who was appointed by the king, rather than elected by colonial citizens. Why Colonists Were Against It: The act stripped colonists of the right to a voice in local government and of the right to assemble whenever they pleased. Act: 3, What It Said: Customs officers and other officials who broke the law could be tried in Canada or Great Britain instead of Massachusetts. Why Colonists Were Against It: Dishonest officials could avoid punishment for crimes committed in Massachusetts because juries in Canada and Great Britain would be likely to side with the officials. Act: 4, What It Said: The Quartering Act was established, in which colonists would have to house and feed British soldiers, or "quarter" them, when no other housing was available. Why Colonists Were Against It: Colonists viewed this act as yet another tax, because they had to house and feed British soldiers. Many objected to having the British army stationed in the colonies at all.)
The text indicates that even after the battles at Lexington and Concord colonial leaders were of two minds about going to war, and many still hoped to avoid a final break with Britain. Give an example of an attempt to avoid war. Give an example of preparation for war.
An attempt to avoid war: At the Second Continental Congress, the delegates wrote the Olive Branch Petition to King George, declaring their loyalty to the king and asking him to repeal the Intolerable Acts. An example of preparing for war: The Second Continental Congress established the Continental Army and appointed George Washington as commander.
Both the British and the colonists had strengths and weaknesses as they entered war. As you read "Opposing Sides at War," use the graphic organizer below to take notes about the two sides' reasons for fighting, military preparedness, supply of arms, and knowledge of battlefield terrain. Then use your notes to draw conclusions about whether each factor was a colonial strength or weakness and why.
Reasons for Fighting: British- to defend the right of their government and its authority over their colonies. Colonists -to defend themselves against an oppressive government; to defend their families and homes Troop Strength and Preparedness—British: Had large, well-trained army and navy made up of professional military personnel. Colonists: Had no navy and a poorly trained army made up mainly of volunteers, though some were sharpshooters and some leaders, such as General Washington, were able commanders. Colonial Strength or Weakness? Weakness, because the British had more troops, and the troops were better trained. Ease/Speed of Communication Between Leaders and Commanders—British: Could take months for orders from superiors in England to reach commanders in the colonies. Colonists: Depending on location, could take only hours for orders from superiors to reach commanders. Colonial Strength or Weakness? Strength, because the colonists could communicate more quickly and easily with each other. Familiarity with Battle Terrain—British: Most soldiers were not familiar with the countryside. Colonists: Familiar with home terrain. Colonial Strength or Weakness? Strength, because each colony had its own militia that fought close to home and therefore knew the terrain better than did the British.
Compare and Contrast mercantilism and free enterprise. How do the conflicts between the British government and the colonists over the tea tax and the Tea Act of 1773 illustrate differences between these two economic doctrines?
Under mercantilism, colonies exist to enrich the mother country. The government of that country can regulate trade between the colonies and other countries and can control the prices of goods in various ways. In contrast, free enterprise seeks to operate without government restraints. With free enterprise, colonies could trade with any country they chose, and market forces would dictate the price of goods. Colonial tea merchants complained that the Tea Act violated their right to free enterprise because it allowed the British East India Company to sell tea directly to the colonists. This effectively lowered the price of tea because the colonists would not have to pay the markup on tea that the colonial merchants added to make a profit. The British government's intent was to encourage colonists to buy British tea, thereby helping the financially strapped British East India Company, which was feeling the effects of the colonists' tea boycott. However, the Tea Act heightened tensions between the British government and the colonists, who resented the tea tax and the bypassing of colonial tea merchants.
