Was it right for the colonists to rebel?

No, because Britain did not intend to hurt patriots, no. They responded appropriately only to unacceptable behaviors in colonies.

One of the most important examples is the Boston carnage. Yes, five colonists died for this reason, but only after they provoked the soldiers. According to reports, settlers' mobs threw snowballs and stones to soldiers. They fired only after a soldier hit. They were first ordered to hold their position instead of shooting. The Boston massacre left only five deaths known as 'Holocaust' for Paul Libya's publicity and prejudiced scene depiction. His photograph shows that settlers are fleeing and shooting soldiers. The soldiers did not mean to hurt them. But the settlers are about to start fighting

The second example was the Boston Tea Party, later led to mandatory behavior (also called "unbearable behavior" by patriots). Boston Tea Party is not a party at all. This is a destruction plan of the import of Freeson in the UK. On 16th December 1773, the son of Freedom fought as the Mohawk Indian and boarded three ships at Boston Port. They poured 342 boxes of tea into the water; today's dollars are over a million dollars. When the news of destruction arrives at the Royal Parliament, enforcement measures are necessary to retaliate. They said that Boston Harbor is closed until fee is paid. The settlers thought it was a cruel punishment, but it was necessary to make sure they did not avoid their behavior. The crown took the right attitude to ensure that the colony knows that they are not so serious and can not produce results. If resultantists are their cause, they will not agree with them. If you know that this is what the British do, why should you destroy this tea first? Understanding and understanding the influence of sabotage is a fine and can be a prison, but it is still like committing a crime. There is no point in doing such things.

Another important point that is very important for this discussion is that colonies will not appear there first if it is not in the UK. You must understand that this also implies their allegiance to the British royal family and Britain. The argument that they are taxed is not strong. In fact, this is not unfair taxes, they are the money they owe UK. You must remember that these taxes are the result of the seven year war. In the meantime Britain protected the colony. After that, they expected the colony to share the debt burden.

I think that it can be said that the settlers have full rights to resist. Their rebellion is based on the simple fact that they were deprived of their own taxation rights, "right as a British". "Non-representative taxation" is often misunderstood as a settler who wishes to be represented by Congress. This is not the case as this representation is not feasible from the absolute distance involved. But the colonialists who constantly thought of themselves as king's good and faithful servants had the right to elect these tax collectors, in this case colonial parliament, to all other British citizens I just want to give. In fact, after the battle between Lexington and Concord, the Continental Congress submitted olive branch petitions to George III and showed that they wanted to stay inside the empire as long as they acquired these rights It was. However, George thought they were overkill and claimed they were in rebellion

Does American settlers have a reason to fight Britain? Does American settlers have a reason to fight Britain?

• In the American Revolutionary War, colonists rebelled against their rulers. The settlers of the rebel faction did not kill George III of the then ruler of the British at that time. During the French Revolution, they also resisted their rulers, but unlike American settlers, French citizens publicly beheaded their king Louis XVI, so that all citizens can see I will. Finally, irrespective of which country 's rulers were killed or alive, they are all boiling into civil rebellion so that they can all be free and equal. Event 2: Part 2: • John Rock is one of many philosophers involved in the revolution. He played an important part in the American Revolutionary War. Unlike his rival Rousseau, Rock promotes the ownership of people's property, the basic right of freedom, and ultimately, his beliefs are a constitutional government with limited power and citizens with power . During the French Revolution, one of their main philosophers was Rousseau.