Did the colonies have reason o rebel aginst the british policies?
455792
The colonies should have had members of Parliament, even Ireland had members of Parliament. :-)  The King, GeorgeIII, was a verifiable nutcase imported from Orange, a German state. There was a wave of political awareness in the period that made the idea of having no representation even more important.\nYes, they should have rebelled against the policies. Still, the war was the result of a failure on two sides...a failure of pro-British colonists to promote their opinions (revolutionists were a minority), and a failure of British politicians to react correctly to the protests against taxation.\nMost wars are the result of stupidity, our revolution was no exception.
784598
I can think of several things that may qualify, but upon closer examination I find evidence lacking for all of them.  Not counting some local or minor issue that may have been discussed in your class, consider Iraq?\n\nNo, we are not a colonial power exploiting another people.  Further, the people of Iraq are not culturally related to us, like we were to the British.  So bag that idea.\n\nWhat else? Elections?  Change of focus of power from Republican to Democrat?  No, there were no parties in Colonial America.  Not like we have them today.\n\nSorry I can't be more helpful.  Perhaps, Like I said, the question may be related to some topic covered in class that is not "general knowledge."  \n\nLots of teachers have their own agenda and even more ask questions that only make sense to them.  Some make a career out of making the obvious, obscure.
145657
We have had two wars with Britian, the American Revolution and the War of 1812.  The American Revolution had many causes including taxes without corresponding representation in the British Parliament. Also resentment of the Quartering of British soldiers in colonist homes, the Boston Massacre, and the British punishment of Boston for the Boston Tea party. The War of 1812 was fought because the British were kidnapping American sailors off of American ships, and the British provoking Indians to attack Americans.
1182733
They weren't - that's the reason they had the Boston Tea Party, with the slogan, "no taxation without representation".  The British were taxing everything (including tea) but the American colonies had no say in how much the tax would be or what it would be used for.
848005
The American Continental Army led by General George Washington won the American Revolution. They fought against an enemy who was well trained, well armed and well supplied. The factor which played into the favor of American Rebels is that the fight was on their home turf. This should be generally well known.
790380
The immigration from Europe to the colonies started because of a desire for religious freedom from tyranny.  The Church and the State were too intertwined and both had become too political.
341874
maybe it has had more time to develop its ideas and ideals. it was one of the first colonies, and was the melting pot for the revolution
1089979
To declare our independance from Britain. The Declaration stated the reasons why the thirteen colonies were freeing themselves from British Rule.\nJust read the ideals part of the declaration. It tells u pretty much why in more detail.
800335
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint. -- Alexander Hamilton\n\nShays’ Rebellion had a lot to do with changing their minds.  Without a stronger “Union” they (United States) had little power to put down the uprising.\n\nOn the other hand, Confederations are very weak forms of government.  To put things into perspective, many confederations have been tried throughout world history, but none survive today.  The main reason is because states maintained their full sovereignty. Since they were all individual nations, there was little motivation for allegiance to each other.  This is especially true when it came to commerce among the states.  Also the articles were very limited when it came to what they regulated, and had definitive language that would prove to be obsolete over the years.  The Founders wanted something that would last.
774827
I could easily agree with you on some places. British rule always made sure that things in these countries ran much smoother and the British protected those people from outside threats and civil enemies. And it is weird how all these 3rd world countries all seem to be packing old, rusty kalashnikovs... that last bit really made me laugh. One of the things I'll have to remember!!!! But now they are all moving into England and god help anyone who speaks up against them, because "it would be un-PC".
928246
The European people escaped the old country to the land of the great wilderness to become colonists in order to avoid endentured servitude, oppression, and persecution.  As the hand of mighty England reached across the waters into the new land of the colonies, they forced the same tyranny upon the people of the colonies that they had previously faced in the old country of England.  Then, as taxations and other tariffs were forced upon the colonists, the pressure built until it exploded.  With a militia force that was knowledged of the way of the land, they were able to conquer the mighty and arrogant English into submission.
825944
I wasn't aware that the Texans "stole THEIR land illegally".  I thought they fought a war and won and were later admitted to the Union.  Based on your line of reasoning, we stole the 13 colonies from Britain because we fought a war with them and beat them as well.
836728
do you mean the 'American Revolution'?\n\nwell the first reason is the Quartering Act. the quartering act is an act that made colonists quarter, or house, british soldiers in their homes.\n\nanother reason is the Proclamation (think mispell) of 1763. it prevented colonists from moving wesword past the appalation mountains. it violated their rights as britians.\n\nTHe third reason is the Sugar Act. THe sugar act is simply a tax on sugar, molasses (which is syurp) and other sugar products. this angered the colonists because colonists loved to drink tea with sugar. \n\nThe fourth reason is the Stamp Act. THe stamp act is a replacement for the Sugar Act. I am unshure about when the stamp act was repealed, though. the stamp act is a tax on legal documents, stamps, even playing cards, etc. (pretty much any product that has paper in/on/ or is paper\n\nThe townshed act is another reason. i dont know what it exactly did, but it isnt a tax. i think it was a limit on what the things that colonists can do.\n\nThe Blockade of Boston Harbor is another reason. it was a wall of ships that blocked ships (mainly ships that carryed imports) from coming into the colonists.\n\nthere are many other reasons why, but these are main reasons
185515
The Federalist Papers advocated the proposition that the colonies should have a strong centralized government that would downplay to some extent the notion of states' rights.   It lined up as a game of wills between the forces led by Alexander Hamilton (Federalists) and those of Thos. Jefferson (Republcans).  In the end, there was naturally a certain amount of equivocation on the part of both sides but a deal got done.  Unfortunately, the most important issue of all -- slavery-- was set aside and not properly addressed.  For purposes of the government, a slave was counted as 3/5 of a white person.   Failure to resolve the SLAVERY issue properly eventually was a cause of the CIVIL WAR!!!!
979135
The proclamation closed off the frontier to colonial expansion. It was meant to calm the fears of the Indians, who felt that the colonists would drive them from their lands as they expanded westward. However the colonists could not help but feel a strong resentment when what they viewed to be their prize was snatched away from them. The proclamation stated that "all lands west of the heads of all rivers which flowed into the Atlantic Ocean from the west or northwest were off-limits to the colonists." I think the colonists would have been really upset to hear that. The url below is where i found my answer... after alot of reading
954393
all settlers were british, britain claimed the new land, eventually taxes got to high, with inflammation and all, so they started rebeling, britain was not about to let its new colony go, so they sent ships (note britain was most powerful in world at the time ). and they tried to control it, but eventually, somebody shot a british soldier, and they got pissed, and started killing everybody.
284952
the difference in attitude between the colonists (who wanted their independence) and the parliament/king of england.\n\nalso the belief of indirect representation, which basically means that parliament thought that they could rule the colonies indirectly from overseas, but colonists believed in direct representation