Answer:
The situation of the 60s - early 70s of the 18th century gives the impression that Britain deliberately provoked a colonial rebellion. The starting point of post-war tension growth was decree of 1763 on the Allegany-Cumberland line. It was followed in 1765 by a series of laws aimed at further economic strangulation of the colonies, in particular the Stamp Act, which introduced the five times taxation of all printed matter produced in the colonies and any legal documents drawn up on their territory.
The legislative initiatives of the mother country have become increasingly ominous. Thus, failure to comply with the Stamp Act threatened with the death penalty. De facto colonies were plunged into the atmosphere of medieval legal brutality.
In response, the Sons of Liverty extremist groups attacked British military and royal officials in the colonies. In parallel, a massive boycott of British goods began.
Such a decisive response caused confusion in London. In parliament, the voice of a few supporters of softening attitudes toward the colonies was finally heard. The internal struggle that took place in British political circles at that time was reflected by subsequent “zigzags” in their lawmaking. So, in 1766 the Stamp Act was canceled and the Sugar Act was softened, which retained the prohibition only on the import of rum into colonies. But in 1777, the Townshend Acts entered into force, introducing increased duties on imported tea, glass, paper, paints, and lead.
The Boston Massacre provoked a violent reaction. Riots spread to small towns and rural areas. The escalation of the conflict has a ‘sobering’ effect on the British Parliament. A gesture of reconciliation on its part was the abolition of the Townshend Acts, with one strange exception - the preservation of high duties on the import of tea. But such small concessions could no longer defuse the situation.
Explanation:
