1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
lisabon 2012 [21]
3 years ago
11

The Sons of Liberty protested the Tea Act by dumping British tea into the Boston Harbor as a reaction to taxation without repres

entation. Which answer choice is a way that Parliament responded?
History
1 answer:
Sladkaya [172]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

Parliament responded by enforcing the Coercive Acts of 1774.

Explanation:

When the Boston Tea Party took place, Parliament was furious. Hence, they passed the Coercive Acts of 1774, which included 4 different statements:

The Boston Port Act stated that until damages from the Boston Tea Party were paid off, the Boston Ports would be closed.

The Massachusetts Government Act restricted Massachusetts, stating that democratic town meetings turned the government council into an appointed body.

The Administration of Justice Act stated that any British Official was immune to criminal prosecution in Massachusetts.

The Quartering Act required colonists to house British soldiers on demand, and possibly using their private homes as a last resort.

Those are the 4 Technical Acts of the Coercive Acts of 1774, but there's a 5th act that correlates.

The  Quebec Act extended freedom of of worship to Catholics in Canada, as well as letting Canadians carry on with their judicial system. It was added to the Coercive Acts of 1774 later after the Acts were passed, and it enraged the Sons of Liberty that much more.

You might be interested in
Which of the following situations is evidence of inequality in the West? a. women couldn’t vote b. tribes lost lands c. slave la
tankabanditka [31]
I know it is all of the above so D.
6 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
List three things the continental congress did
Vinvika [58]
1) Declaration of Independence 
<span>2) Articles of Confederation </span>
<span>3) Appointed George Washington to head the Continental Army </span>
7 0
3 years ago
Write a 250-word report on either the Sadducees or the Pharisees. Your report should include information concerning the backgrou
frosja888 [35]

Sadducees


SADDUCEES (săd'yū-sēz, Gr. Saddoukaioi). One of the religious parties that existed among the Jews in the days of Christ and the early church, but exercised comparatively little influence among the people. They resisted the truth of the gospel. Their origin is uncertain, but it is to be sought in the period in Jewish history between the restoration of the Jews to their own land (536 b.c.) and the Christian era. No evidence of Sadduceeism is to be found in Israel before the Captivity.


The origin of the name of the sect is obscure. The root of the word means “to be righteous,” and the word has sometimes been taken to be an adjective (“the righteous ones”); but since the Sadducees were not particularly distinguished for their righteousness, it is unlikely that they got their name from this word. Probably the name is derived from someone named Zadok. The best-known Zadok in history was the Davidic high priest (2Sam.8.17), from whom succeeding high priests claimed to descend. He himself was descended from Aaron through the line of Eleazar (1Chr.24.3) and was instrumental in the return of the ark (2Sam.15.24-2Sam.15.29). The prophet Ezekiel, in his description of the restored temple, says that because the sons of Zadok remained loyal to the Lord when the Israelites went astray, they would be ministers in the new sanctuary (Ezek.40.46; Ezek.44.15). Some scholars hold that the Sadducees trace their origin to this Zadok. Others, however, think that the name comes from another Zadok, a disciple of Antigonus of Socho (c. 250 b.c.), who taught that obedience to God should be absolutely disinterested, without expectation of future reward. This view goes back to an apocryphal legend in the Abot-de-Rabbi Nathan (c. a.d. 1000). There is also the possibility that the name may be derived from some Zadok unknown to us.


The chief authorities for our knowledge of this sect are the Jewish historian Josephus, the NT, and the Talmud. Josephus lays great stress on the aristocratic nature of the Sadducees. He says, “They only gain the well-to-do; they have not the people on their side.” They were the political party of the Jewish aristocratic priesthood from the time of the Maccabees to the final fall of the Jewish state. The Sadducees were priests, but not all priests were Sadducees. Josephus, for example, was a priest and a Pharisee. The likelihood is that the priestly party only gradually crystallized into the sect of the Sadducees. From the time of the Exile, the priesthood in general constituted the nobility of the Jewish people, and the high priest became an increasingly powerful figure. The priestly aristocracy became leaders in the Hellenizing movement that began with Alexander the Great. Because of their sympathy with the policy of Antiochus Epiphanes, they took no part in the Maccabean struggle, which was supported mainly by the Pharisees, a group of religious enthusiasts who opposed what they regarded as the religious deterioration of the Jewish nation. The high priesthood and the throne were united in a single person when, c. 143 b.c., Simon was recognized as both high priest and ruler of the Jews. This centralization of power led to a number of forms of reaction, especially from the Pharisees. Probably not theological at first, the Sadducees became so in order to defend their policies against the attacks of the Pharisees. Under the Romans they become the party favorable to the government. As aristocrats they were naturally very conservative and were more interested in maintaining the political status quo than in the religious purity of the nation. Since they were satisfied with the present, they did not look forward to a future messianic age. Not popular with the people, they nevertheless sometimes found it necessary to adopt the pharisaic policy in order to win the popular support.

8 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Where did the Second Continental Congress assemble
Romashka-Z-Leto [24]

<u>Answer:</u>

The Second Continental Congress assembled at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

<u>Explanation: </u>

  • The beginning of the Second Revolutionary War stimulated a number of engagements all throughout the thirteen British American colonies.
  • One such engagement was that of the convening of the 'Second Continental Congress' at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania.
  • This assembling was also referred to as 'Congress of the Confederation'. The 'Second Continental Congress' assembled between 1775 and 1781 and extended as 'Congress of the Confederation' from 1781 to 1789.
5 0
3 years ago
I’ll give you brainlist if you help me out
Mnenie [13.5K]

Answer:

im sorry but is a that's a mess

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What was the goal of the american colonization society (acs)?
    10·2 answers
  • What role does the president play in amending the constitution?
    14·1 answer
  • The number of states that needed to ratify the constitution in order for it to become the law of the land was
    15·1 answer
  • What does a cultural historian study?
    9·2 answers
  • Kings are justly calls gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth; for if you will consider
    12·1 answer
  • Extreme nationalism, individuals existing for the good of the state, and unquestioning loyalty to the leader are defining charac
    13·2 answers
  • What was true about African Americans in the military?
    14·1 answer
  • 20 pionts The main goal of a fable is to _______ .
    13·1 answer
  • How did the Aztecs share their history from generation to generation?
    12·1 answer
  • Which Southern state did NOT secede?<br> Mississippi<br> Texas<br> Kentucky<br> Tennessee
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!