Answer: <u><em>The Boston Port Act</em></u> was the first of the Coercive Acts. Parliament passed the bill on March 31, 1774, and King George III gave it royal assent on May 20th. The act authorized the Royal Navy to blockade Boston Harbor because “the commerce of his Majesty’s subjects cannot be safely carried on there."1 The blockade commenced on June 1, 1774, effectively closing Boston’s port to commercial traffic. Additionally, it forbade any exports to foreign ports or provinces. The only imports allowed were provisions for the British Army and necessary goods, such as fuel and wheat. The Act mandated that the port remain shuttered until Bostonians made restitution to the East India Company (the owners of the destroyed tea), the king had determined that the colony was able to obey British laws, and that British goods once again could be traded in the harbor safely. However, if the Bostonians refused to pay the East India Company or the king remained unsatisfied, the harbor would be blockaded indefinitely.
<h3><em><u>The Massachusetts Government Act</u></em>
imperiled representative government in the colony. Assuming that Massachusetts was under mob rule, and to "[preserve] . . . the peace and good order of the said province," Parliament passed the act on May 20, 1774. It received royal assent on the same day.2 The Massachusetts Council, previously constituted as an elected body with the governor’s approval, became appointed by the crown. Additionally, the Act gave the new royal governor the ability to choose judges and county sheriffs without the Council’s approval. County sheriffs could now also appoint jurors, harming the impartiality of the colony’s judicial system. The Government Act also restricted town meetings to once a year, with any additional meetings requiring the governor’s approval. </h3>
<em><u>The Act for the Impartial Administration</u></em> of Justice gained the king’s approval on the same day as the Massachusetts Government Act. This law sought to further increase the power of the governor by giving him the ability to move a trial to another colony or Great Britain if it was determined “that an indifferent trial cannot be had within the said province."3 The Act eliminated the right to a fair trial by one’s peers, removing an established judicial principle dating to Magna Carta.
<u>The Quartering Act</u> <em><u>was the fourth and final of the main Coercive Acts.</u></em> It was given royal assent on June 2, 1774. The only act of the four to apply to all of the colonies, it allowed high-ranking military officials to demand better accommodations for troops and to refuse inconvenient locations for quarters. The inability to effectively house troops in North America had been a long-standing issue. Troops were often billeted far from the areas in which they operated, making it difficult for the army to exercise effective control over the colonists. However, the Act did not require colonists to house soldiers within their private homes, as is commonly believed. Rather, it specifically indicated that soldiers were to be housed in “uninhabited houses, out-houses, barns, or other buildings,” yet they were to be quartered at the colonists’ expense.
Explanation:
Answer:
These immigrants came to the United States to work for a better life. ... A huge effect on immigrants coming to the U.S. appeared in nativism. ... policing institutions, whereas the rest of the immigrant population of the English and Asians are not.
Explanation:
Before schools were commonly used and accepted as educational institutions if you wanted to learn a trade, you would need to find a master and to ask him to be his apprentice. If the master accepted you, then he would transmit his knowledge and technique to you. Thus the right answer is He is an apprentice training to learn a trade.
A good example is shown in the picture because you can see the master an the apprentice, but you can also find this situation in some movies, when a young guy moves in with a blacksmith and learns from him before becoming a master himself.
