Maybe. The king didn't take the colonies seriously when he got the Declaration and rather thought of them as spoiled children even though the men who signed it were traitors. It wasn't until Bunker Hill the king got mad and ordered more troops to the colonies. That sort of set the stage for the war and when Boston was under siege by the British the lines drawn. I think it came to a point that neither side would give in. The colonies couldn't because the king would have started to hang people and whole cities would have been under siege by troops. If the king had given in he would have been seen as weak by his parliament.
They could have avoided the war because if they would have they would not have this problem or anything like that but they could have avoided it so they wont have a lot of colonists people going agianst them.
Patrick Henry.
Patrick Henry.
The taxation to the colonists. Britain said that they could do that because they were in charge of everything that happened in their territory. The colonists said that they could not be taxed because there was no representation in Britain's Parliament.
They could have avoided the war because if they would have they would not have this problem or anything like that but they could have avoided it so they wont have a lot of colonists people going agianst them.
I believe it could
Yes, I think they both could have been avoided if the colonies would have went around instead of through the Britain colonies
Yes, I think they both could have been avoided if the colonies would have went around instead of through the Britain colonies
Only by further appeasement.
soldier power in britain
The entire revolution could have been avoided had the colonists and British acted differently. However, on the course the two sides had set, a confrontation in Boston was inevitable.
no