Did the British government overreact to colonial protests by issuing the intolerable Acts or why not?

Answer 1

Let's examine what the five acts that are known as the Intolerable Acts did.

The Quebec Act allowed the formerly French colony to keep Catholicism as its main religion. That had nothing to do with the Americans.

The Boston Port Act closed the port of Boston until the tea from the Tea Party had been paid for. That is actually perfectly reasonable. The tea wasn't owned by Britain, but by a private company which deserved to be paid for tea the colonists used. To make it more understandable, the colonists took the tea and failed to pay for it.

The Quartering Act requried the governor to put soldiers up in inhabitable government-owned buildings. That had nothing to do with the protests; it just reinforced earlier legislation that did the same time.

The Administration of Justice Act had everything to do with the protests. It allowed the governor to send trials of government officials to Canada or Britain if it appeared unlikely they would get a fair trial as afforded to every citizen due to the rebellious state of the colonists who could be selected as jurors. Although the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre received fair trials gave many a reason to doubt the necessity, it is important to note that known Patriot John Adams was the main lawyer in those cases which probably swayed the vote.

The Massachusetts Government Act altered some government positions to make them by-appointment instead of by-election and limited. This did have to do with the protests and is the only one that could be considered over-reacting.

To sum it up: Only one could be considered over-reacting, three were sensible and one had nothing to do with others and is only included because it annoyed the colonists. And, because it seems a good idea to note, this is an analysis by an American from Massachusetts.