Things were beginning to get out of hand, something had to be done to set the colonists straight and put the goverenment back in control.
nmczxbhjfdbgfsdhbfdusygfrhsdgfuscjk #
To train future members of government
It depends on your perspective. The colonists would say yes. The British would say no.
British gained a lot of territory in America and became extremely powerful. The Treaty ensured British were in control of North America.
Because it's got a long heritage
From a British perspective, there is nothing barring a Muslim from serving in the UK Military. If there are any impediments, they come from Muslims or Islam.?Yes they can and yes they do. The British forces have Imam chaplains to?support serving Muslims in their faith.
There view is they get more money that's what they intended for all of there Acts just like America they need taxes to not be in debt but the British went over board with all of there taxes.
Things were beginning to get out of hand, something had to be done to set the colonists straight and put the goverenment back in control.
Several, the obvious ones include Quebec and the British but others include the HBC, the British Colonies to the south, the Indians (aboriginals), and other European powers. Each would have their own perspective.
He was a traitor. His own mother was a loyalist (loyal to the crown). He had no just reason for doing what he did, especially by today's ethical standard.
(Cynical British Perspective) One is right wing the other is even more right wing.
The nation which is now Israel was previously administered by the British, and by the Turkish before that, but being a slave is a matter of perspective.