We may or may not have been still part of England. The intolerable acts were a part of why we disliked England, and wanted independence, but not all. We also felt disrespected, and like we were lower class than the British. We still most likely would have British tropes in the colonies, no representation in Parliament, and they most likely would have passed more acts and taxes that would have made us angry. On the contrary, if there were not the intolerable acts, we may not have been mad enough to start a war, and if we did, have enough people to support and fight in the war.
Trade with the colonies was economically important to Great Britain. The colonists thought the economic implications would be enough for the British Parliament to repeal the Intolerable Acts.
the answer is because Boston would be punished and the parliament decided to close the port of Boston until the colonists paid for their tea . In which the colonists called parliments actions the Intolerable Acts.
The Intolerable Acts were issued in response to the Boston Tea Party of December 1773; British Parliament hoped these punitive measures would, by making an example of Massachusetts, reverse the trend of colonial resistance to parliamentary authority.
The colonies would have had representation, not taxation without representation. This would probably mean that the riots in the colonies wouldn't have been as severe, so neither would the Intolerable Acts meant to suppress them have. This would at the very least weaken public support for the Revolution later in time and it probably either wouldn't have happened or wouldn't have been successful.
After the Boston tea party, British parliament passed the Coercive Acts or as the patriots would say the Intolerable Acts.
The 13 original colonies in the U.S. adopted the Articles of Association. It stated that if the Intolerable Acts were not repealed by December 1, 1774, a boycott of British goods would start in the colonies
The king and parliament would have been killed.
What the colonist wanted was representation in parliament and if that had happened there may not have been a revolution, but parliament wasn't the problem it was the king. Many in parliament agreed with the colonies positions and wore a powder blue ribbon or clothing to show support.
Never, the word "repealed" refers to laws. Cases would be "referred"
Great Britain, the King and Parliament, were creating taxes to pay for the French and Indian War, or Seven Years' War. This war was fought on the soil of the colonist and for the protection of the colonists, therefore, Britain reasoned, the colonists should have to pay for the cost of the war. The Parliament and the King created these taxes without consent from the colonies; the colonies had no representation. Taxes like that would never have happened on the Great Britain mainland because they all had representatives in Parliament.
The Boston Tea Party was the action of the patriotic citizens of America who dumped tea that was imported into Boston harbor. this action greatly angered Parliament, and they decided that it would only be best if they punished the citizens/subjects and showed them who's boss. hope that helped! :)
It was the Intolerable Acts, because tare were several acts:The Boston Port was closedColonists had to house British SoldiersTrials for British Soldiers would be held in England