To manage such a large empire
they were angered that colonial merchants had traded with Britain's enemies during the war.
Many leaders in Britain were also upset that the colonies had only halfheartedly helped in the war effort
The Americans were fighting for a cause and because they used guerrilla warfare.
I am wondering the same thing and what I've gotten so far is that because of salutary neglect, citizens were able to form their own legislative assemblies and were free to make their own decisions. ------ Legislative Assemblies did not form beause of "salutary neglect." It did, however, lead to stronger Legislative Assemblies. Legislative Assemblies were formed out of the same principle of the British House of Commons. The principle of government in the House of Commons was that government should represent the people. Englishmen in the North American colonies called for the same institution in their own colony. Of course, 'the people' only refered to property holders in nearly all colonies. At various times, each colony was permitted to develop its own assembly which, in theory, was supposed to be subordinated to the executive branch, the Royal colonial governments. Through what historians call "salutary neglect," the English government did not strictly enforce laws on its North American colonies, nor did it provide back-up support to the Royal Governors. As a result, the Royal Governors' power was less than it should have been, and they had to cooperate with the assemblies. This gave the assemblies much greater power within their own colony.
Colonies of settlement were able to control their own future and fate which meant they could grow their own industries. Colonies of exploitation did not have the luxury of controlling their own fate.
At the time of the American Revolution, the complaint was not taxation per se, it was about taxation without representation. The American colonists paid taxes to the British government but had no say in that government, and no representative in the British parliament, who might be able to influence the way taxes were collected and spent. That is why it was unfair. Taxation itself is accepted, in that it is understood that people derive services from a government, and that those services have to be paid for by taxes. But people also want to be able to decide what services they want and how much they are prepared to pay for them.
Puerto Rico
With the British taxes, the colonies were forced to pay, making them less able to use their extra money to employ/trade with other nations, but they definitely didn't lead to more cooperation. If anything, they led to more upset and turmoil, especially the Townsend Acts and the Quartering Act. But what the British asked wasn't really unreasonable- it just seemed so to the colonies because they had become used to a policy of salutary neglect.
The French saved the colonies from British rule.
thailand served a buffer between british and french colonies
The colonies were ruled by the British until gaining their independence. All trade-able supplies manufactured in the colonies were then shipped to England or other places, and the funds were given to England.
colonies bought lousiiana from french, spanish colonization ended in 1989
Climate, soil, and natural resources were all ideal reasons for middle colonies to grow crops. This drastically increase the ability to grow crops and cultivate them.
Because at the time the British had the best Navy in the world, they could get anywhere they wanted in the world, not to mention they had one of the best supplied and most technologically advanced army at the time.
Your mom. Or they wanted to, either answer will work.
The Americans were fighting for a cause and because they used guerrilla warfare.
By offering a route for Europeans to be able to afford to come to the colonies, providing a way for the colonies to expand their economic potential, such as in Virginia's 1600s tobacco fields, and increasing the national diversity of the immigrants to North America.
I am wondering the same thing and what I've gotten so far is that because of salutary neglect, citizens were able to form their own legislative assemblies and were free to make their own decisions. ------ Legislative Assemblies did not form beause of "salutary neglect." It did, however, lead to stronger Legislative Assemblies. Legislative Assemblies were formed out of the same principle of the British House of Commons. The principle of government in the House of Commons was that government should represent the people. Englishmen in the North American colonies called for the same institution in their own colony. Of course, 'the people' only refered to property holders in nearly all colonies. At various times, each colony was permitted to develop its own assembly which, in theory, was supposed to be subordinated to the executive branch, the Royal colonial governments. Through what historians call "salutary neglect," the English government did not strictly enforce laws on its North American colonies, nor did it provide back-up support to the Royal Governors. As a result, the Royal Governors' power was less than it should have been, and they had to cooperate with the assemblies. This gave the assemblies much greater power within their own colony.
1.) freedom from british government 2.) be able to trade with whomever theyd like 3.) intolerable and all other acts are gone 4.) to many arrguements over religion and government! 5.) british soldiers gone