Revisionist historians often claim that the actions of the American colonists in defense of colonial rights were more a result of greed than of high-minded political ideas. What evidence is there to support this claim?
It has been claimed that many of the acts passed by the British were unnecessary and misguided, either working contrary to their intent or producing such strong backlashes that the government would have been better off not passing them. Apply this argument to the Sugar Act and the Townshend duties, detailing the intent and results of each.
Historians argue over when the colonists became emotionally committed to rebellion, but most agree that they were not prepared for revolution as of 1773. What was the common colonial view of the Anglo-American relationship in 1773 and how did the events of the years from 1763-1773 inform that view?
What were the conditions in Boston that led to its role as the center of colonial opposition British meddling?
What were Lord Hillsborough's options in responding to the Massachusetts and Virginia circular letters? What was the result of his chosen course of action and how might that result have differed had he chosen differently?
Explain the difference in interpretation of the Declaratory Act between the colonists and the British Parliament. How did this difference of opinion factor into later interaction?
What role did the British army play in the development of colonial opposition to British authority?