Someone me
which statement best explains how the authors
develop their claim across the two passages?
as news of the toughened sugar act reached the
north american colonists, they reacted with
outrage--to them, this move by parliament was
precisely "taxation without representation." in
boston, the general assembly responded by
saying, "if taxes are laid upon without ever
having a legal representative where they are
laid, are we not reduced from the character of
free subjects to the miserable status of tributary
slaves? " soon assemblies in new york and north
carolina joined the chorus, protesting against the
sugar act.
when parliament listened to the sugar lords, the
colonists felt , as if they were slaves. if
england could take an american's property, he
both passages show the historical details that led
the abolitionists to support the american revolution.
both passages develop the idea that boycotting
could bring attention to people who were treated
unfairlygincluding enslaved people.
both passages support the claim that intelligent
people will overcome harmful governments.
both passages show that there was little connection
between the sugar trade and the rise of slavery in
north america.