IS THIS A OR C? Maintaining peace is more important than going to war over rights we already have. What type of colonist most likely made this statement? A woman, because many colonial women feared war would result in loss of liberties A Loyalist, because many Loyalists believed that revolution was not worth the cost A Patriot, because many Patriots were property owners with a great deal to lose A Southern slave, because slaves had little hope of achieving personal freedom in war
@tshimp0629
@chycora come here
yes @bonnieisflash1.0
you want to help @chycora
but answer only if you know it lol:)
thanks guys!
we can help
ok great!
@milo123
I wouldn't think either because women didn't have that many liberties in the first place,and patriots supported the war
yes?
wait so b?
that seems the most reasonable
i think A Patriot, because many Patriots were property owners with a great deal to lose
its patriots because, Patriots were those in the colonies who believed that the British Government was unfairly taxing the colonies and that they deserved representation or freedom from British rule.
hoped i helped
thx for agreeing @chycora
np
http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/eliot/technology/lessons/am_rev_bio/loy_pat_argue.pdf
here @chycora you answer it right to
lol patriots sort of wanted to go to war though
thanks yall and do you need anymore help @milo123
yeah kind of
yes do you @milo123
yeah sort of lol i'm just confused
what are you confuse about
well a patriot is someone who is prepared for war and to defend their country, so would they want to go to war?
I think Loyalists is the most reasonable of the choices. The patriots (landowners) were the strongest supporters of the war because they had the most to lose from peace because they were the ones being taxed the most.
yeah so they wanted to go to war
Yes they did. Patriots had more to lose from peace than they did from war
They are celebrated as the original American patriots—the reluctant citizen-soldiers who won the Revolutionary War. When some 700 British regulars were ordered into the Massachusetts countryside on April 19, 1775, to capture the colonists' military stores in Concord, a group of 70 militiamen assembled in nearby Lexington. They were yeoman farmers and shopkeepers, mostly in their 30s and 40s, who were putting their families and property at risk. Armed with hunting rifles and ancient muskets, they took the field against British tyranny. As the redcoats marched into town, a shot rang out—from which side, no one was sure—and the British troops opened fire. Within minutes, eight colonists were dead. The British marched on to Concord, where they met another small group of Minutemen. When they turned back to Boston, they found themselves facing a countryside—and soon a country—buzzing with angry militias. From behind trees and stone fences, men with muskets attacked the British all the way back to Boston. When the redcoats finally limped into the city, they had suffered nearly 300 casualties. This, in popular memory, is how the Revolutionary War was won—by a devoted band of middle-class farmers and militiamen who took up arms to defeat a professional army. It is the founding fable of an epic struggle that pitted paid mercenaries against civilians devoted to a cause. "Life, for my Country and the Cause of Freedom," wrote Nathaniel Niles, a pastor in Norwich, Conn., in 1775, "Is but a Trifle for a Worm to part with." But as compelling as this version of the Revolution may be, it is not quite the whole story. Niles, for one, wasn't the only silver-tongued patriot who doesn't seem to have actually fought in the Revolution. Many of those legendary liberty-loving farmers didn't either, at least not for the duration. "We have so many national myths that are built on this idea," says Maj. Jason Palmer, an assistant professor of history at the United States Military Academy at West Point. "One of the primary jobs of Revolutionary historians has been to be mythbusters." The truth is, historians say, after the first year of fighting, the nascent Continental Army was forced to leave its now mythic origins behind. The high-minded middle-class farmers went home, and a new army was formed, made up mostly of poor, propertyless laborers, unmarried men in their early 20s who took up arms not to defend some abstract ideal but because they were offered money and land. The militias would supplement this core of increasingly professional soldiers throughout the war, but the Army would never again look the way it did on the road to Boston. By 1778, the average Continental soldier was 21 years old; half the men in the Army were not even of English descent. "The folks who made the long-term commitment," says James Kirby Martin, a professor of history at the University of Houston and coauthor of A Respectable Army: The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763 - 1789, "were the folks who didn't have another alternative."
bye @chycora and @milo123
bye
so b?
could
@peachpi why did you stop
what do you think about this one? Which answer best expresses the effects of Parliament passing the Coercive (Intolerable) Acts of 1774, closing the port of Boston? The first shots of the American Revolution are fired and war between the colonies and Britain begins. The Sons of Liberty protest by dumping tea into Boston Harbor, which becomes known as the Boston Tea Party. Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty call this the Boston Massacre to gain colonial support against the British. Delegates meet at the First Continental Congress and demand that Britain repeal the acts, but Britain refuses.<<<
D They held several Congresses.
thats what i was thinking too, thanks
sry. lag's too frustrating
hello @chycora
your welcome
hai @bonnieisflash1.0
@milo123 what do you think whats the best answer
bye
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!