Was The Boston Tea Party Justified?

“Great Britain protected America, rightly making the colonists contribute in taxes to pay for the debt of their protection. The colonist should not have rebelled in violence against the authority and the law.” This is the view that a citizen might have held who remained loyal to the king of Britain. Many respectable arguments stand against the revolution, including accusations against the violence of the colonists. True, both parties ought to have dealt with some situations in a more gentle manner, but the colonists handled Britain in the right way, considering the immoral acts passed without their consent. Because of the evidence from the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and the Stamp Act, violating the rights of life, liberty, and property, the citizens revolted was justified.
The first major revolt 1770 happened as a massacre when the colonists acted for an appropriate reason because of the unjust acts of the British soldiers. Although no one knows if one side proved guilty in the action of starting the massacre or and the killing of

colonist’ lives, works of art, such as the painting in Document A, portray the Redcoats firing into a crowd of colonists or had no guns to protect themselves. The British soldiers did not offer protection when they killed many men, contrary to the belief of the king and violating the right to life. Although the Redcoats argued that they simply protected themselves from the violence of the colonists, the issue should not have ended with gunpowder in an open town’s square. This leaves the colonists in the right during the Boston Massacre.
Another great rebellion against the throne happened in 1773, titled the Boston Tea Party that proved warranted.

Accounts from eyewitnesses, such as Robert Sessions, a young patriot during the time, support this judgment (B). He affirmed that the colonists acted in a respectable way, making a bold statement but completing the task in silence and order. The disguised colonists even cleaned up the ship after the end of the job. Other evidence comes from John Adams, a respected politician in Boston and later on, the second president of the United States. He says that the Tea Party revolt was justified because the destruction of the tea proved necessary because the colonists could not send it back, neither could they let it be landed because that would imply that they gave up on the principle of taxation by Parliamentary authority. Therefore, the revolt became the boldest strike against Britain, and a right strike also

(E).
Lastly, because of the Stamp Act, revolution against Britain stood essential. British Parliament passed the Stamp Act in 1765, which required the purchase of a stamp on every legal and business document. This act forced the colonists to pay sudden taxes on things, which in those days, they had never thought to have taxed. King George of Britain stood in the wrong since he did taxation with out representation and unfairly forced taxes of citizens who clearly desired independence (D) Though the King claimed he offered protection to New England, he was corrupting them, which violates the right of liberty. Therefore, the revolts that lead to the revolution, and the revolution itself all support the justified colonists.
With the consideration of the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and the Stamp Act, one may better understand the perspective of the colonists. They stood true to their beliefs and fought against the violation of life, liberty, and property, which Britain clearly did not value as essential. In addition, the colonists also dealt with many situations, such as the Boston Tea Party, in a gentle manner as to make their point known. The colonists’ patriotism and pursuit in independence proved them justified and lead the commencement of the United States of America.