Question

iii. short answer: use complete sentences.
a. what power did the writs of assistance give customs officers? (1 pt.)
b. what was boston lawyer, james otis, response to the sugar act? (1 pt.)
c. what was the main reason colonist were opposed to the stamp act? what are two tactics colonists used to help get the act repealed? (3 pts.)
d. the stamp act was repealed, but what act was passed immediately after the repeal and what did it state? (2 pts.)
e. what were the three goods taxed by the townshend acts? why do you think these goods were chosen by the british? (4 pts.)
f. when did the boston massacre take place? in your opinion, who was to blame for the boston massacre? do you think it was really a massacre? why or why not? (4 pts.)

Explanation:

Answer:

(a) Writs of assistance gave customs officers the power to search any ship or building they suspected of containing smuggled goods without specifying the place or things to be searched.
(b) James Otis opposed the Sugar Act and argued that it was an abuse of power by the British government as it taxed the colonists without their consent.
(c) The main reason colonists opposed the Stamp Act was that it taxed them without their consent (taxation without representation). Two tactics they used were boycotting British goods and organizing protests.
(d) The Declaratory Act was passed immediately after the repeal of the Stamp Act. It stated that the British Parliament had the right to tax and make laws for the American colonies in all cases whatsoever.
(e) The Townshend Acts taxed glass, lead, paint, paper, and tea. These goods were chosen by the British likely because they were commonly - used consumer goods, and taxing them could generate revenue while also asserting British authority over the colonies.
(f) The Boston Massacre took place on March 5, 1770. Opinions on who was to blame vary; some blame the British soldiers for using excessive force, while others blame the colonists for provoking the soldiers. Whether it was a massacre is also a matter of opinion; some consider it a massacre because people were killed, while others note that the number of deaths was relatively small compared to typical massacres and that there was provocation.