Question

select two answer choices total; one to answer part (1) and one to answer part (2) of this question. (part 1) how would moderate loyalist americans likely interpret the outcome of the boston massacre trials? (part 2) which fact would be most critical to their interpretation? a. (1) reasonable frustration with parliament was justified, but radical dissidents were to blame for escalating protest into violence. b. (1) parliament deserved blame for worsening tensions and the shooting, regardless of whether the soldiers on trial acted in reasonable self - defense. c. (2) the soldiers were in boston to enforce the collection of taxes that colonists believed parliament had been imposed improperly. d. (2) the soldiers were badly outnumbered and opened fire after being assaulted. e. (2) colonial defense during the recent war accounted for most of britains debt.

Explanation:

• Part (1): Moderate loyalists would have a more balanced view. They would acknowledge some frustration with Parliament (as there were issues like taxation) but also blame the radicals (the more extreme colonists) for taking things too far and turning protest into violence. Option a reflects this balanced view.
• Part (2): If the soldiers were outnumbered and assaulted before firing (option d), it supports the idea that the radicals (the large, assaulting group) were at fault for escalating the situation. This fact would be critical for a moderate loyalist interpretation that blames the radicals for the violence.

Answer:

• Part (1): a. (1) Reasonable frustration with Parliament was justified, but radical dissidents were to blame for escalating protest into violence.
• Part (2): d. (2) The soldiers were badly outnumbered and opened fire after being assaulted.