Wednesday, December 4, 2013
2nd Marking Period-King George III
After learning about King George III of England, what do you think he (or his ministers) could have done differently to prevent the outbreak of war in the colonies? Use facts from text/articles to support your opinion! (Last name, first initial and class period only)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think they could have not taxed the colonies, instead I think they should have taxed the people of England to get their money back. Taxing with out representation can cause the colonist to rebel.
ReplyDeleteChase 4/7 B
I believe that King George could have tried to make money a different way. He could have raised the prices of accessories and jewelry, and other things that aren't necessities. He also could have taxed the English more, as opposed to the new colonies, because he DID rule England, and he was no longer the ruler of the colonists. This would have solved the problem because those who DID complain about the jewelry etc prices being raised, could be ignored because it wasn't something they truly NEEDED. Also, if he taxed England more, the may have complained, but they have the freedom to vote for what they wanted to be taxed on.
ReplyDeleteMatthew G 1/2B
Matt, what if we had been able to send representatives to Parliament? Would that have appeased us?
DeleteIn my opinion, I believe that if King George III treated the colonists as fair as his own people, it would ended up a lot differently from a war. Even though they were desperately need for money they should of taxed their own people too as long as the colonists. However, the colonists should of known that the British were in a great amount of debt and should of helped out a little. Although, the British shouldn't of made the colonist quarter for the British troops. I think that because the colonists did too have to care for themselves as long as their children. It wasn't the king's fault entirely because he had mental problems that led him to have no self control. Peace could of happened between the colonists and the British.
ReplyDeleteJacob A.
Period 5/9 B
In my own way of thought, I think there was many different ways King George could of handled this situation of war. He could of possibly thought before he acted and said "Why don't I try to make money another way rather for taxing the English colonists? I could of tried to make money off the beaver fur because I own half of the land". Another possible way was to teach some discipline to the British Soldiers in Boston. Maybe he could of told them not to go around shooting colonists or treating them like they weren't even there. But the King did have a problem so evidently he couldn't of done all of those things but his assistants could of helped him a little.
ReplyDeleteStephen B. Period 2-3a
Yes, Stephen, you are right. The text does say that the king's ministers just wanted to please him, not the colonists. Maybe if his ministers had not been so afraid of him, things would have gone very differently!
DeleteI believe that King George should have stepped down from the throne, or he should be forced to leave his royal duties. He was obviously struggling with his sanity and health. Therefore, he couldn't rule to his full potential and made many horrible decisions, like the quartering act. King George just wanted to have fun and never really realized that the fate of the United States of America was on his hands.
ReplyDeleteGabrielle Liberatore 1-2 B
Can you imagine if that happened? Maybe the next king would have been more reasonable and war would have been avoided....would we still ¨belong¨ to England today?
DeleteAfter learning about King George III of England, we think he (or his ministers) could have attempted to find a representative who would be able to speak the opinions of the colonists back to England to avoid further conflict between them. Since King George III had a disease, he wasn’t able to communicate with his ministers and had random outburst at people like hitting or swearing. For instance, King George had to be strapped down to be contained from hurting others. As a result, he was a harm to others, not intentionally, but because of his illness which took over both his mind and actions. According to the text on page 29 of our packet it states, “They tried to send a message to the king. They wanted him to know they would not stand for his unfair treatment.” This proves that King was treating many people unfairly, and people longed for the king to be able to not only listen, but to also be able to understand. In conclusion, the colonists and citizens of England wanted a normal ruler, not someone who treated them so unkindly.
ReplyDeleteSofia T & Sophia Z, Period 1-2 B
Great job using textual evidence from article! Very well written! :)
DeleteI believe that after king George made the colonist pay taxes he could have made the redcoats stay at another place so that the colonist would not have had to house the redcoats. they were already mad at them then they had to take them in their houses. Also the king should have taken away the taxes after they got mad and thew the tea off the ship and maybe they wouldn't start a war.
ReplyDeleteMitchell Eastmond 1-2 b
After learning about King George III of England, we think he (or his ministers) could of listened to the colonists. They could have canceled the tax on tea. King George could have allowed the colonists to move past the Appalachian mountains. He could have not sent redcoats to Boston and block of the Boston harbor. This led to the revolutionary war.
ReplyDeleteGabe L, Cameron V.
After learning about King George III, I think he should have at least tried to understand the colonists. They kindly sent Ben Franklin all the way to England to ask the king to stop the intolerable acts. But the king just completely disregarded it.
ReplyDeleteTyler Gunther
DeletePeriod 2-3 A
Tyler Gunther
ReplyDeletePeriod 2-3 A
After learning about King George III, I think he should have listened to the colonists. He also should have taxed them less to make the colonists less angry. Even though he was crazy he could have listened.
ReplyDeleteMatthew H 2-3A
After learning about King George III of England could have cancelled the tax on the tea so that the colonists would not have to pay as much for the tea
ReplyDeleteMatthew.L 2-3A
I strongly believe that King George III could have not taxed the colonists as much. However if he gave them a say in the government then King George III can tax the colonists in my opinion. Furthermore King Georges III minister should have given him more advice and truly tell him how they felt about the matter.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Palmeri 5-9A
King George the third could have done many things different to prevent the war. Firstly, instead of taxes on just the colonists he should of spread it equally all around England too. This would make it a little more fair to everyone and the colonists wouldn't feel so mistreated. Secondly, the King should have given someone to represent the taxes so there was no taxation without representation. If he had done this, the colonists wouldn't have gotten so upset because they would have someone there for him. Lastly, King George didn't need to put taxes on so many things that everyone need and it set the colonist way back to poor right when they started to succeed in their towns. Perhaps if King George the third hadn't had this many setbacks, we wouldn't of had that war, but then again we might not of gotten our freedom.
ReplyDeleteBella M
5-9A
King George III was insane. There is no other way to describe it. The members of Parlament should have been able to admit this. None of the happenings were his fault. If King George was replaced then maybe America would still be part of Great Britin.
ReplyDeleteDisher, Caleb 1-2 B
King George III and the Parliament could have done many things to prevent the war. They should have took the taxes and make it spread so it was not just America. Also, the King and the Parliament should have actually came to talk to them. Since the King was insane, then the Parliament should have taken action, and replaced him with a new king. If they had done these things, then maybe the colonists would not have rebelled against them!
ReplyDelete-Rachel L, and Serena N Period 1/2B
King George should of not taxed the colonist for long period of time. since the king is crazy they should replaced him a long time ago. if they had done some things about it they would of not went into war.
ReplyDeleteAnthony D
10/11B
I think that if King George didn't tax the colonists so much, there wouldn't be such a fuss between the two sides. he was taxing them on everything from lead to stamps to paper to wine and a bunch more. The colonists expressed their opinions to the King on this and he didn't listen. Has it ever occured to him that if he didnt spend so much money in war to get England in debt then the colonists might not have been so annoyed with him? The king was simply taxing the colonists on something that they didn't need to be taxed on. It was not their fault that england lost its money.
ReplyDeleteLindsay O 5/9A
I think if King George didn't tax the colonist there would be no fights. The colonist were getting mad because of all the taxing they decide to get aggressive. The whole reason the Boston Massacre happened was because King George sent British soldiers to watch over Boston. Also, The Boston tea party happened because the colonist refused to pay extra for their tea. If King George would have stopped the taxing and took away the British soldiers, I think we would still be under British control, and we wouldn't want our freedom because we weren't being unfairly taxed.
ReplyDeleteLaFeir J
5-9B
After learning about King George, I can tell he could have done a bunch of different things, to stop a uprising. I think that King George could have made a move to find a representative who could voice the opinions of the colonists in Parliament. Because of the king’s disease he really couldn’t speak or have meeting properly or he would really go crazy! Therefore, his illness took over his opinions and he couldn’t make a proper decision. The colonists just wanted a normal and fair leader and instead they got stuck with King George. However, a new perspective would be; if King George wasn’t so nuts, would we have a British accent today?
ReplyDeletePaige S. 5-9A
After reading about King George, I can see that he could have done things differently. First of all, he could have ended some of the taxation on the colonists, preventing an uprising and outbreaks. Also, he could have hired someone to work and solve the issues with the colonists. With his disease, it was nearly impossible for him to negotiate with them. If the Americans had a better leader than King George, perhaps someone from Parliament, then maybe we would all be British today.
ReplyDeleteRyan M. 5-9B
King George could have made both American colonists and people in England pay colonists instead of just America. This would have prevented the American colonists from getting mad because they wouldn't have felt like they were cheated on. The only reason King George taxed the American colonists was because he needed to make up for the money he spent on the French and Indian war. If he taxed England and America, he would have made the money back twice as fast and it would have prevented the outbreak from the Patriots.
ReplyDeleteKaty M
DeletePeriod: 5-9A
I think King George III made a big mistake by trying to get the colonist to pay taxes for his bad decisions. He maybe should have tried to send support and not just tax bills. He also could have asked for help and advise from the people around him. Maybe he could have spread the tax burden between England and America.
ReplyDeleteMiranda Badrick
I think that King George and his ministers could’ve been kinder to the colonists and treated them how they treated the inhabitants of England. Did he make the English people pay taxes? No. Then why should the colonists have to pay taxes? Were the people in England being taxed on everything they used out of paper? I don’t think so. Then why should the colonists have to be taxed? If King George and his ministers had attempted to make the treatment of both the people of England and the colonists equal, then the Revolutionary War might’ve never occurred.
ReplyDelete-Emily A. 1/2B