Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Boston Port Act, also called the Trade Act 1774 (14 Geo. 3. c. c. 19), [ 1 ] was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain which became law on March 31, 1774, and took effect on June 1, 1774. [ 2 ]
The main purpose of the Boston Non-importation agreement was to protest the Townshend Revenue Act and boycott the majority of British goods. It was signed by Boston merchants and traders on August 1, 1768, and was effective from January 1, the very next year. As such, it is a brief and relatively straightforward business statement.
The Talbot Resolves was a proclamation in support of the citizens of Boston. It was read by leading citizens of Talbot County at Talbot Court House on May 24, 1774. [16] [Note 1] The statement was read in response to the British plan to close the Port of Boston on June 1 as punishment for the Boston Tea Party protest. [16]
The Boston Port Act was the first of the laws passed in 1774 in response to the Boston Tea Party. It closed the port of Boston until the colonists paid for the destroyed tea and the king was satisfied that order had been restored.
In response, on June 14, 1774, Loudoun County "Freeholders and other inhabitants" met in the county court house in Leesburg to "consider the most effectual method to preserve the rights and liberties of N. America, and relieve our brethren of Boston, suffering under the most oppressive and tyrannical Act of the British Parliament."
In Boston there’s more of those “firsts.” There’s the aforementioned Boston Common and, of course, Harvard, founded in 1636 and the very first university in North America.
He also produced satirical political cartoons leading up to the events of the Boston Tea Party [4] and is referred to in a book entitled The Boston Port Bill as Pictured by a Contemporary London Cartoonist by R.T.H. Halsey. These cartoons include "The Bostonians in Distress," "The Alternative of Williams-Burg," and "The Butcher’s Wife ...
comprised four women – two of them represented the rights of migrant women workers in Asia; the third advocated for Nepali workers in the United States; and the fourth organized domestic workers in New York City. As the forum got underway, I was struck by the marked absence of a ‘voice’ for the Caribbean community which, by my