Answer:
An event that occurred in the period 1754 and 1776 was the lack of political representation for the American colonies.
Although the above question doesn't show, it is referring to Wood's account of the events that triggered the American Revolution.
About this, we can say that:
The British parliament was created in 1707, it was created to prevent citizens from being politically unprotected in relation to the monarchy.
No representatives from the American colonies were invited to join the parliament, which left the colonies politically unrepresented and completely unprotected.
Although the colonies had asked to be invited to parliament for years, that request was never granted.
This caused anger in the Americans, as they realized that the lack of representatives in parliament was a way for the British Government to be oppressive towards the Americans.
Wood does not cite this event in his account, but he does show that the main cause of the American revolution was the suffering caused by the irresponsibility and oppression of the British government towards Americans.
As the lack of political representation was one of the reasons for this suffering, we can say that this was an event that was not directly addressed by Wood, but that is part of his report
Step-by-step explanation:
The ONE major difference between Wood’s and Bailyn’s historical interpretations of why the American colonies rebelled against the British is:
According to Wood, the American colonies rebelled and revolted out of reasoned principle. They had the mindset that they were "born heirs of freedom" and that freedom is their everyday life. While, according to Bailyn, the colonies rebelled and revolted due to the rise of conspirators who stood against their freedom.
Step-by-step explanation:
Wood's and Bailey's historical interpretations of why the American colonies rebelled against the British can be seen from the excerpt. It's evident that their interpretations differ.
Wood revealed that the Americans didn't rebel due to suffering but due to a "reasoned principle". Whereas, Bailey interpreted it to be that the conspirators against the liberty propelled the revolt.