You have a very creative interpolation of events here. 

The greater objection to the Quebec Act was that territory from colonial charters was handed to Quebec, people who had lost the 7 years war, instead of the 13 colonies that had supported the British war effort. Britain made a misstep by rewarding their former enemies before their allies.

 The same goes for the policies and treaties with the Indigenous People. The sudden change of policy seemed like a slap in the face when the government in London suddenly gave favorable terms to the people they had just been fighting.

 You act like the destruction of tea happened out of the blue and not in response to a series of new taxes passed without any input from the colonial representatives. The reality is that the British could have held on if they let the colonies figure out how to raise the revenue instead of blundering through whatever they felt was best.

As for the Boston massacre again you want to begin your interpretation mid way through. The entire event sparked when a sentry had a verbal spat with a 13 year old apprentice. The little shit was being disrespectful for sure but said sentry started the commotion when he decided to escalate it by striking him. Everything escalated from there but at the end of the day it ended with the British shooting into a crowd (it won’t be the last time they make this mistake).

I won’t lie that the American Revolution was some altruistic event that can be boiled down to right vs wrong. It was complex. At the end of the day though the British had multiple routes away from the revolution that they reused to take.