This blog is a forum for students enrolled in HIS 115A to discuss their research. Research questions will be introduced with a blog post and you can use the navigation at left to access those questions and related discussions. Reference Librarian Trish McPherson will respond to your comments with suggestions for additional resources and search strategies. It's hoped that this blog will foster an ongoing dialogue about your research.
The Stamp Act is often cited throughout American Revolutionary literature as one of the most hated acts in the long string passed by Parliament, and while this may be true, many people are not completely aware of the provisions of this act. Having just defeated the French in the Seven Years' War, the British were hurting for money, and they were largely lost as to how this would be accomplished. The British subjects could not be taxed lest there be revolt and revolution, and the frugality of the English nobility was something to be laughed at. At this time, Britain was the most powerful and impressive empire in the world, and perhaps the world had ever seen, and this meant no cutting corners. Appearances had to be kept up, and therefore no cuts could be made. For these reasons and others, Parliament, and specifically Charles Townshend, turned to the colonies to raise money by taxation. Formally, Parliament was only collecting the money that would compensate the British for the protection they had rendered their colonies during the previous conflict, although this was not completely true. The Townshend plan actually came in three parts, with the Stamp Act being one of the most hated of these plans. Enacted in 1765, this act taxed essentially all paper products and other commonly used items, from tea to cards and even dice. Even diplomas and promotions were taxed, and required the "stamp of approval". Because of the widespread nature of the taxes, and the fact that yet again Parliament had passed this tax without colonial provision, the colonists took particular offense, and they expressed their feelings rather brutally, in many different forms. In his "History of New Hampshire", published in 1791, Jeremy Belknap uses some of the strong language that other colonists used to describe the Stamp Act, calling it "odious", stating that it lent "repugnancy to the rights of America". These strong words, though they were recorded nearly 25 years after the Stamp Act was passed and repealed, accurately capture the sentiments that existed in patriotic America, and the feelings that colonists were experiencing. There were peaceful protests, like the non-importation agreement that many colonial merchants took, and there were many armed demonstrations, like the raiding of Hutchinson's home. No matter the mode, however, the Stamp Act was uniting colonists more than ever before, and indeed Belknap addresses this in saying "never was a sentiment more generally adopted" and that this egregious blow to the colonial spirit must be "lawfully resisted"(although there was much unlawful resistance). But the biggest problem with the act itself was not that it taxed items, for the taxes were generally small. The real problem came with the idea that Parliament had that it could tax the colonies and pass laws without their consent. According to the Virginia Resolves, because colonists were descendants of Britons and lived in the English domain, they were entitled to all the rights of Britons, but this was not the case. Colonists believed that they deserved some form of representation in Parliament, and not some promise that the Lords and Commons were always acting in their best interests. Colonists wanted to be "taxed by none but our own Representatives", and this is what sparked the true controversy regarding the Stamp Act, and the incidents to follow.
Belknap, Jeremy. "History of New Hampshire", vol. 2. Boston, MA: Jeremy Belknap, 1791, pp. 493. http://0-solomon.eena.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?p.59:332.eena
The Stamp Act was passed by Great Britain on March 22, 1765. The new tax was imposed on all American colonists and required them to pay a tax on every piece of printed paper they used such as legal documents, licenses, and newspapers. The primary source from Jeremy Belknap "History of New Hampshire" shows that the colonists first attempted to reason with the King but they were ignored. In response Congress framed a bill of rights, for the colonies; in which the sole power of taxation was declared to be in their own assemblies. They also prepared three addresses to the King, Lords and Commons, stating their grievances, and asking for redress. The colonists attempt of respect and peace to the British Crown did not help them, their efforts were ignored. This made them feel insignificant in the eyes of Great Britain and the colonies sought to change that. Many colonists referred to the crown as neglectful and corrupt. In response to the Stamp Act colonists took actions to financially hinder the British economy. They publicly advertised Newspapers and licenses for marriage, without stamps. They thought they could potentially awaken the attention of the merchants and manufacturers of England, by an agreement to import no goods, until the Stamp Act was repealed. http://0-solomon.eena.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.59:12.eena.347157.347163
This was really interesting to me because when I was searching for my source I found similar accounts. I was surprised to see how many letters were sent to the British government my American officials in regards to the Stamp Act and similar policies. The British officials either ignored the letters or gave indecisive responses, which led the colonists to believe their only option was violence.
It is interesting to see how the colonists were able to intimidate the British. They were so outspoken that people who signed up to be tax collectors resigned when they heard about the colonists behaviors. However the colonists felt that they the British were ignoring them when they tried to appeal to them, so they had to take manners into their own hands. It is fascinating that such small actions could create a triumph over the most powerful empire at the time. By just joining together to boycott British goods the colonists were able to get the tax repealed and have their liberties restored.
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=Y72I5DYTMTM0OTAxODU1NS4zMjM0NDI6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=3&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=3&p_docnum=13&p_docref=v2:10380B58EB4A4298@EANX-1056AE91AF9D62A6@2365949-1056AE91B5BE60E0@0-1056AE91E945C514@To+the+Inhabitants+of+New-England This article, published in the Providence Gazette in 1765, outlines the views on the Stamp Act that were predominately accepted by most of the American colonists at that time. In this article, it is stated that, when the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, it insulted the entire British Empire in America. If there was one phrase in this article that I had to choose as a summary of why this article was published, it would be, "Adieu Liberty." I believe that when the Stamp Act was enacted in the American colonies, there was a sense of insignificance among them, for the rights that were adopted by the men and women who colonized America, were being violated. And in the eyes of the colonists, it did not make sense because they called themselves Britain's most loyal subjects (at that time).
My article was very similar to this article. After reading, I was able to see the common attitude colonists felt after the initiation of the Stamp Act. They believed that it was against their rights and liberties to be taxed without representation. The colonists thought the king’s actions were unjust and that they deserved every right that the people in England had. I agree that “"Adieu Liberty” is a great phrase to summarize the colonists’ feelings. It means farewell liberty. The colonists believed that with these taxes, Great Britain’s parliament was thwarting their right to liberty. These American colonists could no longer exist as “loyal subjects” because they did not support their king anymore.
It is interesting how the article claims that all of Britain was insulted by the Stamp Act, not just the colonies. In the article I read, it showed a similar sentiment among the British citizens with the people of London celebrating when the Stamp Act was repealed. I wonder why people in Britain were so wound up with the Stamp Act as well as the colonists? Did it show how unreasonable Parliament was being?
The Stamp Act was initiated on March 22, 1765. The parliament had passed the act in order to raise money to support the troops protecting the “frontier near the Appalachian Mountains”. The stamp act was used to tax any printed paper in the colonies. Before this act, taxes had been used to “regulate commerce”, not to “raise money” for Britain’s own uses. This outraged colonists. They did not agree with the tax because they did not agree to the terms and conditions of the act, and it had not been sent through” colonial legislation”. Colonists thought that if they allowed this act, then Great Britain would continue to take advantage of them. One of the founders of the tax acts in America was George Greenville. George Greenville was the king’s first minister in Great Britain. He was one of the founders of these taxation acts because he believed that colonists owed Britain for their administration and defense that was provided to them. After reading a newspaper article on the Stamp Act and George Greenville, I was able to see the colonists’ true feelings about the Stamp Act. The article was about the “effigy of George Greenvile”. It showed him bound in chains and being punished for his intolerable acts against the colonists. The colonists believed that that act was “vile” and that they had the right to defend their liberties if they are being “attacked”. Colonists believed that they could not be taxed without representation because they had “the same rights as the English”. After many riots and protests, the king repealed the Stamp Act. These articles explained that the Stamp Act was one of the first events that prelude to the American Revolution.
This article was similar to mine, talking about how colonies felt about the Stamp Act and how outraged they were. I find it really interesting that George Greenville believed the colonists owed Britain while the colonists believed that they had done their job and were supporting and following Britain. I wonder where this discrepancy came from? Could it be that because they were so far away from each other that communication was difficult and it was hard for the colonies and Great Britain to be on the same page?
The reactions to the Stamp Act of 1765 created the unified, rebellious mentality of the colonists against the British. The Act was passed by British parliament in order to add some additional funds to the royal effort to pay off their debt after many costly wars with other nations. A stamp was required for church documents, legal documents, bills, liquor licenses, and many other forms of documentation. The colonists did not want to be taxed without representation in the British parliament. Outrage broke out because many colonists felt that the British had no right to tax the colonies and that the colonists should have the right to tax themselves. The British countered their claims by saying that the colonists were virtually represented in parliament which many of the colonists did not believe. Many colonists shared the perspective that the British were being the parent to the colonies by taxing them on their everyday goods. This thought evoked a rebellious mentality for many colonists because the colonies were becoming self sufficient, and the stamp tax was seen as a hindrance to their development and independence. The colonists did not want to listen to their mother country just like a young child would not listen to their mother in their quest for independence. Thus the colonists exerted a fierce resistance to the Stamp Act, and it became evident that the Act would “surely procure a repeal of the Act and prevent further imposition.” The reaction to the Stamp Act had several important benefits for the Colonists. The Colonists succeeded in convincing the British to repeal the Stamp Act, and also the colonists banded together regardless of race, gender, colony, and other factors to put a stop to the Stamp Act. The colonists were unified under one common goal and therefore their protest was effective and efficient. The colonial divide was nullified for this cause, the colonies banded together as one, which foreshadows the unification of the states into one nation.
When I think of the Stamp Act, unification is not the word that typically comes to mind first, but you’re completely right. Outraged at the tax, it makes sense that the colonists would ban together in resistance against the act. In my response to the newspaper article I looked at, I talked about how the Stamp Act affected such a wide range of the population because, under the act, so many items were taxed that basically affected everyone in one way or another. It makes sense that the colonists, feeling the same frustration and anger towards the taxes, would unify and come together to repeal the Stamp Act.
Much of the history we learn in school is about regular people who have transformed through centuries of heroification. I think part of this mentality came from the years surrounding the Stamp Act. When the act was first passed in 1765, patriots immediately were outraged. Colonists instantly turned to violence and regular people who were the head of this revolt were held in the highest regard. Lady Winnifred Howard attests to this heroification in her memoir. She explains that in the center of the beautiful Gardens of Magnolia, there sits a statue of William Pitt. She give details about how the statue was constructed “in gratitude for [William Pitt’s] great services to America…[and for] his constant efforts…against the arbitrary policy of George III…, in particular the repeal of the obnoxious Stamp Act in 1766.” Lady Winnifred Howard continues to say that the Stamp Act was such a “fatal policy,” implying that America would not be what it is today without the valiant efforts of William Pitt.
The interesting thing about this document is how both Pitt and the Stamp Act are portrayed. Pitt is the hero that saved America from the act that would doom the country. Neither portrayals are true, and therefore should not be seen as such.
The best way for communication during the 1760s was through newspaper articles, where people shared their thoughts and advice with others in their town or province. After Great Britain passed the Stamp Act on March 22, 1765, many newspaper articles were published concerning this topic, including a Connecticut Courant article on June 24, 1765. In this opinion article, information was released and guidance was given to the community about how to deal with such a harsh Act. The author states that a vote was taken and it was declared that the Stamp Act was an infringement upon the colonies’ “natural, inherent, constitutional Rights of Englishmen”. Seeing as the colonies had always been loyal subjects to the King and had always followed his rules, the colonies couldn’t comprehend why they were being treated this way. The author discussed his dislike towards the distributors of the stamps and then declared that if the act continued, their liberty would be taken away and all would become poverty-stricken. As a result, the articles advised that no person should aid the act in any way, purchase any items under the Stamp Act, and that from the recent vote, it would be recorded that the colonies were fighting for their freedom and happiness back.
The article was simple, yet persuasive, and I feel it is indicative of how people felt about the Stamp Act and what many articles were like about this topic. In addition, I find it interesting that because Parliament was so far away that they took their hatred of the Stamp Act out on the distributors because they were in front of them, when it wasn’t their fault. They were just doing their jobs. This piece also connects back to when we discussed freedom and happiness and the people are directly correlating their constraints from the Stamp Act with the infringement on their freedom and happiness.
“At a Legal Meeting of the Freeholders and Other Inhabitants of the Town of Cambridge,” Connecticut Courant, June 24, 1765, accessed October 1, 2012, http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=W4DU56DLMTM0Nzg0Njk3Ny4xODk2MjE6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=2&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=2&p_docnum=29&p_docref=v2:1080E0D856AD30E8@EANX-10854E5C2437AEC8@2365888-10854E5D08761F58@7-10854E5E67871C30@At+a+Legal+Meeting+of+the+Freeholders+and+other+Inhabitants+of+the+Town+of+Cambridge%2C+This+14th+of+October%2C+1765%2C+the+Hon.+William+Brattle%2C+Esq.+Chosen+Moderator
The more we look at primary sources from this time, the more I realize that the Declaration was neither profound nor unique in its wording. When the colonists declare that the Stamp Act imposed upon the colonies’ “natural, inherent, constitutional Rights of Englishmen”, they uttered the same words that would ten years later be minutely changed with the deletion of Englishmen. It is interesting to see the evolution in the radical's ideas and identities to prompt this change.
I do not think that it was the the actual Stamp Act that was infringing on the Colonist's freedom and happiness. The Colonists were mad that the King had the right to impose such a tax on them. He was so far away, so out of reach, but he still had rule over the everyday life in the new world. The colonists did not like that fact and fought against it.
The Stamp Act was a tax instituted by the British Parliament that would require them to pay a duty on every piece of printed paper (legal documents, newspapers, decks of cards, pamphlets, etc.). They sought to levy this tax after the French and Indian War wreaked havoc on the British debt and this would pay for the stationing of troops along the Appalachian Mountains. The colonists immediately detested this act not because of the cost (which was incredibly small in relation to the taxes that were imposed in England) but that this was a deliberate act to raise money in the colonies as opposed to a way in which they regulated commerce. The colonists seethed at the precedent that this would set: a tax without their consent. In the notice posted to Governor Colden regarding the Stamp Act, the people of New York City violently protested the Stamp Act, threatening death against him if he truly shall support the tax. They argue that he is serving to be the “Chief Murderer of their rights and Privileges” and they assure him that by the power of the mob, he will suffer if he does not change his mind and take oath against the Stamp Act. The colonists were coddled throughout their entire existence as English colonies. They were given free reign over which governments they wanted to institute. Very few laws and regulations bound them, other than trade and loyalty to the throne. Thus when the colonists were going to have to pay for the war that they had caused, they were infuriated. Never had the British government inserted themselves quite so soundly in the immediate lives of the people. She had remained a far off country which most of them had never seen. This Act became the rallying point for discontent in the colonies (economically founded or not) and became the springboard for airing their grievances.
Colden, Lord Cadwallader, 1688-1776, Letters and Papers of Cadwallader Colden accessed on October 1, 2012 at http://0-solomon.eena.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.294:61.eena.169181.169187.
I saw many of the same ideas in the essay that I had found by James Otis. There just never seemed to be any conflict or representation of the crown in the colonies before the stamp act, and there was no call for the British to jump in and impose these taxes out of the blue. It's one thing if the British had been represented and involved in the colonies throughout the war, however they were not and in turn made it unacceptable to jump in when they did. The colonists had a right to be infuriated and had a right to revolt, because if they hadn't they would have been living out their lives as slaves to the British. If they had taken that path, America today would not be anything like it is and we would not be living our lives out with the freedom that we have.
The Stamp Act, passed in 1765, differed from previous British legislation, including the Sugar Act. Most important of these differences was the fact that it affected such a major percent of the colonial population; nearly no colonist could escape the burden of the tax, as the tax was placed on such a variety of common items, including, but not limited to, wills, marriage licenses, passports, playing cards, newspapers, calendars, and court case documentation. Simply put, the colonists did not approve of the Stamp Act; they did not want to be taxed without representation. In an article posted in the Boston Evening Post on April 8, 1765, a list of all the items being taxed under the Stamp Act was published. The list was much more extensive than I had expected- 55 resolves in total. Before reading the newspaper article, I was aware of many of the taxed goods, but some of them I had never learned of, including “all diplomas from any academy”. In addition, I read that, “Every instrument, proceeding or matter or thing, aforesaid in any other than the English language, to pay double duty”. When looking through the list, I tried to put myself in the colonists’ position, opening up the newspaper and learning of the outrageous new tax policy. At the end of the lengthy list of resolves, there are six lines describing where the money collected from the various taxes would go- “towards defraying the necessary expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the said colonies and plantations”. If I were a colonist reading this article in 1765, I would want a much more detailed explanation, particularly after reading 55 resolves, as to why the tax was put in place and what, precisely, the money would go towards. I would be annoyed after reading about the items being taxed, but I would be even more frustrated at the lack of explanation. It is interesting to look at this newspaper article because it is what the Boston colonists would have read in 1765; this is how they would have learned of the Stamp Act.
Your article summary was very interesting to read because I was also not aware of the extensive list of all the items that were taxed due to the Stamp Act. It does not seem fair to tax any person who has a diploma- they earned that diploma and should not be punished through having to pay money in order to hold on to their document. I can see why the people were so against taxation without representation. If I were a colonist at this time, I would be shocked that so many items were being taxed all of a sudden at one time. I would not understand the government's imminent need for more money, especially with the vague description given at the end of the resolves. Reading your summary also makes me wonder how the word about the Stamp Act was spread to each person. Newspapers were the best form of communication, but did any groups of people not receive word of the Stamp Act at the time of its initiation? Also, I wonder what people did who could not afford the tax; did they hide unstamped documents? How were all the documents checked?
Prior to full enforcement of the Stamp Act radical colonists felt that the British were enslaving the colonists and forcing them into poverty by just passing such a tax, so they encouraged all the colonists to avoid purchasing items under this tax at the best of their ability. The radicals claimed that a true “lover of his country” would refrain from purchasing any stamped papers brought to the Americas from Great Britain. Those who bought stamped papers were considered traitors to the colonies, because they are promoting Great Britain tyrannous behavior. The day that the stamped papers entered the harbor, colonists began plotting their boycott of the goods in order to force Great Britain to repeal the tax, so that the colonists can “regain their rights”. These patriots were so convinced that their rights were being harmed that they claimed that their “memories will be venerated, applauded, and admired, to the latest generations” because they were willing to stand up to the British. Overall the Stamp Act never stood a chance in the colonies seeing as rebellious groups were spreading their message before the stamped papers were even distributed. I do understand that many items were being taxed and that the colonists were only allowed to pay with British currency; however they were being protected by the British Empire, so I don’t see why it was such a big deal to pay taxes to the crown. Those who lived in Great Britain had to pay taxes and they couldn't claim that it was against their rights; meanwhile the middle and lower classes were given virtually the same representation in Parliament as the colonists. I think that the colonist claiming that being taxed was against their rights was just a way to get out of losing any of their wealth.
I agree that Parliament had no chance of getting the colonists to pay the taxes. They were way too wound up in protecting their rights and not allowing Parliament to control them, because they knew as soon as they gave in and paid for one tax more would come. Smart, I guess?
Who created money? Whoever created money was most likely not expecting to cause multiple conflicts and wars throughout history. However, money is simply the root of the conflicts caused by the Stamp Act. There were other additional reasons for charging the colonists, yet making them pay their fair share of the Seven Years War was the main concern. George Grenville, the Prime Minister of Britain during the middle of the 18th century, decided on taxation as the best route to take when making the colonists pay for the war costs. As one part of three in Grenville's plan to make the colonists pay their fair share of the war costs, parliament enacted the Stamp Act in 1765(1). This stamp tax, which was not new to British citizens, brought about a striking resistance from the colonists. Unfortunately for Parliament and Grenville, the Stamp Act affected a wide range of colonists from merchants to farmers (1). This made the resistance to the tax even more prevalent, as if the colonists did not already defy the British laws enacted on the colonies enough already. Many colonists in fact were involved in smuggling (1) and they paid little attention to the taxes. And why should they when they would just be acquitted in court with juries composed of their fellow colonists? One rebel in particular was John Hancock, the man who signed his name in abnormally large font so that King George could read it on the Declaration of Independence. But how could a profitable merchant and smuggler end up being a revolutionary leader? Among other things, money is the cause. John Hancock was losing profit from acts enacted by Parliament like the Stamp Act, Sugar Act, and Townshend Acts which all caused an increase in the amount of customs men. Edward Countryman explains that "clever customs man could fleece them [merchants] almost at will"(1). In addition to customs men, the admiralty courts which dealt directly with violators of such acts made the judge, usually picking out of the pocket of the King, the person who would decide if the defendant was innocent or not. And all the colonists knew that this court was a losing cause for them. This prevented merchants from getting away with smuggling. Thus, the acts were causing many influential merchants to be losing large profits, which many people know never to take money away from a money lover. Merchants from across all the colonies were being affected. In an article printed by B. Mecom and delivered by Mr. Johnathan Lowder in New Haven, it describes the discontent merchants had with the Stamp Act. The article states "last night the said gentlemen [merchants] dispatched an express for Falmouth with fifteen copies of the act, for repealing the Stamp Act to be forward immediately for New York" (2). This article and many others similar to it depicted the disgruntled merchants as upset with the Stamp Act. Clearly, Parliament, who just wanted the colonists to pay their fair share, was in for a wild ride. One can see how much of this conflict originated from the need for money, and the reluctance of the colonists, in particular, the merchants, to give said money up. To make the conflict even more complicated, the colonist’s reluctance to pay taxes compounded into an intricate conflict between the American colonists and Parliament. The conflict was over the rules of what Parliament can control in the colonies, which in the eyes of the colonists was limited. Many colonists believed that Parliament only had the right to legislate and not the right to tax the American colonies. This guiding principle held by the colonists continued to cause issues when Parliament attempted to carry out its taxes on the colonists, and thus led to a revolution which would alter the course of events in the world.
1. Edward Countryman, "The American Revolution", Hill and Wang, New York, Coursepack. 2. Glorious News. Constitutional liberty revives! New-Haven, Monday-morning, May 19, 1766, American Memory Project, accessed October 1, 2012, http://www.diigo.com/bookmark.
The Stamp Act can be looked at as the most important event and occurence that really shifted the colonists views towards rebellion. Before this act had come about, most of the leaders of the colonies and the people of this new found nation were still somewhat content with being under British rule. However, once this act was put up by Parliament and the British rulers, the colonists lashed out because their civil rights and liberties were at stake. This act differed from all the other acts before because it affected everyone in the colonies from apprentices to wealthy businessmen. Another way it differed was because the tax had to be paid in sterling which not many of the colonists had an abundance of. Almost all of the colonists believed that the crown was attempting to gain money from the colonists profit and success by the Stamp Act and the prominent Boston politician James Otis also had this viewpoint. In his essay, "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved" Otis goes along with the opinion that the British had no right to tax the colonists and that in doing so effectively made them and him slaves to the crown. When people do not have their rights there is no reason to live, so the only other option is to revolt against the injustice that is doing the slaving. This is exactly what Otis is attempting to get across to the American people and in turn the British: that revolt and rebellion was needed and imminent.
Edward Countryman, "The American Revolution", Hill and Wang, New York, Coursepack.
I looked at two newspaper articles to get a sense of what the Stamp Act was and how it was described to the people. In 1756, the British government decreed that all paper documents be taxed. The colonists were required to set up stamp-offices where papers, newspapers, and other documents could be stamped. Everyone had to pay for stamps before they could be received; and the act made it illegal for any documents to exist without a stamp on it. Creating a fraudulent stamp meant defying the law, and any person found guilty of this had to appear before a court of law. The money from buying the stamps went to the treasury of the colonial government; the managers of the stamp money going into the treasury got fifty pounds of the incoming revenue. This angered many colonists because they felt like they were supplying a salary to government officials rather than giving money that would stay in the treasury and eventually come back into the community to benefit the colonists. Poor families would become poorer as a result of this act, and their following the law would line the pockets of certain government officials. The act must have seemed like as hassle when it was first passed also because stamps cost different amounts depending on the document.There was no uniformity.
The passing of this act outraged the people in the colonies because they viewed it as a way for the government to weasel money out of them and raise the income of the government. They saw it as selfish and unnecessary. It was essentially a violation of their freedoms. People were so upset that the Stamp Act eventually had to be resolved. The colonists thought they should be governed by their own forces on their land rather than abiding by the law of a ruler overseas. It seems like this event made thoughts of seceding arise and further polarized the colonies and Britain. The Stamp Act really caused a rift between the mother country and its child colonies.
The Stamp Act was very important in showing that the Colonies could act together as one and influence the types of policies that ruled them. The Colonists were opposed to this new tax and felt it as a burden. It led to many protests. In the letters of Cadwallader Colden, he showed the intensity of protests that were happening around the Colonies. He described the protestors as a mob that marched straight towards the Lieutenant Governor’s fort. They broke into the carriage house and burned them all. They then threatened that if a letter of opposition of the Stamp Act was not sent to England by the end of the day, the whole fort would be burned down. The opposition to the Stamp Act showed the importance of protest and fighting for liberty to the Colonists. Although the Stamp Act was important to the Revolution, it was not the main causation. There was a culmination of different things that drove the Colonists to declare themselves a nation.
The Stamp Act is often cited throughout American Revolutionary literature as one of the most hated acts in the long string passed by Parliament, and while this may be true, many people are not completely aware of the provisions of this act. Having just defeated the French in the Seven Years' War, the British were hurting for money, and they were largely lost as to how this would be accomplished. The British subjects could not be taxed lest there be revolt and revolution, and the frugality of the English nobility was something to be laughed at. At this time, Britain was the most powerful and impressive empire in the world, and perhaps the world had ever seen, and this meant no cutting corners. Appearances had to be kept up, and therefore no cuts could be made. For these reasons and others, Parliament, and specifically Charles Townshend, turned to the colonies to raise money by taxation. Formally, Parliament was only collecting the money that would compensate the British for the protection they had rendered their colonies during the previous conflict, although this was not completely true. The Townshend plan actually came in three parts, with the Stamp Act being one of the most hated of these plans. Enacted in 1765, this act taxed essentially all paper products and other commonly used items, from tea to cards and even dice. Even diplomas and promotions were taxed, and required the "stamp of approval". Because of the widespread nature of the taxes, and the fact that yet again Parliament had passed this tax without colonial provision, the colonists took particular offense, and they expressed their feelings rather brutally, in many different forms. In his "History of New Hampshire", published in 1791, Jeremy Belknap uses some of the strong language that other colonists used to describe the Stamp Act, calling it "odious", stating that it lent "repugnancy to the rights of America". These strong words, though they were recorded nearly 25 years after the Stamp Act was passed and repealed, accurately capture the sentiments that existed in patriotic America, and the feelings that colonists were experiencing. There were peaceful protests, like the non-importation agreement that many colonial merchants took, and there were many armed demonstrations, like the raiding of Hutchinson's home. No matter the mode, however, the Stamp Act was uniting colonists more than ever before, and indeed Belknap addresses this in saying "never was a sentiment more generally adopted" and that this egregious blow to the colonial spirit must be "lawfully resisted"(although there was much unlawful resistance). But the biggest problem with the act itself was not that it taxed items, for the taxes were generally small. The real problem came with the idea that Parliament had that it could tax the colonies and pass laws without their consent. According to the Virginia Resolves, because colonists were descendants of Britons and lived in the English domain, they were entitled to all the rights of Britons, but this was not the case. Colonists believed that they deserved some form of representation in Parliament, and not some promise that the Lords and Commons were always acting in their best interests. Colonists wanted to be "taxed by none but our own Representatives", and this is what sparked the true controversy regarding the Stamp Act, and the incidents to follow.
ReplyDeleteBelknap, Jeremy. "History of New Hampshire", vol. 2. Boston, MA: Jeremy Belknap, 1791, pp. 493. http://0-solomon.eena.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?p.59:332.eena
The Stamp Act was passed by Great Britain on March 22, 1765. The new tax was imposed on all American colonists and required them to pay a tax on every piece of printed paper they used such as legal documents, licenses, and newspapers. The primary source from Jeremy Belknap "History of New Hampshire" shows that the colonists first attempted to reason with the King but they were ignored. In response Congress framed a bill of rights, for the colonies; in which the sole power of taxation was declared to be in their own assemblies. They also prepared three addresses to the King, Lords and Commons, stating their grievances, and asking for redress. The colonists attempt of respect and peace to the British Crown did not help them, their efforts were ignored. This made them feel insignificant in the eyes of Great Britain and the colonies sought to change that. Many colonists referred to the crown as neglectful and corrupt. In response to the Stamp Act colonists took actions to financially hinder the British economy. They publicly advertised Newspapers and licenses for marriage, without stamps. They thought they could potentially awaken the attention of the merchants and manufacturers of England, by an agreement to import no goods, until the Stamp Act was repealed.
ReplyDeletehttp://0-solomon.eena.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.59:12.eena.347157.347163
This was really interesting to me because when I was searching for my source I found similar accounts. I was surprised to see how many letters were sent to the British government my American officials in regards to the Stamp Act and similar policies. The British officials either ignored the letters or gave indecisive responses, which led the colonists to believe their only option was violence.
DeleteIt is interesting to see how the colonists were able to intimidate the British. They were so outspoken that people who signed up to be tax collectors resigned when they heard about the colonists behaviors. However the colonists felt that they the British were ignoring them when they tried to appeal to them, so they had to take manners into their own hands. It is fascinating that such small actions could create a triumph over the most powerful empire at the time. By just joining together to boycott British goods the colonists were able to get the tax repealed and have their liberties restored.
Deletehttp://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=Y72I5DYTMTM0OTAxODU1NS4zMjM0NDI6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=3&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=3&p_docnum=13&p_docref=v2:10380B58EB4A4298@EANX-1056AE91AF9D62A6@2365949-1056AE91B5BE60E0@0-1056AE91E945C514@To+the+Inhabitants+of+New-England
ReplyDeleteThis article, published in the Providence Gazette in 1765, outlines the views on the Stamp Act that were predominately accepted by most of the American colonists at that time. In this article, it is stated that, when the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, it insulted the entire British Empire in America. If there was one phrase in this article that I had to choose as a summary of why this article was published, it would be, "Adieu Liberty." I believe that when the Stamp Act was enacted in the American colonies, there was a sense of insignificance among them, for the rights that were adopted by the men and women who colonized America, were being violated. And in the eyes of the colonists, it did not make sense because they called themselves Britain's most loyal subjects (at that time).
My article was very similar to this article. After reading, I was able to see the common attitude colonists felt after the initiation of the Stamp Act. They believed that it was against their rights and liberties to be taxed without representation. The colonists thought the king’s actions were unjust and that they deserved every right that the people in England had. I agree that “"Adieu Liberty” is a great phrase to summarize the colonists’ feelings. It means farewell liberty. The colonists believed that with these taxes, Great Britain’s parliament was thwarting their right to liberty. These American colonists could no longer exist as “loyal subjects” because they did not support their king anymore.
DeleteIt is interesting how the article claims that all of Britain was insulted by the Stamp Act, not just the colonies. In the article I read, it showed a similar sentiment among the British citizens with the people of London celebrating when the Stamp Act was repealed. I wonder why people in Britain were so wound up with the Stamp Act as well as the colonists? Did it show how unreasonable Parliament was being?
DeleteThe Stamp Act was initiated on March 22, 1765. The parliament had passed the act in order to raise money to support the troops protecting the “frontier near the Appalachian Mountains”. The stamp act was used to tax any printed paper in the colonies. Before this act, taxes had been used to “regulate commerce”, not to “raise money” for Britain’s own uses. This outraged colonists. They did not agree with the tax because they did not agree to the terms and conditions of the act, and it had not been sent through” colonial legislation”. Colonists thought that if they allowed this act, then Great Britain would continue to take advantage of them.
ReplyDeleteOne of the founders of the tax acts in America was George Greenville. George Greenville was the king’s first minister in Great Britain. He was one of the founders of these taxation acts because he believed that colonists owed Britain for their administration and defense that was provided to them. After reading a newspaper article on the Stamp Act and George Greenville, I was able to see the colonists’ true feelings about the Stamp Act. The article was about the “effigy of George Greenvile”. It showed him bound in chains and being punished for his intolerable acts against the colonists. The colonists believed that that act was “vile” and that they had the right to defend their liberties if they are being “attacked”. Colonists believed that they could not be taxed without representation because they had “the same rights as the English”. After many riots and protests, the king repealed the Stamp Act. These articles explained that the Stamp Act was one of the first events that prelude to the American Revolution.
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=X6DG58GOMTE3MzExMzYzMy42OTMyNTQ6MToxMTo2NC44MC44OS4yMA&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=4&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=4&p_docnum=5&p_docref=v2:103709D225B248A8@EANX-103CB6969C6F80C5@2366088-103CB696ED2D82B0@2-103CB697E015CE14@%5BDesign%3B+Liberty%3B+Stamp-Act%3B+Effigy%3B+Parade%5D
http://www.history.org/history/teaching/tchcrsta.cfm
This article was similar to mine, talking about how colonies felt about the Stamp Act and how outraged they were. I find it really interesting that George Greenville believed the colonists owed Britain while the colonists believed that they had done their job and were supporting and following Britain. I wonder where this discrepancy came from? Could it be that because they were so far away from each other that communication was difficult and it was hard for the colonies and Great Britain to be on the same page?
DeleteThe reactions to the Stamp Act of 1765 created the unified, rebellious mentality of the colonists against the British. The Act was passed by British parliament in order to add some additional funds to the royal effort to pay off their debt after many costly wars with other nations. A stamp was required for church documents, legal documents, bills, liquor licenses, and many other forms of documentation. The colonists did not want to be taxed without representation in the British parliament. Outrage broke out because many colonists felt that the British had no right to tax the colonies and that the colonists should have the right to tax themselves. The British countered their claims by saying that the colonists were virtually represented in parliament which many of the colonists did not believe. Many colonists shared the perspective that the British were being the parent to the colonies by taxing them on their everyday goods. This thought evoked a rebellious mentality for many colonists because the colonies were becoming self sufficient, and the stamp tax was seen as a hindrance to their development and independence. The colonists did not want to listen to their mother country just like a young child would not listen to their mother in their quest for independence. Thus the colonists exerted a fierce resistance to the Stamp Act, and it became evident that the Act would “surely procure a repeal of the Act and prevent further imposition.” The reaction to the Stamp Act had several important benefits for the Colonists. The Colonists succeeded in convincing the British to repeal the Stamp Act, and also the colonists banded together regardless of race, gender, colony, and other factors to put a stop to the Stamp Act. The colonists were unified under one common goal and therefore their protest was effective and efficient. The colonial divide was nullified for this cause, the colonies banded together as one, which foreshadows the unification of the states into one nation.
ReplyDeletehttp://0-solomon.eena.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/eena/getpart.pl?S2820-D076
When I think of the Stamp Act, unification is not the word that typically comes to mind first, but you’re completely right. Outraged at the tax, it makes sense that the colonists would ban together in resistance against the act. In my response to the newspaper article I looked at, I talked about how the Stamp Act affected such a wide range of the population because, under the act, so many items were taxed that basically affected everyone in one way or another. It makes sense that the colonists, feeling the same frustration and anger towards the taxes, would unify and come together to repeal the Stamp Act.
DeleteMuch of the history we learn in school is about regular people who have transformed through centuries of heroification. I think part of this mentality came from the years surrounding the Stamp Act. When the act was first passed in 1765, patriots immediately were outraged. Colonists instantly turned to violence and regular people who were the head of this revolt were held in the highest regard. Lady Winnifred Howard attests to this heroification in her memoir. She explains that in the center of the beautiful Gardens of Magnolia, there sits a statue of William Pitt. She give details about how the statue was constructed “in gratitude for [William Pitt’s] great services to America…[and for] his constant efforts…against the arbitrary policy of George III…, in particular the repeal of the obnoxious Stamp Act in 1766.” Lady Winnifred Howard continues to say that the Stamp Act was such a “fatal policy,” implying that America would not be what it is today without the valiant efforts of William Pitt.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about this document is how both Pitt and the Stamp Act are portrayed. Pitt is the hero that saved America from the act that would doom the country. Neither portrayals are true, and therefore should not be seen as such.
http://0-solomon.bwld.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.23819:1:0:-1:29.bwld.12115.12121
The best way for communication during the 1760s was through newspaper articles, where people shared their thoughts and advice with others in their town or province. After Great Britain passed the Stamp Act on March 22, 1765, many newspaper articles were published concerning this topic, including a Connecticut Courant article on June 24, 1765. In this opinion article, information was released and guidance was given to the community about how to deal with such a harsh Act. The author states that a vote was taken and it was declared that the Stamp Act was an infringement upon the colonies’ “natural, inherent, constitutional Rights of Englishmen”. Seeing as the colonies had always been loyal subjects to the King and had always followed his rules, the colonies couldn’t comprehend why they were being treated this way. The author discussed his dislike towards the distributors of the stamps and then declared that if the act continued, their liberty would be taken away and all would become poverty-stricken. As a result, the articles advised that no person should aid the act in any way, purchase any items under the Stamp Act, and that from the recent vote, it would be recorded that the colonies were fighting for their freedom and happiness back.
ReplyDeleteThe article was simple, yet persuasive, and I feel it is indicative of how people felt about the Stamp Act and what many articles were like about this topic. In addition, I find it interesting that because Parliament was so far away that they took their hatred of the Stamp Act out on the distributors because they were in front of them, when it wasn’t their fault. They were just doing their jobs. This piece also connects back to when we discussed freedom and happiness and the people are directly correlating their constraints from the Stamp Act with the infringement on their freedom and happiness.
“At a Legal Meeting of the Freeholders and Other Inhabitants of the Town of Cambridge,” Connecticut Courant, June 24, 1765, accessed October 1, 2012, http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=W4DU56DLMTM0Nzg0Njk3Ny4xODk2MjE6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=2&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=2&p_docnum=29&p_docref=v2:1080E0D856AD30E8@EANX-10854E5C2437AEC8@2365888-10854E5D08761F58@7-10854E5E67871C30@At+a+Legal+Meeting+of+the+Freeholders+and+other+Inhabitants+of+the+Town+of+Cambridge%2C+This+14th+of+October%2C+1765%2C+the+Hon.+William+Brattle%2C+Esq.+Chosen+Moderator
The more we look at primary sources from this time, the more I realize that the Declaration was neither profound nor unique in its wording. When the colonists declare that the Stamp Act imposed upon the colonies’ “natural, inherent, constitutional Rights of Englishmen”, they uttered the same words that would ten years later be minutely changed with the deletion of Englishmen. It is interesting to see the evolution in the radical's ideas and identities to prompt this change.
DeleteI do not think that it was the the actual Stamp Act that was infringing on the Colonist's freedom and happiness. The Colonists were mad that the King had the right to impose such a tax on them. He was so far away, so out of reach, but he still had rule over the everyday life in the new world. The colonists did not like that fact and fought against it.
DeleteThe Stamp Act was a tax instituted by the British Parliament that would require them to pay a duty on every piece of printed paper (legal documents, newspapers, decks of cards, pamphlets, etc.). They sought to levy this tax after the French and Indian War wreaked havoc on the British debt and this would pay for the stationing of troops along the Appalachian Mountains. The colonists immediately detested this act not because of the cost (which was incredibly small in relation to the taxes that were imposed in England) but that this was a deliberate act to raise money in the colonies as opposed to a way in which they regulated commerce. The colonists seethed at the precedent that this would set: a tax without their consent.
ReplyDeleteIn the notice posted to Governor Colden regarding the Stamp Act, the people of New York City violently protested the Stamp Act, threatening death against him if he truly shall support the tax. They argue that he is serving to be the “Chief Murderer of their rights and Privileges” and they assure him that by the power of the mob, he will suffer if he does not change his mind and take oath against the Stamp Act. The colonists were coddled throughout their entire existence as English colonies. They were given free reign over which governments they wanted to institute. Very few laws and regulations bound them, other than trade and loyalty to the throne. Thus when the colonists were going to have to pay for the war that they had caused, they were infuriated. Never had the British government inserted themselves quite so soundly in the immediate lives of the people. She had remained a far off country which most of them had never seen. This Act became the rallying point for discontent in the colonies (economically founded or not) and became the springboard for airing their grievances.
Colden, Lord Cadwallader, 1688-1776, Letters and Papers of Cadwallader Colden accessed on October 1, 2012 at http://0-solomon.eena.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.294:61.eena.169181.169187.
I saw many of the same ideas in the essay that I had found by James Otis. There just never seemed to be any conflict or representation of the crown in the colonies before the stamp act, and there was no call for the British to jump in and impose these taxes out of the blue. It's one thing if the British had been represented and involved in the colonies throughout the war, however they were not and in turn made it unacceptable to jump in when they did. The colonists had a right to be infuriated and had a right to revolt, because if they hadn't they would have been living out their lives as slaves to the British. If they had taken that path, America today would not be anything like it is and we would not be living our lives out with the freedom that we have.
DeleteThe Stamp Act, passed in 1765, differed from previous British legislation, including the Sugar Act. Most important of these differences was the fact that it affected such a major percent of the colonial population; nearly no colonist could escape the burden of the tax, as the tax was placed on such a variety of common items, including, but not limited to, wills, marriage licenses, passports, playing cards, newspapers, calendars, and court case documentation. Simply put, the colonists did not approve of the Stamp Act; they did not want to be taxed without representation.
ReplyDeleteIn an article posted in the Boston Evening Post on April 8, 1765, a list of all the items being taxed under the Stamp Act was published. The list was much more extensive than I had expected- 55 resolves in total. Before reading the newspaper article, I was aware of many of the taxed goods, but some of them I had never learned of, including “all diplomas from any academy”. In addition, I read that, “Every instrument, proceeding or matter or thing, aforesaid in any other than the English language, to pay double duty”.
When looking through the list, I tried to put myself in the colonists’ position, opening up the newspaper and learning of the outrageous new tax policy.
At the end of the lengthy list of resolves, there are six lines describing where the money collected from the various taxes would go- “towards defraying the necessary expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the said colonies and plantations”. If I were a colonist reading this article in 1765, I would want a much more detailed explanation, particularly after reading 55 resolves, as to why the tax was put in place and what, precisely, the money would go towards. I would be annoyed after reading about the items being taxed, but I would be even more frustrated at the lack of explanation.
It is interesting to look at this newspaper article because it is what the Boston colonists would have read in 1765; this is how they would have learned of the Stamp Act.
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=J5AX63GYMTM0OTEzNjQwNy40Njk2NDU6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=5&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=5&p_docnum=4&p_docref=v2:1089C792E64CF650@EANX-108B72124A40A628@2365811-108B72127282F050@1-108B7212EBC40290
Your article summary was very interesting to read because I was also not aware of the extensive list of all the items that were taxed due to the Stamp Act. It does not seem fair to tax any person who has a diploma- they earned that diploma and should not be punished through having to pay money in order to hold on to their document. I can see why the people were so against taxation without representation. If I were a colonist at this time, I would be shocked that so many items were being taxed all of a sudden at one time. I would not understand the government's imminent need for more money, especially with the vague description given at the end of the resolves. Reading your summary also makes me wonder how the word about the Stamp Act was spread to each person. Newspapers were the best form of communication, but did any groups of people not receive word of the Stamp Act at the time of its initiation? Also, I wonder what people did who could not afford the tax; did they hide unstamped documents? How were all the documents checked?
DeletePrior to full enforcement of the Stamp Act radical colonists felt that the British were enslaving the colonists and forcing them into poverty by just passing such a tax, so they encouraged all the colonists to avoid purchasing items under this tax at the best of their ability. The radicals claimed that a true “lover of his country” would refrain from purchasing any stamped papers brought to the Americas from Great Britain. Those who bought stamped papers were considered traitors to the colonies, because they are promoting Great Britain tyrannous behavior. The day that the stamped papers entered the harbor, colonists began plotting their boycott of the goods in order to force Great Britain to repeal the tax, so that the colonists can “regain their rights”. These patriots were so convinced that their rights were being harmed that they claimed that their “memories will be venerated, applauded, and admired, to the latest generations” because they were willing to stand up to the British.
ReplyDeleteOverall the Stamp Act never stood a chance in the colonies seeing as rebellious groups were spreading their message before the stamped papers were even distributed. I do understand that many items were being taxed and that the colonists were only allowed to pay with British currency; however they were being protected by the British Empire, so I don’t see why it was such a big deal to pay taxes to the crown. Those who lived in Great Britain had to pay taxes and they couldn't claim that it was against their rights; meanwhile the middle and lower classes were given virtually the same representation in Parliament as the colonists. I think that the colonist claiming that being taxed was against their rights was just a way to get out of losing any of their wealth.
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=N57U60OVMTM0OTE0MzIzNy44NDA4Mzc6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&toc=true&p_docref=v2:106AD2C0F76EDF48@EANX-107024D2AD5AA820@2366007-107024D30747C8E8-107024D40A66C010
I agree that Parliament had no chance of getting the colonists to pay the taxes. They were way too wound up in protecting their rights and not allowing Parliament to control them, because they knew as soon as they gave in and paid for one tax more would come. Smart, I guess?
DeleteWho created money? Whoever created money was most likely not expecting to cause multiple conflicts and wars throughout history. However, money is simply the root of the conflicts caused by the Stamp Act. There were other additional reasons for charging the colonists, yet making them pay their fair share of the Seven Years War was the main concern. George Grenville, the Prime Minister of Britain during the middle of the 18th century, decided on taxation as the best route to take when making the colonists pay for the war costs. As one part of three in Grenville's plan to make the colonists pay their fair share of the war costs, parliament enacted the Stamp Act in 1765(1). This stamp tax, which was not new to British citizens, brought about a striking resistance from the colonists. Unfortunately for Parliament and Grenville, the Stamp Act affected a wide range of colonists from merchants to farmers (1). This made the resistance to the tax even more prevalent, as if the colonists did not already defy the British laws enacted on the colonies enough already. Many colonists in fact were involved in smuggling (1) and they paid little attention to the taxes. And why should they when they would just be acquitted in court with juries composed of their fellow colonists? One rebel in particular was John Hancock, the man who signed his name in abnormally large font so that King George could read it on the Declaration of Independence. But how could a profitable merchant and smuggler end up being a revolutionary leader? Among other things, money is the cause. John Hancock was losing profit from acts enacted by Parliament like the Stamp Act, Sugar Act, and Townshend Acts which all caused an increase in the amount of customs men. Edward Countryman explains that "clever customs man could fleece them [merchants] almost at will"(1). In addition to customs men, the admiralty courts which dealt directly with violators of such acts made the judge, usually picking out of the pocket of the King, the person who would decide if the defendant was innocent or not. And all the colonists knew that this court was a losing cause for them. This prevented merchants from getting away with smuggling. Thus, the acts were causing many influential merchants to be losing large profits, which many people know never to take money away from a money lover. Merchants from across all the colonies were being affected. In an article printed by B. Mecom and delivered by Mr. Johnathan Lowder in New Haven, it describes the discontent merchants had with the Stamp Act. The article states "last night the said gentlemen [merchants] dispatched an express for Falmouth with fifteen copies of the act, for repealing the Stamp Act to be forward immediately for New York" (2). This article and many others similar to it depicted the disgruntled merchants as upset with the Stamp Act. Clearly, Parliament, who just wanted the colonists to pay their fair share, was in for a wild ride. One can see how much of this conflict originated from the need for money, and the reluctance of the colonists, in particular, the merchants, to give said money up. To make the conflict even more complicated, the colonist’s reluctance to pay taxes compounded into an intricate conflict between the American colonists and Parliament. The conflict was over the rules of what Parliament can control in the colonies, which in the eyes of the colonists was limited. Many colonists believed that Parliament only had the right to legislate and not the right to tax the American colonies. This guiding principle held by the colonists continued to cause issues when Parliament attempted to carry out its taxes on the colonists, and thus led to a revolution which would alter the course of events in the world.
ReplyDelete1. Edward Countryman, "The American Revolution", Hill and Wang, New York, Coursepack.
2. Glorious News. Constitutional liberty revives! New-Haven, Monday-morning, May 19, 1766, American Memory Project, accessed October 1, 2012, http://www.diigo.com/bookmark.
The Stamp Act can be looked at as the most important event and occurence that really shifted the colonists views towards rebellion. Before this act had come about, most of the leaders of the colonies and the people of this new found nation were still somewhat content with being under British rule. However, once this act was put up by Parliament and the British rulers, the colonists lashed out because their civil rights and liberties were at stake. This act differed from all the other acts before because it affected everyone in the colonies from apprentices to wealthy businessmen. Another way it differed was because the tax had to be paid in sterling which not many of the colonists had an abundance of. Almost all of the colonists believed that the crown was attempting to gain money from the colonists profit and success by the Stamp Act and the prominent Boston politician James Otis also had this viewpoint. In his essay, "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved" Otis goes along with the opinion that the British had no right to tax the colonists and that in doing so effectively made them and him slaves to the crown. When people do not have their rights there is no reason to live, so the only other option is to revolt against the injustice that is doing the slaving. This is exactly what Otis is attempting to get across to the American people and in turn the British: that revolt and rebellion was needed and imminent.
ReplyDeleteEdward Countryman, "The American Revolution", Hill and Wang, New York, Coursepack.
http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/divine5e/chapter5/medialib/primarysources3_5_2.html
I looked at two newspaper articles to get a sense of what the Stamp Act was and how it was described to the people. In 1756, the British government decreed that all paper documents be taxed. The colonists were required to set up stamp-offices where papers, newspapers, and other documents could be stamped. Everyone had to pay for stamps before they could be received; and the act made it illegal for any documents to exist without a stamp on it. Creating a fraudulent stamp meant defying the law, and any person found guilty of this had to appear before a court of law. The money from buying the stamps went to the treasury of the colonial government; the managers of the stamp money going into the treasury got fifty pounds of the incoming revenue. This angered many colonists because they felt like they were supplying a salary to government officials rather than giving money that would stay in the treasury and eventually come back into the community to benefit the colonists. Poor families would become poorer as a result of this act, and their following the law would line the pockets of certain government officials. The act must have seemed like as hassle when it was first passed also because stamps cost different amounts depending on the document.There was no uniformity.
ReplyDeletehttp://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=F50G58HNMTM0OTE1MTIxOS41MTMwMDk6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=2&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=2&p_docnum=14&p_docref=v2:10D34AE6B0969558@EANX-10DAAD9A55E813F8@2362794-10DAAD9AE2200DB0@3-10DAAD9C3B21F850
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=F50G58HNMTM0OTE1MTIxOS41MTMwMDk6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=2&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=2&p_docnum=15&p_docref=v2:10DBEB948F3572A8@EANX-10DEEFE787E80088@2362808-10DEEFE798C71420@0-10DEEFE817228410
The passing of this act outraged the people in the colonies because they viewed it as a way for the government to weasel money out of them and raise the income of the government. They saw it as selfish and unnecessary. It was essentially a violation of their freedoms. People were so upset that the Stamp Act eventually had to be resolved. The colonists thought they should be governed by their own forces on their land rather than abiding by the law of a ruler overseas. It seems like this event made thoughts of seceding arise and further polarized the colonies and Britain. The Stamp Act really caused a rift between the mother country and its child colonies.
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/lib-edu/education/psd/colony/henry1765.htm
The Stamp Act was very important in showing that the Colonies could act together as one and influence the types of policies that ruled them. The Colonists were opposed to this new tax and felt it as a burden. It led to many protests. In the letters of Cadwallader Colden, he showed the intensity of protests that were happening around the Colonies. He described the protestors as a mob that marched straight towards the Lieutenant Governor’s fort. They broke into the carriage house and burned them all. They then threatened that if a letter of opposition of the Stamp Act was not sent to England by the end of the day, the whole fort would be burned down. The opposition to the Stamp Act showed the importance of protest and fighting for liberty to the Colonists.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Stamp Act was important to the Revolution, it was not the main causation. There was a culmination of different things that drove the Colonists to declare themselves a nation.
http://0-solomon.eena.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.294:47.eena.131024.131030