Changes

The '''Stamp Act of 1765''' was legislation passed by the British Parliament that caused enormous outcry in America until it was repealed a year later, setting in action a chain of taxes and imperial overreach that caused the [[American Revolution|Americans to revolt in 1775]]. The new law required that all legal documents, customs papers, commercial contracts, newspapers, almanacs, wills, pamphlets and playing cards in the [[Thirteen Colonies|American colonies]] be taxed.  A special tax stamp was affixed to show the tax was paid; lawsuits and newspapers were hardest hit--a small matter in Britain where lawsuits and newspapers were far less common than in the colonies.

The '''Stamp Act of 1765''' was legislation passed by the British Parliament that caused enormous outcry in America until it was repealed a year later, setting in action a chain of taxes and imperial overreach that caused the [[American Revolution|Americans to revolt in 1775]]. The new law required that all legal documents, customs papers, commercial contracts, newspapers, almanacs, wills, pamphlets and playing cards in the [[Thirteen Colonies|American colonies]] be taxed.  A special tax stamp was affixed to show the tax was paid; lawsuits and newspapers were hardest hit—a small matter in Britain where lawsuits and newspapers were far less common than in the colonies.

The main British goal was not so much revenue as a demonstration of the supremacy of Parliament in all matters; the main American objection was not the cost, but the assertion of the supremacy of Parliament to tax Americans. Originally the British goal was to fund 10,000 soldiers in 20 battalions that were to be stationed in Canada and Indian territories--not in the American colonies. The Americans did not need the soldiers for protection--they were to be stationed outside Britain to provide prestigious officerships for British gentlemen, who could not be stationed in Britain itself because of opposition there to standing armies.   

The main British goal was not so much revenue as a demonstration of the supremacy of Parliament in all matters; the main American objection was not the cost, but the assertion of the supremacy of Parliament to tax Americans. Originally the British goal was to fund 10,000 soldiers in 20 battalions that were to be stationed in Canada and Indian territories—not in the American colonies. The Americans did not need the soldiers for protection—they were to be stationed outside Britain to provide prestigious officerships for British gentlemen, who could not be stationed in Britain itself because of opposition there to standing armies.   

At issue was not the size of the tax but the fact that no Americans had been consulted, and the colonial legislatures had been ignored.  Parliament assumed it had the right to tax anything it wanted.  The Stamp Act incited the first major American protest. The protests it worked, and Americans continued to protest energetically against the British imperial government in the years from 1765 to 1775; then it was time for all-out warfare.   

At issue was not the size of the tax but the fact that no Americans had been consulted, and the colonial legislatures had been ignored.  Parliament assumed it had the right to tax anything it wanted.  The Stamp Act incited the first major American protest. The protests it worked, and Americans continued to protest energetically against the British imperial government in the years from 1765 to 1775; then it was time for all-out warfare.   

Official opposition was reflected by the [[Stamp Act Congress]], which issued its resolutions on October 19, 1765. It rejected taxation without representation, stressed the ancient (historic) rights of the colonists as British subjects, and decided to lay the colonists' grievances directly before the British Parliament.

Official opposition was reflected by the [[Stamp Act Congress]], which issued its resolutions on October 19, 1765. It rejected taxation without representation, stressed the ancient (historic) rights of the colonists as British subjects, and decided to lay the colonists' grievances directly before the British Parliament.

==London==

==London==

Prime Minister [[George Grenville]] (1712–1770) designed the tax, primarily to fund 20 battalions each with 500 British troops to be stationed in America, ostensibly to protect the Americans.  The garrisons were of no use to the Americans, who protected themselves from Indians and there was no foreign power that threatened. The goal was in fact to provide officer billets for sons of aristocrats who would in turn support the government.<ref> Fred Anderson, ''Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766'' (2000) p. 561-2 [http://books.google.com/books?id=FFO2clqJCqMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:crucible+intitle:of+intitle:war+inauthor:anderson&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=unemployed%20enlisted&f=false online].  Only 350 soldiers were needed to control the Indians in the west. Ibid. p 636.</ref> The tax was not designed to pay for the last war, as historians have sometimes said, but to make Americans pay for the future cost of the corruption of sinecures for unneeded soldiers. The 10,000 new soldiers would not be stationed in the 13 colonies at all--except for 350 they would all be in Canada or in Indian territory outside the 13. The British did not ask the American to pay for the late war, nor to pay for their own defense, Instead they demanded the Americans pay for an army that was unrelated to American needs.   

Prime Minister [[George Grenville]] (1712–1770) designed the tax, primarily to fund 20 battalions each with 500 British troops to be stationed in America, ostensibly to protect the Americans.  The garrisons were of no use to the Americans, who protected themselves from Indians and there was no foreign power that threatened. The goal was in fact to provide officer billets for sons of aristocrats who would in turn support the government.<ref>Fred Anderson, ''Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766'' (2000) p. 561-2 [http://books.google.com/books?id=FFO2clqJCqMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:crucible+intitle:of+intitle:war+inauthor:anderson&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=unemployed%20enlisted&f=false online].  Only 350 soldiers were needed to control the Indians in the west. Ibid. p 636.</ref> The tax was not designed to pay for the last war, as historians have sometimes said, but to make Americans pay for the future cost of the corruption of sinecures for unneeded soldiers. The 10,000 new soldiers would not be stationed in the 13 colonies at all—except for 350 they would all be in Canada or in Indian territory outside the 13. The British did not ask the American to pay for the late war, nor to pay for their own defense, Instead they demanded the Americans pay for an army that was unrelated to American needs.   

In Parliament Charles Townshend demonstrated the condescension toward Americans and the assumption of British superiority. Townshend called Americans "children planted by our care." They had been "nourished up" by British "indulgence" and protected by British arms. Would "they grudge to contribute their mite" to relieve the British people from "the heavy burdens" they suffered? He was answered by Colonel Isaac Barré, who had fought in the New World, and explained that the Americans had been planted not by British care, but rather by British oppression which had driven so many refugees to the New World. Nor were they nurtured by British indulgence. Rather they "grew by your... neglect of them." Indeed, Barré said, these "sons of liberty" had suffered under greedy British officials for many years. Nor had they been protected by British arms; they had nobly fought for themselves. (There had never been a French or Spanish invasion.)

In Parliament Charles Townshend demonstrated the condescension toward Americans and the assumption of British superiority. Townshend called Americans "children planted by our care." They had been "nourished up" by British "indulgence" and protected by British arms. Would "they grudge to contribute their mite" to relieve the British people from "the heavy burdens" they suffered? He was answered by Colonel Isaac Barré, who had fought in the New World, and explained that the Americans had been planted not by British care, but rather by British oppression which had driven so many refugees to the New World. Nor were they nurtured by British indulgence. Rather they "grew by your... neglect of them." Indeed, Barré said, these "sons of liberty" had suffered under greedy British officials for many years. Nor had they been protected by British arms; they had nobly fought for themselves. (There had never been a French or Spanish invasion.)

When the Army did ask the colonies for military help in fighting Indians in 1763, London made clear that the colonies would not be reimbursed. However the value of a large standing army that would overawe those Americans who might consider independence was apparent to London. <ref> George Louis Beer, ''British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765'' (1922), pp 263, 266. online at [[Questia]].  In 1755, William Shirley, the royal governor of Massachusetts told officials in London that American independence could easily be frustrated. He explained that "At all Events, they could not maintain such an Independency, without a Strong Naval Force, which it must forever be in the Power of Great Britain to hinder them from having: And whilst His Majesty hath 7000 Troops kept up within them, & in the Great Lakes upon the back of six of them, with the Indians at Command, it seems very easy, provided the Governors & principal Civil Officers are Independent of the Assemblies for their Subsistence, & commonly Vigilant, to prevent any Steps of that kind from being taken." Beer p. 266. A strong, visible military force did keep the potential rebels quiet in [[Nova Scotia]] in 1775, and that colony never joined the Revolution.</ref>  

When the Army did ask the colonies for military help in fighting Indians in 1763, London made clear that the colonies would not be reimbursed. However the value of a large standing army that would overawe those Americans who might consider independence was apparent to London.<ref>George Louis Beer, ''British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765'' (1922), pp 263, 266. online at [[Questia]].  In 1755, William Shirley, the royal governor of Massachusetts told officials in London that American independence could easily be frustrated. He explained that "At all Events, they could not maintain such an Independency, without a Strong Naval Force, which it must forever be in the Power of Great Britain to hinder them from having: And whilst His Majesty hath 7000 Troops kept up within them, & in the Great Lakes upon the back of six of them, with the Indians at Command, it seems very easy, provided the Governors & principal Civil Officers are Independent of the Assemblies for their Subsistence, & commonly Vigilant, to prevent any Steps of that kind from being taken." Beer p. 266. A strong, visible military force did keep the potential rebels quiet in [[Nova Scotia]] in 1775, and that colony never joined the Revolution.</ref>  

No matter, the Crown needed the money. Grenville expected the tax would raise £60,000 of the £300,000 needed to maintain the enlarged British military establishment in Canada and the Indian territories. Amewricans would have to pay, London decided, because tax evaders would be tried not in colonial courts but in in the imperial vice-admiralty courts, which had no juries.  

No matter, the Crown needed the money. Grenville expected the tax would raise £60,000 of the £300,000 needed to maintain the enlarged British military establishment in Canada and the Indian territories. Amewricans would have to pay, London decided, because tax evaders would be tried not in colonial courts but in in the imperial vice-admiralty courts, which had no juries.  

The angry Americans immediately boycotted most English merchandise--trade fell in half.  London merchants who had a large and profitable trade with the colonies were very badly hurt by the boycotts the colonists imposed, as shown by the January 17, 1766 petition of the merchants of London, reprinted below.

The angry Americans immediately boycotted most English merchandise—trade fell in half.  London merchants who had a large and profitable trade with the colonies were very badly hurt by the boycotts the colonists imposed, as shown by the January 17, 1766 petition of the merchants of London, reprinted below.

The Rockingham ministry came to power in 1765 determined to not alienate the colonists. Parliament debated whether to send the Army to enforce the Stamp Act. Two issues were involved: collection of the stamp duties and restoration of civil authority. The Duke of Cumberland might have pressed for intervention, but his death removed the strongest advocate for such a course. Listening to [[Benjamin Franklin]], who was agent for two colonies in London, the government finally realized the Americans would never pay up. Most of Rockingham's cabinet eventually concluded that the American resistance could not be compromised as long as the Stamp Act remained in effect and that the act itself was not worth saving, so they repealed it on March 18, 1765.<ref> John L. Bullion, "British Ministers and American Resistance to the Stamp Act, October-December 1765." ''William and Mary Quarterly'' 1992 49(1): 89-107. </ref>

The Rockingham ministry came to power in 1765 determined to not alienate the colonists. Parliament debated whether to send the Army to enforce the Stamp Act. Two issues were involved: collection of the stamp duties and restoration of civil authority. The Duke of Cumberland might have pressed for intervention, but his death removed the strongest advocate for such a course. Listening to [[Benjamin Franklin]], who was agent for two colonies in London, the government finally realized the Americans would never pay up. Most of Rockingham's cabinet eventually concluded that the American resistance could not be compromised as long as the Stamp Act remained in effect and that the act itself was not worth saving, so they repealed it on March 18, 1765.<ref>John L. Bullion, "British Ministers and American Resistance to the Stamp Act, October–December 1765." ''William and Mary Quarterly'' 1992 49(1): 89-107.</ref>

The aristocrats just could not stop. When they repealed the Stamp Act they added the [[Declaratory Act]] to announce they had won the constitutional debate and that the government had "full power to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever."

The aristocrats just could not stop. When they repealed the Stamp Act they added the [[Declaratory Act]] to announce they had won the constitutional debate and that the government had "full power to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever."

The "[[Sons of Liberty]]" were secret organizations formed in each colony to organize opposition to the Stamp Act. The name came from a phrase used in a speech against the Stamp Act in Parliament. The leaders were merchants, businessmen, lawyers, journalists, and others who would be most affected by the Stamp Act. The leaders included John Lamb and Alexander McDougall in New York, and [[Samuel Adams]] and [[James Otis]] in New England. The societies kept in touch with each other through committees of correspondence, supported the nonimportation agreement, forced the resignation of stamp distributors, and incited destruction of stamped paper and threatened violence against British officials.  

The "[[Sons of Liberty]]" were secret organizations formed in each colony to organize opposition to the Stamp Act. The name came from a phrase used in a speech against the Stamp Act in Parliament. The leaders were merchants, businessmen, lawyers, journalists, and others who would be most affected by the Stamp Act. The leaders included John Lamb and Alexander McDougall in New York, and [[Samuel Adams]] and [[James Otis]] in New England. The societies kept in touch with each other through committees of correspondence, supported the nonimportation agreement, forced the resignation of stamp distributors, and incited destruction of stamped paper and threatened violence against British officials.  

===Newspapers===

===Newspapers===

During the French and Indian War (1765-63), the fledgling American newspaper industry comprised only 24 papers, but it had significantly improved its methods of reporting news. Editors reprinted news and editorials from other papers, thus helping form a sort of national consensus. This made the press an effective voice in opposition to the Stamp Act --which taxed newspapers and almanacs--and in support of colonial independence soon thereafter.  

During the French and Indian War (1765-63), the fledgling American newspaper industry comprised only 24 papers, but it had significantly improved its methods of reporting news. Editors reprinted news and editorials from other papers, thus helping form a sort of national consensus. This made the press an effective voice in opposition to the Stamp Act—which taxed newspapers and almanacs—and in support of colonial independence soon thereafter.  

[[Benjamin Franklin]] had created an informal network of two dozen papers; they now acted in concert. Many circumvented the stamps by suspending publication, publishing without titles, and printing without stamps. By equating taxation without representation with despotism and tyranny, their publications helped to set the stage for the American Revolution.

[[Benjamin Franklin]] had created an informal network of two dozen papers; they now acted in concert. Many circumvented the stamps by suspending publication, publishing without titles, and printing without stamps. By equating taxation without representation with despotism and tyranny, their publications helped to set the stage for the American Revolution.

==Religion==

==Religion==

For many Americans the revolutionary experience could be conceptualized best within a religious framework. Sermons, orations, poems, newspapers, essays, and other sources of the popular colonial mind reveal that a significant number of Americans continued to perceive God as the prime mover in human history. They gave America's secular development a prominent place in God's moral government of the world. Because of these beliefs, the Stamp Act was viewed as a threat to the fulfillment of America's providential destiny. Americans saw the Act's repeal as a sign of Almighty intervention in support of his favored people.<ref> John G. Berens, "Good News from a far Country: A Note on Divine Providence and the Stamp Act Crisis." ''Church History'' 1976 45(3): 308-315.[http://www.jstor.org/stable/3164265  in JSTOR]</ref>

For many Americans the revolutionary experience could be conceptualized best within a religious framework. Sermons, orations, poems, newspapers, essays, and other sources of the popular colonial mind reveal that a significant number of Americans continued to perceive God as the prime mover in human history. They gave America's secular development a prominent place in God's moral government of the world. Because of these beliefs, the Stamp Act was viewed as a threat to the fulfillment of America's providential destiny. Americans saw the Act's repeal as a sign of Almighty intervention in support of his favored people.<ref>John G. Berens, "Good News from a far Country: A Note on Divine Providence and the Stamp Act Crisis." ''Church History'' 1976 45(3): 308-315.[http://www.jstor.org/stable/3164265  in JSTOR]</ref>

==Stamp Act Congress==

==Stamp Act Congress==

The Stamp Act Congress met in October, 1765, in New York City, with delegates from 9 colonies: New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, Maryland, and Connecticut. It adopted the "Declaration of Rights and Grievances" (see below for text) which declared that Englishmen could not be taxed without their consent, and, since the colonists were not represented in Parliament, any tax imposed on them without the consent of their colonial legislatures was unconstitutional.  

The Stamp Act Congress met in October, 1765, in New York City, with delegates from 9 colonies: New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, Maryland, and Connecticut. It adopted the "Declaration of Rights and Grievances" (see below for text) which declared that Englishmen could not be taxed without their consent, and, since the colonists were not represented in Parliament, any tax imposed on them without the consent of their colonial legislatures was unconstitutional.  

==Colonies==

==Colonies==

===New Hampshire===

===New Hampshire===

Between January and November 1765, the New Hampshire Provincial Assembly moved from indifference to the intensifying dispute between London and the American colonies to wholehearted endorsement of the colonial resistance. Three events created a climate of change: the exposure of Benning Wentworth's corruption, the [[Sugar Act]], and the transmission of Whig views from other colonies through the press. These events led to a broadly based popular movement against the Stamp Act based not on economics but on the defense of liberty.  

Between January and November 1765, the New Hampshire Provincial Assembly moved from indifference to the intensifying dispute between London and the American colonies to wholehearted endorsement of the colonial resistance. Three events created a climate of change: the exposure of Benning Wentworth's corruption, the [[Sugar Act]], and the transmission of Whig views from other colonies through the press. These events led to a broadly based popular movement against the Stamp Act-based not on economics but on the defense of liberty.  

===Massachusetts===

===Massachusetts===

Lawyer [[James Otis]] (1725–83), in his speeches and pamphlets, defined and defended colonial rights. He popularized the cry, "[[No taxation without representation]]!" Otis proposed and participated in the Stamp Act Congress, and his ideas were used in the protests drafted by that body.  

Lawyer [[James Otis]] (1725–83), in his speeches and pamphlets, defined and defended colonial rights. He popularized the cry, "[[No taxation without representation]]!" Otis proposed and participated in the Stamp Act Congress, and his ideas were used in the protests drafted by that body.  

[[John Hancock]] (1737–93) inherited Boston's leading mercantile firm, and strenuously opposed the Stamp Act and other British trade restrictions. In 1768 his ship ''Liberty'' was seized as a smuggler and confiscated by the crown. A riot ensued, and later the ship was burned. Hancock was hailed as a martyr and elected (1766) to the legislature, where he joined [[Samuel Adams]] in advocating resistance to British tyranny.  

[[John Hancock]] (1737–93) inherited Boston's leading mercantile firm, and strenuously opposed the Stamp Act and other British trade restrictions. In 1768 his ship ''Liberty'' was seized as a smuggler and confiscated by the crown. A riot ensued, and later the ship was burned. Hancock was hailed as a martyr and elected (1766) to the legislature, where he joined [[Samuel Adams]] in advocating resistance to British tyranny.  

[[Thomas Hutchinson]] (1711–80), was a leading politician who privately considered the Stamp Act and other government measures unwise. Nevertheless he demanded favored strict enforcement, and his unpopularity caused a mob to loot and burn his mansion in 1765. He became royal governor in 1771 and was determined to suppress signs of rebellion.

[[Thomas Hutchinson]] (1711–80), was a leading politician who privately considered the Stamp Act and other government measures unwise. Nevertheless, he demanded favored strict enforcement, and his unpopularity caused a mob to loot and burn his mansion in 1765. He became royal governor in 1771 and was determined to suppress signs of rebellion.

===Rhode Island===

===Rhode Island===

Rhode Island's political and merchant elite organized and manipulated working-class rioters to put pressure on the British

Rhode Island's political and merchant elite organized and manipulated working-class rioters to put pressure on the British

===Virginia===

===Virginia===

In Virginia lawyer and radical democrat John Mercer's (1705-68) took the lead in opposing the new tax. Mercer heard of the law's passage in April 1765 and immediately published a list of taxed items and rates, prefaced by an incendiary introduction. Mercer's argument against the act was echoed by colonial courts in November, when the law became effective. Citing Chapter 40 of the Magna Carta, which states that legal process may not be sold, Mercer's early protest of the act probably contributed to the passage of the Virginia Resolves in May 1765, which in turn led to similar actions in other colonial legislatures.  

In Virginia lawyer and radical democrat John Mercer's (1705–68) took the lead in opposing the new tax. Mercer heard of the law's passage in April 1765 and immediately published a list of taxed items and rates, prefaced by an incendiary introduction. Mercer's argument against the act was echoed by colonial courts in November, when the law became effective. Citing Chapter 40 of the Magna Carta, which states that legal process may not be sold, Mercer's early protest of the act probably contributed to the passage of the Virginia Resolves in May 1765, which in turn led to similar actions in other colonial legislatures.  

[[Richard Henry Lee]] (1732–94) was the leader in the formation of a nonimportation organization, which successfully called for Americans to boycott imports of all British goods.

[[Richard Henry Lee]] (1732–94) was the leader in the formation of a nonimportation organization, which successfully called for Americans to boycott imports of all British goods.

[[Patrick Henry]] (1736–99) in the Virginia House of Burgesses denounced the measure in a speech that has become famous.  

[[Patrick Henry]] (1736–99) in the Virginia House of Burgesses denounced the measure in a speech that has become famous.  

:"Caesar had his Brutus; Charles the First his Cromwell; and

:"Caesar had his Brutus; Charles the First his Cromwell; and

George the Third--[here tradition has it that the House Speaker interrupted with a shout of 'Treason!' but Henry continued] may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."<ref> That is, Brutus had assassinated Julius Caesar, and [[Oliver Cromwell]] had executed the English King Charles I. A threat to the life of the king was the worst kind of treason, with the penalty of being hanged, drawn and quartered.</ref>

George the Third--[here tradition has it that the House Speaker interrupted with a shout of 'Treason!' but Henry continued] may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."<ref>That is, Brutus had assassinated Julius Caesar, and [[Oliver Cromwell]] had executed the English King Charles I. A threat to the life of the king was the worst kind of treason, with the penalty of being hanged, drawn and quartered.</ref>

The speech helped persuade the Virginia House of Burgesses to adopt in May, 1765, the Virginia Resolves against the Stamp Act: not only did Henry deliver the famous Caesar-Brutus speech; he wrote the Resolves, planned with George Johnston the strategies for debate on the house floor, and spoke at several points in the debate which initiated colonial resistance to the Act, resistance which culminated in the Act's repeal in 1766.  

The speech helped persuade the Virginia House of Burgesses to adopt in May, 1765, the Virginia Resolves against the Stamp Act: not only did Henry deliver the famous Caesar-Brutus speech; he wrote the Resolves, planned with George Johnston the strategies for debate on the house floor, and spoke at several points in the debate which initiated colonial resistance to the Act, resistance which culminated in the Act's repeal in 1766.  

The lack of firm police action by the North Carolina royal government against patriots demonstrating their opposition to the Stamp Act in 1766 suggests that weak law enforcement encouraged anti-British activity during the pre-Revolutionary period. Governor William Tryon could not enforce the Stamp Act regulations in the Wilmington area owing to several acts of civil disobedience, including disruption of his inauguration. Law enforcement officers often supported these disturbances themselves or lacked the means to quell them. The precedent for future opposition to new taxes was set.  

The lack of firm police action by the North Carolina royal government against patriots demonstrating their opposition to the Stamp Act in 1766 suggests that weak law enforcement encouraged anti-British activity during the pre-Revolutionary period. Governor William Tryon could not enforce the Stamp Act regulations in the Wilmington area owing to several acts of civil disobedience, including disruption of his inauguration. Law enforcement officers often supported these disturbances themselves or lacked the means to quell them. The precedent for future opposition to new taxes was set.  

==Georgia==

==Georgia==

A powerful royal governor assured compliance with the next tax--of the 13 colonies only Georgia paid the stamp tax.

A powerful royal governor assured compliance with the next tax—of the 13 colonies only Georgia paid the stamp tax.

==Florida==

==Florida==

The Stamp Act produced widespread public criticism in remote, underpopulated West Florida. However, Governor George Johnstone vigorously enforced the Act and serious opposition failed to materialize, chiefly because of the scattered population and primitive economic conditions.  The two British colonies of West Florida and East Florida did not join the other 13 colonies in 1776; they remained loyal. In 1783 Britain gave the two colonies to Spain and the British living there were expelled. Eventually the U.S. purchased the two colonies from Spain in 1819.

The Stamp Act produced widespread public criticism in remote, underpopulated West Florida. However, Governor George Johnstone vigorously enforced the Act and serious opposition failed to materialize, chiefly because of the scattered population and primitive economic conditions.  The two British colonies of West Florida and East Florida did not join the other 13 colonies in 1776; they remained loyal. In 1783 Britain gave the two colonies to Spain and the British living there were expelled. Eventually the U.S. purchased the two colonies from Spain in 1819.

* Bullion, John L. ''A Great and Necessary Measure: George Grenville and the Genesis of the Stamp Act, 1763-1765.'' (1982). 290 pp.

* Bullion, John L. ''A Great and Necessary Measure: George Grenville and the Genesis of the Stamp Act, 1763-1765.'' (1982). 290 pp.

* Irvin, Benjamin H. ''Samuel Adams: Son of Liberty, Father of Revolution'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/read/111497641?title=Samuel%20Adams%3a%20%20Son%20of%20Liberty%2c%20Father%20of%20Revolution online edition]  

* Irvin, Benjamin H. ''Samuel Adams: Son of Liberty, Father of Revolution'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/read/111497641?title=Samuel%20Adams%3a%20%20Son%20of%20Liberty%2c%20Father%20of%20Revolution online edition]  

* Jensen, Merrill. ''The Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution, 1763-1776'' (1968), pp 98-182

* Jensen, Merrill. ''The Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution, 1763-1776'' (1968), pp 98–182

* Miller, John C. ''Origins of the American Revolution.'' (1943). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/origins-of-the-american-revolution-by-john-c-miller.jsp online edition]

* Miller, John C. ''Origins of the American Revolution.'' (1943). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/origins-of-the-american-revolution-by-john-c-miller.jsp online edition]

* Morgan, Edmund, and Helen Morgan. ''The Stamp Act Crisis'' (2nd ed. 1963), the standard history [http://www.amazon.com/Stamp-Act-Crisis-Prologue-Revolution/dp/0807845132/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253433965&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

* Morgan, Edmund, and Helen Morgan. ''The Stamp Act Crisis'' (2nd ed. 1963), the standard history [http://www.amazon.com/Stamp-Act-Crisis-Prologue-Revolution/dp/0807845132/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253433965&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

* Morgan, Edmund S. "Colonial Ideas of Parliamentary Power 1764-1766," ''William and Mary Quarterly,'' Vol. 5, No. 3 (Jul., 1948), pp. 311-341 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1923462  in JSTOR]

* Morgan, Edmund S. "Colonial Ideas of Parliamentary Power 1764-1766," ''William and Mary Quarterly,'' Vol. 5, No. 3 (Jul., 1948), pp.&nbsp;311–341 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1923462  in JSTOR]

* Slaughter, Thomas P. "The Tax Man Cometh: Ideological Opposition to Internal Taxes, 1760-1790." ''William and Mary Quarterly'' 1984 41(4): 566-591. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1919154 in Jstor]

* Slaughter, Thomas P. "The Tax Man Cometh: Ideological Opposition to Internal Taxes, 1760-1790." ''William and Mary Quarterly'' 1984 41(4): 566-591. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1919154 in Jstor]

* Thomas, Peter D. G. ''British politics and the Stamp Act crisis: the first phase of the American Revolution, 1763-1767'' (1975), shows the king played little role

* Thomas, Peter D. G. ''British politics and the Stamp Act crisis: the first phase of the American Revolution, 1763-1767'' (1975), shows the king played little role

:Resolved, That the Taxation of the People by themselves, or by Persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what Taxes the People are able to bear, or the easiest Method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every Tax laid on the People, is the only Security against a burthensome Taxation, and the distinguishing Characteristick of British Freedom, without which the ancient Constitution cannot exist.

:Resolved, That the Taxation of the People by themselves, or by Persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what Taxes the People are able to bear, or the easiest Method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every Tax laid on the People, is the only Security against a burthensome Taxation, and the distinguishing Characteristick of British Freedom, without which the ancient Constitution cannot exist.

:Resolved, That his Majesty's liege People of this his most ancient and loyal Colony have without Interruption enjoyed the inestimable Right of being governed by such Laws, respecting their internal Polity and Taxation, as are derived from their own Consent, with the Approbation of their Sovereign, or his Substitute; and that the same hath never been forfeited or yielded up, but hath been constantly recognized by the Kings and People of Great Britain.<ref> </ref>

:Resolved, That his Majesty's liege People of this his most ancient and loyal Colony have without Interruption enjoyed the inestimable Right of being governed by such Laws, respecting their internal Polity and Taxation, as are derived from their own Consent, with the Approbation of their Sovereign, or his Substitute; and that the same hath never been forfeited or yielded up, but hath been constantly recognized by the Kings and People of Great Britain.

===British Merchants===

===British Merchants===

January 17, 1766. ''A petition of the merchants of London, trading to North America, was presented to the House, and read; setting forth;"

January 17, 1766. ''A petition of the merchants of London, trading to North America, was presented to the House, and read; setting forth;"