Changes

Zenger was then put on trial in 1735.  On the first day of the trial, Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia, one of the best-known attorneys in all of the colonies, surprisingly showed up and agreed to defend Zenger for free.  Hamilton argued that it should not be a crime to print something that is true, even though it may embarrass the governor.  In other words, Zenger's attorney thought that someone should have a right to tell the truth, no matter how embarrassing it may be. Zenger's attorney told the jury that truth should be a perfect and complete defense against allegations of libel.

Zenger was then put on trial in 1735.  On the first day of the trial, Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia, one of the best-known attorneys in all of the colonies, surprisingly showed up and agreed to defend Zenger for free.  Hamilton argued that it should not be a crime to print something that is true, even though it may embarrass the governor.  In other words, Zenger's attorney thought that someone should have a right to tell the truth, no matter how embarrassing it may be. Zenger's attorney told the jury that truth should be a perfect and complete defense against allegations of libel.

But the judge instructed the jury that, under the law at that time, publishing the truth about someone can still be a crime (the crime of "libel").  The jury rejected what the judge said, and rejected what the law said.  Instead, the jury held in favor of Zenger:  "not guilty."  This case established a unique new American right:  the right of freedom of the press.  To this day we have that right in America, while those in England still do not.<ref>To this day, English courts welcome libel lawsuits far more than American courts do.  "Known as the 'libel capital of the world' because of its plaintiff-friendly rules on defamation, Britain has nothing remotely comparable to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of the press."[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20030317.html]</ref>

But the judge instructed the jury that, under the law at that time, publishing the truth about someone can still be a crime (the crime of "libel").  The jury rejected what the judge said, and rejected what the law said.  Instead, the jury held in favor of Zenger:  "not guilty."  This case established a unique new American right:  the right of freedom of the press.  To this day we have that right in America, while those in England still do not.<ref>To this day, English courts welcome libel lawsuits far more than American courts do.  "Known as the 'libel capital of the world' because of its plaintiff-friendly rules on defamation, Britain has nothing comparable to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of the press."[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20030317.html]</ref>

This important case also helped convince Americans of the importance of the right to a jury trial, which was later written into our Constitution.

This important case also helped convince Americans of the importance of the right to a jury trial, which was later written into our Constitution.

A few months later, Britain passed the Quartering Act.  The Quartering Act required colonial governments to house British troops at their own expense.  The troops were to be housed in inns, abandoned homes, and government buildings.  The Act mandated that "all such officers and soldiers ... be furnished and supplied ... with fire, candles, vinegar, and salt, bedding, utensils ... without paying anything for the same."

A few months later, Britain passed the Quartering Act.  The Quartering Act required colonial governments to house British troops at their own expense.  The troops were to be housed in inns, abandoned homes, and government buildings.  The Act mandated that "all such officers and soldiers ... be furnished and supplied ... with fire, candles, vinegar, and salt, bedding, utensils ... without paying anything for the same."

Anger by the colonists against the King, which existed before the Stamp Act and Quartering Act, rose to a fever pitch.  The colonists adopted a powerful phrase against England's oppression:  "taxation without representation."  The colonists pointed out that they were not represented in British Parliament when these taxes were passed.  The colonies could not elect anyone who was making these decisions.  The colonists had no "say" in the matter.  The British leaders responded by saying the colonists had "virtual" representation by Englishmen who were looking out for them.  Nonsense, the colonists said, adequate representation was impossible because England was so far away.

Anger by the colonists against the King, which existed before the Stamp Act and Quartering Act, rose to a fever pitch.  The colonists adopted a powerful phrase against England's oppression:  "taxation without representation."  The colonists pointed out that they were not represented in the British Parliament when these taxes were passed.  The colonies could not vote for or against anyone who was making these decisions.  The colonists had no "say" in the matter.  The British leaders responded by saying the colonists had "virtual" representation by Englishmen who were looking out for them.  Nonsense, the colonists said, adequate representation was impossible because England was so far away.

Patrick Henry put this argument into words in one of his resolutions which were published in newspapers throughout the colonies: "''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, are 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."  (Notice how the spelling of certain words in colonial America was different, usually longer, than today.)

Patrick Henry put this argument into words in one of his resolutions which were published in newspapers throughout the colonies: "''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, are 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."  (Notice how the spelling of certain words in colonial America was different, usually longer, than today.)

===Stamp Act Congress===

===Stamp Act Congress===

:(2) British burdens hurt nearly all the colonists in all walks of life.

:(2) British burdens hurt nearly all the colonists in all walks of life.

:(3) Taxes hit at a bad time: during a postwar depression.

:(3) Taxes hit at a bad time: during a postwar economic depression.

:(4) Legally, colonies disagreed with "virtual representation."

:(4) Legally, colonies disagreed with the concept of "virtual representation" rather than direct representation in Parliament.

:(5) Religious reasons: many colonists disliked Anglicans (and Catholics), and feared England would install an Anglican bishop.

:(5) Religious reasons: many colonists disliked Anglicans (and Catholics), and feared England would install an Anglican bishop.

:(8) Colonists accepted John Locke's philosophy of natural rights and a social contract, which conflicted with rule by a monarchy.

:(8) Colonists accepted John Locke's philosophy of natural rights and a social contract, which conflicted with rule by a monarchy.

:(9) Colonists saw a bright prospect for their future.

:(9) Colonists saw bright prospects for their own independent future.

==The Revolutionary War==

==The Revolutionary War==