17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: − + − + + + + + + + Line 56:
Line 62: − + + + + + Line 78:
Line 88: − * Weslager, C. A. ''The Stamp Act Congress: With an Exact Copy of the Complete Journal.'' (1976). 279 pp.
Stamp Act of 1765 (view source)
Revision as of 11:11, September 20, 2009
, 11:11, September 20, 2009no edit summary
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.
==London==
==London==
Prime Minister [[George Grenville]] (1712–1770) designed the tax, but it raised opposition not only in America but also among the British commercial classes. 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.
Prime Minister [[George Grenville]] (1712–1770) designed the tax, but it raised opposition not only in America but also among the British commercial classes.
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. 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>
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.)
No matter, the Crown needed the money. Grenville expected the tax would raise £60,000 of the £300,000 needed to maintain the British military establishment in North America. Tax evaders would be tried in the 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 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."
[[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) 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.
[[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
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.
===North Carolina===
===North Carolina===
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.
===Primary sources===
===Primary sources===
* Morgan, Edmund S., ed. ''Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764-1766'' (1959)
* Morgan, Edmund S., ed. ''Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764-1766'' (1959)
==Primary documents==
==Primary documents==