17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: − + + +
Stamp Act of 1765 (view source)
Revision as of 11:43, September 23, 2009
, 11:43, September 23, 2009add
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.)
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.
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.
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.