Changes

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 [https://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.)