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Act of 1765''' was legislation passed by the British Parliament that caused enormous outcry in America until it was repealed a year later, setting in action a chain of taxes and imperial overreach that caused the Americans to revolt in 1775.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Act of 1765''' was legislation passed by the British Parliament that caused enormous outcry in America until it was repealed a year later, setting in action a chain of taxes and imperial overreach that caused the Americans to revolt in 1775.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.

Parliament passed this act to pay for 10,000 soldiers in 20 battalions that were to be stationed in America. The Americans did not need the soldiers for protection--they were stationed in the colonies to provide prestigious officerships for British gentlemen, who could not be stationed in Britain itself because of opposition there to standing armies.   

Parliament passed this act to pay for 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 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--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.   

The Stamp Act outraged Americans because it asserted parliament’s right to tax Americans without their consent.  That violated the rights of colonists as Englishmen.  More than that: an illegal tax was an assault on property and liberty, and the two concepts were interlocked in the American mind. Property and liberty were one and inseparable, and without them life was not worth living. "Give me Liberty," cried [[Patrick Henry]] in 1775, "or give me death!"

The Stamp Act outraged Americans because it asserted parliament’s right to tax Americans without their consent.  That violated the rights of colonists as Englishmen.  More than that: an illegal tax was an assault on property and liberty, and the two concepts were interlocked in the American mind. Property and liberty were one and inseparable, and without them life was slavery and not worth living. "Give me Liberty," cried [[Patrick Henry]] in 1775, "or give me death!"

American opposition to the Stamp Act was fierce and nearly unanimous, led by the newly formed "Sons of Liberty" organizations and gave rise to the slogan "[[No taxation without representation]]."  The American colonists threatened to tar and feather the tax collectors (who quickly resigned), then boycotted all British goods until the tax was repealed a year later. Crowd action ranged from enforcement of community norms to response to economic conflict within the community. Americans opposed hostile government officials, and ridiculed British "placemen" (patronage holders).  At the time of the Stamp Act, crowd action was the most effective and American response.  No one was killed, but American merchants and British officials were shamed and ridiculed in public.

American opposition to the Stamp Act was fierce and nearly unanimous, led by the newly formed "Sons of Liberty" organizations and gave rise to the slogan "[[No taxation without representation]]."  The American colonists threatened to tar and feather the tax collectors (who quickly resigned), then boycotted all British goods until the tax was repealed a year later. Crowd action ranged from enforcement of community norms to response to economic conflict within the community. Americans opposed hostile government officials, and ridiculed British "placemen" (patronage holders).  At the time of the Stamp Act, crowd action was the most effective and American response.  No one was killed, but American merchants and British officials were shamed and ridiculed in public.

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.  In peacetime there never had been British garrisons--the Americans protected themselves from Indians and there was no foreign power that could threaten the Americans--they did not need protection. 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. (All the colonies had their own militias that in fact handled their own defense.)  

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.)