Difference between revisions of "Stamp Act of 1765"
(religion) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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, and they protested vigorously. | 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, and they protested vigorously. | ||
| − | + | Public opposition to the Stamp Act was fierce, and gave rise to the slogan "[[No taxation without representation]]." The American colonists threatened to tar and feather the tax collectors. 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.<ref>http://virtualology.com/stampactcongress.com/</ref> | |
| + | |||
| + | 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== | ||
In London the government 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 the 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not be compromised as long as the Stamp Act remained in effect and that the act itself was not worth saving, so they repealed it on March 18th, 1765.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 London the government 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 the 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 18th, 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> | ||
| − | ==Newspapers== | + | ==Public Opinion== |
| − | During the French and Indian War (1765063), the fledgling American newspaper industry significantly improved its methods of reporting news. Editors reprinted news and editorials from other papers, thus helping form a sort of national consensus. This made the press an effective voice in opposition to the Stamp Act --which taxed newspapers and almanacs--and in support of colonial independence soon thereafter. | + | ===Newspapers=== |
| − | ==New Hampshire== | + | During the French and Indian War (1765063), the fledgling American newspaper industry significantly improved its methods of reporting news. Editors reprinted news and editorials from other papers, thus helping form a sort of national consensus. This made the press an effective voice in opposition to the Stamp Act --which taxed newspapers and almanacs--and in support of colonial independence soon thereafter. The newspapers reported effigy hangings and stamp master resignation speeches. Some newspapers were on the royal payroll and supported the Act, but most of the press was free and vocal. |
| + | ==Religion== | ||
| + | For many Americans the revolutionary experience could be conceptualized best within a religious framework. Sermons, orations, poems, newspapers, essays, and other sources of the popular colonial mind reveal that a significant number of Americans continued to perceive God as the prime mover in human history. They gave America's secular development a prominent place in God's moral government of the world. Because of these beliefs, the Stamp Act was viewed as a threat to the fulfillment of America's providential destiny. Americans saw the Act's repeal as a sign of Almighty intervention in support of his favored people.<ref> John G. Berens, "Good News from a far Country: A Note on Divine Providence and the Stamp Act Crisis." ''Church History'' 1976 45(3): 308-315.[http://www.jstor.org/stable/3164265 in JSTOR]</ref> | ||
| + | ==Colonies== | ||
| + | ===New Hampshire=== | ||
Between January and November 1765, the New Hampshire Provincial Assembly moved from indifference to the intensifying dispute between London and the American colonies to wholehearted endorsement of the colonial resistance. Three events created a climate of change: the exposure of Benning Wentworth's corruption, the [[Sugar Act]], and the transmission of Whig views from other colonies through the press. These events led to a broadly based popular movement against the Stamp Act based not on economics but on the defense of liberty. | Between January and November 1765, the New Hampshire Provincial Assembly moved from indifference to the intensifying dispute between London and the American colonies to wholehearted endorsement of the colonial resistance. Three events created a climate of change: the exposure of Benning Wentworth's corruption, the [[Sugar Act]], and the transmission of Whig views from other colonies through the press. These events led to a broadly based popular movement against the Stamp Act based not on economics but on the defense of liberty. | ||
| − | ==Rhode Island== | + | ===Rhode Island=== |
Rhode Island's political and merchant elite organized and manipulated working-class rioters to put pressure on the British | Rhode Island's political and merchant elite organized and manipulated working-class rioters to put pressure on the British | ||
in their commercial conflict with the colonies. But the rioters had their own motives as well. of Newport, Rhode Island. Like the merchants, they gave vent to concerns about constitutional issues. They also rioted in response to hardships brought on by economic depression, dislike for the British policy of [[impressment]] of civilians into the Royal Navy, and resentment toward Newport Junto loyalists who belittled the political importance and self-esteem of commoners. | in their commercial conflict with the colonies. But the rioters had their own motives as well. of Newport, Rhode Island. Like the merchants, they gave vent to concerns about constitutional issues. They also rioted in response to hardships brought on by economic depression, dislike for the British policy of [[impressment]] of civilians into the Royal Navy, and resentment toward Newport Junto loyalists who belittled the political importance and self-esteem of commoners. | ||
Rhode Island Governor [[Stephen Hopkins]] took the lead against the Sugar Act of 1764, invited other colonies to join in the Stamp Act Congress of 1765, and was a delegate to the First Continental Congress of 1774. | Rhode Island Governor [[Stephen Hopkins]] took the lead against the Sugar Act of 1764, invited other colonies to join in the Stamp Act Congress of 1765, and was a delegate to the First Continental Congress of 1774. | ||
| − | ==Pennsylvania== | + | ===Pennsylvania=== |
In Pennsylvania the Proprietary Party, fearful of loss of charter rights, instigated riots to discredit [[Benjamin Franklin]]'s Quaker Party, which favored the Crown's taking over the colony. The Proprietary Party specialized in libel; the Assembly Party, politics. In the election of October 1765, the loss of seats by the Proprietary Party demonstrated that the electorate favored moderate resistance to the Stamp Act enforcement. [[Joseph Galloway]] played a conciliatory role and did not let the conflict get out of hand. | In Pennsylvania the Proprietary Party, fearful of loss of charter rights, instigated riots to discredit [[Benjamin Franklin]]'s Quaker Party, which favored the Crown's taking over the colony. The Proprietary Party specialized in libel; the Assembly Party, politics. In the election of October 1765, the loss of seats by the Proprietary Party demonstrated that the electorate favored moderate resistance to the Stamp Act enforcement. [[Joseph Galloway]] played a conciliatory role and did not let the conflict get out of hand. | ||
The central political role of Philadelphia merchants reached a peak with their successful Stamp Act protests in 1765. By 1768 during the [[Townsend Acts]] protests, the wealthier merchants refused to sign agreements concerning the nonimportation of British goods. By 1770, the city’s artisans and radicals became more important to the resistance than merchants. With the Tea Act of 1774, more merchants united with the radicals to revive the languishing revolutionary movement. Although the radicals later succeeded in forcing the break with Britain in 1776, the merchants stepped in to manage the new governments. | The central political role of Philadelphia merchants reached a peak with their successful Stamp Act protests in 1765. By 1768 during the [[Townsend Acts]] protests, the wealthier merchants refused to sign agreements concerning the nonimportation of British goods. By 1770, the city’s artisans and radicals became more important to the resistance than merchants. With the Tea Act of 1774, more merchants united with the radicals to revive the languishing revolutionary movement. Although the radicals later succeeded in forcing the break with Britain in 1776, the merchants stepped in to manage the new governments. | ||
| − | ==Virginia== | + | ===Virginia=== |
In Virginia lawyer and radical democrat John Mercer's (1705-68) took the lead in opposing the new tax. Mercer heard of the law's passage in April 1765 and immediately published a list of taxed items and rates, prefaced by an incendiary introduction. Mercer's argument against the act was echoed by colonial courts in November, when the law became effective. Citing Chapter 40 of the Magna Carta, which states that legal process may not be sold, Mercer's early protest of the act probably contributed to the passage of the Virginia Resolves in May 1765, which in turn led to similar actions in other colonial legislatures. | In Virginia lawyer and radical democrat John Mercer's (1705-68) took the lead in opposing the new tax. Mercer heard of the law's passage in April 1765 and immediately published a list of taxed items and rates, prefaced by an incendiary introduction. Mercer's argument against the act was echoed by colonial courts in November, when the law became effective. Citing Chapter 40 of the Magna Carta, which states that legal process may not be sold, Mercer's early protest of the act probably contributed to the passage of the Virginia Resolves in May 1765, which in turn led to similar actions in other colonial legislatures. | ||
[[Patrick Henry]] 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]] 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. | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
==Further reading== | ==Further reading== | ||
* Bullion, John L. ''A Great and Necessary Measure: George Grenville and the Genesis of the Stamp Act, 1763-1765.'' (1982). 290 pp. | * Bullion, John L. ''A Great and Necessary Measure: George Grenville and the Genesis of the Stamp Act, 1763-1765.'' (1982). 290 pp. | ||
* Miller | * Miller | ||
| + | * Morgan | ||
| + | ===Primary sources=== | ||
* Morgan | * Morgan | ||
* Weslager, C. A. ''The Stamp Act Congress: With an Exact Copy of the Complete Journal.'' (1976). 279 pp. | * Weslager, C. A. ''The Stamp Act Congress: With an Exact Copy of the Complete Journal.'' (1976). 279 pp. | ||
| + | ==Virginia Resolution== | ||
| + | Adopted June 1765: | ||
| + | :Resolved, That the first Adventurers and Settlers of this his Majesty's Colony and Dominion of Virginia brought with them, and transmitted to their Posterity, and all other his Majesty's Subjects since inhabiting in this his Majesty's said Colony, all the Liberties, Privileges, Franchises, and Immunities, that have at any Time been held, enjoyed, and possessed, by the people of Great Britain. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Resolved, That by two royal Charters, granted by King James the First, the Colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities of Denizens and natural Subjects, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :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, or 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Resolved, That his Majesty's liege People of this his most ancient and loyal Colony have without Interruption enjoyed the inestimable Right of being governed by such Laws, respecting their internal Polity and Taxation, as are derived from their own Consent, with the Approbation of their Sovereign, or his Substitute; and that the same hath never been forfeited or yielded up, but hath been constantly recognized by the Kings and People of Great Britain.<ref> </ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 07:59, September 20, 2009
The Stamp Act of 1765 was legislation passed by the British Parliament which required that all legal documents, permits, commercial contracts, newspapers, wills, pamphlets and playing cards in the American colonies be taxed. They were given a special tax stamp to show the tax was paid.[1] Parliament passed this act to help repay lenders from the expensive French and Indian War. Americans protested energetically against the British imperial government in the years from 1765 to 1775—then engaged in 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, and they protested vigorously.
Public opposition to the Stamp Act was fierce, and gave rise to the slogan "No taxation without representation." The American colonists threatened to tar and feather the tax collectors. 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.[2]
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.
Contents
London
In London the government 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 the 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 18th, 1765.[3]
Public Opinion
Newspapers
During the French and Indian War (1765063), the fledgling American newspaper industry significantly improved its methods of reporting news. Editors reprinted news and editorials from other papers, thus helping form a sort of national consensus. This made the press an effective voice in opposition to the Stamp Act --which taxed newspapers and almanacs--and in support of colonial independence soon thereafter. The newspapers reported effigy hangings and stamp master resignation speeches. Some newspapers were on the royal payroll and supported the Act, but most of the press was free and vocal.
Religion
For many Americans the revolutionary experience could be conceptualized best within a religious framework. Sermons, orations, poems, newspapers, essays, and other sources of the popular colonial mind reveal that a significant number of Americans continued to perceive God as the prime mover in human history. They gave America's secular development a prominent place in God's moral government of the world. Because of these beliefs, the Stamp Act was viewed as a threat to the fulfillment of America's providential destiny. Americans saw the Act's repeal as a sign of Almighty intervention in support of his favored people.[4]
Colonies
New Hampshire
Between January and November 1765, the New Hampshire Provincial Assembly moved from indifference to the intensifying dispute between London and the American colonies to wholehearted endorsement of the colonial resistance. Three events created a climate of change: the exposure of Benning Wentworth's corruption, the Sugar Act, and the transmission of Whig views from other colonies through the press. These events led to a broadly based popular movement against the Stamp Act based not on economics but on the defense of liberty.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island's political and merchant elite organized and manipulated working-class rioters to put pressure on the British in their commercial conflict with the colonies. But the rioters had their own motives as well. of Newport, Rhode Island. Like the merchants, they gave vent to concerns about constitutional issues. They also rioted in response to hardships brought on by economic depression, dislike for the British policy of impressment of civilians into the Royal Navy, and resentment toward Newport Junto loyalists who belittled the political importance and self-esteem of commoners.
Rhode Island Governor Stephen Hopkins took the lead against the Sugar Act of 1764, invited other colonies to join in the Stamp Act Congress of 1765, and was a delegate to the First Continental Congress of 1774.
Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania the Proprietary Party, fearful of loss of charter rights, instigated riots to discredit Benjamin Franklin's Quaker Party, which favored the Crown's taking over the colony. The Proprietary Party specialized in libel; the Assembly Party, politics. In the election of October 1765, the loss of seats by the Proprietary Party demonstrated that the electorate favored moderate resistance to the Stamp Act enforcement. Joseph Galloway played a conciliatory role and did not let the conflict get out of hand.
The central political role of Philadelphia merchants reached a peak with their successful Stamp Act protests in 1765. By 1768 during the Townsend Acts protests, the wealthier merchants refused to sign agreements concerning the nonimportation of British goods. By 1770, the city’s artisans and radicals became more important to the resistance than merchants. With the Tea Act of 1774, more merchants united with the radicals to revive the languishing revolutionary movement. Although the radicals later succeeded in forcing the break with Britain in 1776, the merchants stepped in to manage the new governments.
Virginia
In Virginia lawyer and radical democrat John Mercer's (1705-68) took the lead in opposing the new tax. Mercer heard of the law's passage in April 1765 and immediately published a list of taxed items and rates, prefaced by an incendiary introduction. Mercer's argument against the act was echoed by colonial courts in November, when the law became effective. Citing Chapter 40 of the Magna Carta, which states that legal process may not be sold, Mercer's early protest of the act probably contributed to the passage of the Virginia Resolves in May 1765, which in turn led to similar actions in other colonial legislatures.
Patrick Henry 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
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.
Further reading
- Bullion, John L. A Great and Necessary Measure: George Grenville and the Genesis of the Stamp Act, 1763-1765. (1982). 290 pp.
- Miller
- Morgan
Primary sources
- Morgan
- Weslager, C. A. The Stamp Act Congress: With an Exact Copy of the Complete Journal. (1976). 279 pp.
Virginia Resolution
Adopted June 1765:
- Resolved, That the first Adventurers and Settlers of this his Majesty's Colony and Dominion of Virginia brought with them, and transmitted to their Posterity, and all other his Majesty's Subjects since inhabiting in this his Majesty's said Colony, all the Liberties, Privileges, Franchises, and Immunities, that have at any Time been held, enjoyed, and possessed, by the people of Great Britain.
- Resolved, That by two royal Charters, granted by King James the First, the Colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities of Denizens and natural Subjects, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England.
- 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, or 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.
- Resolved, That his Majesty's liege People of this his most ancient and loyal Colony have without Interruption enjoyed the inestimable Right of being governed by such Laws, respecting their internal Polity and Taxation, as are derived from their own Consent, with the Approbation of their Sovereign, or his Substitute; and that the same hath never been forfeited or yielded up, but hath been constantly recognized by the Kings and People of Great Britain.[5]
References
- ↑ http://ahp.gatech.edu/stamp_act_bp_1765.html
- ↑ http://virtualology.com/stampactcongress.com/
- ↑ John L. Bullion, "British Ministers and American Resistance to the Stamp Act, October-December 1765." William and Mary Quarterly 1992 49(1): 89-107.
- ↑ John G. Berens, "Good News from a far Country: A Note on Divine Providence and the Stamp Act Crisis." Church History 1976 45(3): 308-315.in JSTOR
- ↑
