Changes

The '''Stamp Act of 1765''' was legislation passed by the British Parliament which required that all legal documents, permits, 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.  Parliament passed this act to help repay lenders from the expensive [[French and Indian War]].

The '''Stamp Act of 1765''' was legislation passed by the British Parliament which required that all legal documents, permits, 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.   

 

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.  

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--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.   

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!"

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 (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.<ref>http://virtualology.com/stampactcongress.com/</ref>

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 (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 of British troops to be stationed in America, ostensibly to protect the Americans.  There was no one to 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.  

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.  

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.)

==Religion==

==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>

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==

==Colonies==

===New Hampshire===

===New Hampshire===