The Stamp Act crisis of 1765
The Stamp Act, introduced in 1765, was a tax imposed by British Parliament onto the American Colonies requiring that most all printed material be manufactured on a particular stamped paper in order to raise revenue to pay off the Colonial debt created from the 7-years war. Although the British Government predicted the future of this imposition to be harmless, the American colonies protested in such a way that they had yet experienced. Through the effects of the Stamp Act on the Colonies’ rights and economy, they began to form a united opposition against Parliament in their official and economic affairs.
Determining the type of tax that parliament implemented as an internal tax, the Colonial Assemblies strongly held on to the belief that they alone only had the power to create taxes used for “revenue raising”. Benjamin Franklin, who, at the time was an agent for Philadelphia, commented “ I never Heard any objection to the right of laying duties to regulate commerce, but a right to lay internal taxes was never supposed to be in Parliament, as we were not represented there.”1. Before Parliament, a number of testimonies given by various types of merchants and upstanding colonial citizens answered questions regarding discontent toward the act with unity: “ They Complained the Act itself destroyed their Liberties”2. The head of the merchant meeting with Parliament, Barlow Treckothick, responded that the Americans would not submit to the Act because “ The people from one end of the [Continent] to the other…think it oppressive in its nature and an Infrigement on their Right from both.”3. As Treckothick firmly stated, the effect of the Act not only reached certain individuals or colonies, but all of the colonies throughout. With every American colonial under the thumb of the British law, this provided the perfect platform for all to unite for one cause.
Not only did the Act question the laws and liberties the colonies believed to be under their control, but it also had quite a negative impact on the economy; “it was the printer, lawyers, and merchants who bore the brunt of the impost, and these were the people who form the most ‘literate and articulate section of the public colonial’.”4. . With the cost of advertisement rising, the local businesses could not afford to print on the approved stamped paper, thus, costing the newspapers’ valuable revenue. Haunted by this devastating blow, the American press was inspired to report current news and the colonial views on official matters. Many pamphlets and reports acclaiming their outrage were brought forth for the public to inquire5. Britain had also planned to manufacture, stamp, and store the paper with British merchants, depriving the colonial merchants and local paper mills any possible benefit from the act. The decrease in business only worsened the Colonial image of the Crown, gave them all legitimacy in their anger, and caused such testimonies of injustice.
Almost a year after its implementation, the Stamp Act was repealed. Had not the act affected such members of the literate public, would the colonials’ united discontent have been such a strong force? Would the American merchants have had the audacity to speak on behalf of the commerce and people of the colonies? Nevertheless, after the act’s repeal, Parliament passed a bill claiming their total authority over of the colonial people and all official matters:
“ The Parliament of Great Britian hath, had and of Right ought to have, full Power and Authority to make
Laws and Statutues of sufficient Force and Validity. To bind the Colonies and Peoples of America- subjects
of the crown and of Great Britain in all cases whatsoever”6
In hindsight of the act, the proclamation from Parliament regarding their rights brings forth the question: what was the true intent of the Stamp Act? Parliament justified its implementation with the sole purpose of ridding the Colonial debt but the some could come to the opinion that imposing such an imperial tax was a showcase of power. Regardless the intent, the Colonies viewed the act as a violation of their liberties to which they were entitled and further opposed them and the the British Government.
Sources:
1 Oats, Lynne, and Pauline Sadler. "Accounting for the Stamp Act Crisis." The Accounting Historians Journal 35.2 (2008): pg 126. Print.
2 Green, Stuart A. "Notes and Documents: Repeal of the Stamp Act: The Merchants' and Manufacturers' Testimonies." The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 128.2 (2004): pg 186. Print.
3 Green, pg 182
4 Oats, pg 127
5 Oats, pg 128
6 British Library: BM AddMs 33030f.74. Resolutions Proposed 31 January 1766
Determining the type of tax that parliament implemented as an internal tax, the Colonial Assemblies strongly held on to the belief that they alone only had the power to create taxes used for “revenue raising”. Benjamin Franklin, who, at the time was an agent for Philadelphia, commented “ I never Heard any objection to the right of laying duties to regulate commerce, but a right to lay internal taxes was never supposed to be in Parliament, as we were not represented there.”1. Before Parliament, a number of testimonies given by various types of merchants and upstanding colonial citizens answered questions regarding discontent toward the act with unity: “ They Complained the Act itself destroyed their Liberties”2. The head of the merchant meeting with Parliament, Barlow Treckothick, responded that the Americans would not submit to the Act because “ The people from one end of the [Continent] to the other…think it oppressive in its nature and an Infrigement on their Right from both.”3. As Treckothick firmly stated, the effect of the Act not only reached certain individuals or colonies, but all of the colonies throughout. With every American colonial under the thumb of the British law, this provided the perfect platform for all to unite for one cause.
Not only did the Act question the laws and liberties the colonies believed to be under their control, but it also had quite a negative impact on the economy; “it was the printer, lawyers, and merchants who bore the brunt of the impost, and these were the people who form the most ‘literate and articulate section of the public colonial’.”4. . With the cost of advertisement rising, the local businesses could not afford to print on the approved stamped paper, thus, costing the newspapers’ valuable revenue. Haunted by this devastating blow, the American press was inspired to report current news and the colonial views on official matters. Many pamphlets and reports acclaiming their outrage were brought forth for the public to inquire5. Britain had also planned to manufacture, stamp, and store the paper with British merchants, depriving the colonial merchants and local paper mills any possible benefit from the act. The decrease in business only worsened the Colonial image of the Crown, gave them all legitimacy in their anger, and caused such testimonies of injustice.
Almost a year after its implementation, the Stamp Act was repealed. Had not the act affected such members of the literate public, would the colonials’ united discontent have been such a strong force? Would the American merchants have had the audacity to speak on behalf of the commerce and people of the colonies? Nevertheless, after the act’s repeal, Parliament passed a bill claiming their total authority over of the colonial people and all official matters:
“ The Parliament of Great Britian hath, had and of Right ought to have, full Power and Authority to make
Laws and Statutues of sufficient Force and Validity. To bind the Colonies and Peoples of America- subjects
of the crown and of Great Britain in all cases whatsoever”6
In hindsight of the act, the proclamation from Parliament regarding their rights brings forth the question: what was the true intent of the Stamp Act? Parliament justified its implementation with the sole purpose of ridding the Colonial debt but the some could come to the opinion that imposing such an imperial tax was a showcase of power. Regardless the intent, the Colonies viewed the act as a violation of their liberties to which they were entitled and further opposed them and the the British Government.
Sources:
1 Oats, Lynne, and Pauline Sadler. "Accounting for the Stamp Act Crisis." The Accounting Historians Journal 35.2 (2008): pg 126. Print.
2 Green, Stuart A. "Notes and Documents: Repeal of the Stamp Act: The Merchants' and Manufacturers' Testimonies." The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 128.2 (2004): pg 186. Print.
3 Green, pg 182
4 Oats, pg 127
5 Oats, pg 128
6 British Library: BM AddMs 33030f.74. Resolutions Proposed 31 January 1766