Causes Of The Stamp Act Of 1765
The Stamp Act of 1765 created what was possibly the most chaotic time after the French and Indian war were the colonists rebelled because taxation without representation was occurring. The Stamp Act was passed by parliament because they needed money to pay off the war debt. The Stamp Act stamped - taxed - all legal documents and printed items, commercial or not. This, in England’s eyes only affected the rich and people who read newspapers. The colonists did not like this idea and they revolted against it. However, it was not the taxation that they were concerned about but the fact that they had taxation without representation in parliament! In B.W.’s Public Letter it states, “‘That no man shall be taxed but with his own consent.’ and you very
…show more content…
well know we were not, in any sober sense, represented in parliament, when tax was imposed.” The definition of these statements from B.W. is that he is very angry about this tax and that he feels that parliament has no right in taxing the colonists because they were not represented in parliament. This lead to “The colonists have ben insulting His Majesty, saying that the Stamp Act was unconstitutional, and oppressive,” according to A Stamp Act Collectors Letter.
However in another letter in which was written by Will Alfred who worked for secretary Conway and addressed the fact that “ … it was no the burden of the tax to be raised, but the manner in which it was imposed…”. It was not the tax that the colonists were concerned about but the fact that their liberty was taken away in parliament when there was no representation for the colonists when this Act was being passed. The Stamp Act was not an unreasonable tax, it was something that nobody truly felt about but the fact that they were not being treated properly. In response to the Stamp Act, many colonists started to boycott, rebel, burn the papers, and even feather and tar the stamp collectors. This was going on even going on way before the actual act was put into place. British were violating the colonists rights. B.W. states in his letter in the Boston-Gazette that England is an enemy and a prisoner of truth and liberty. Meaning that even though Mr. B.W. is a not so reliable source he did state the fact that the colonists had rights and they were being violated by
England. In Will Alfred's letter, he also says that the colonists may be right on the fact that England was violating their rights as people.
Some historians have argued that the American Revolution happened because a few rich leaders riled up the lower class colonists. While some people feel that this was the way that the colonists felt, others believe that a couple of leaders did really rile people up over the tax. This argument could go either way, but the stand that I take is both. The tax was not what people stressed over but the idea that they were not being represented in parliament. Many people started to hate the tax because of that. Sure many leaders could have done so by riling up the people, and it may very well be true, But how much would they have to extend the truth to make it such a big deal for the colonists to go that crazy over? About a year before the Stamp Act was put into full action B.W. sent out his letter into the Boston-Gazette about the taxation that was about to be headed their way. This is very believable that the people did rile people up over the tax but it was the taxation without representation that through people over the edge.
well know we were not, in any sober sense, represented in parliament, when tax was imposed.” The definition of these statements from B.W. is that he is very angry about this tax and that he feels that parliament has no right in taxing the colonists because they were not represented in parliament. This lead to “The colonists have ben insulting His Majesty, saying that the Stamp Act was unconstitutional, and oppressive,” according to A Stamp Act Collectors Letter.
However in another letter in which was written by Will Alfred who worked for secretary Conway and addressed the fact that “ … it was no the burden of the tax to be raised, but the manner in which it was imposed…”. It was not the tax that the colonists were concerned about but the fact that their liberty was taken away in parliament when there was no representation for the colonists when this Act was being passed. The Stamp Act was not an unreasonable tax, it was something that nobody truly felt about but the fact that they were not being treated properly. In response to the Stamp Act, many colonists started to boycott, rebel, burn the papers, and even feather and tar the stamp collectors. This was going on even going on way before the actual act was put into place. British were violating the colonists rights. B.W. states in his letter in the Boston-Gazette that England is an enemy and a prisoner of truth and liberty. Meaning that even though Mr. B.W. is a not so reliable source he did state the fact that the colonists had rights and they were being violated by
England. In Will Alfred's letter, he also says that the colonists may be right on the fact that England was violating their rights as people.
Some historians have argued that the American Revolution happened because a few rich leaders riled up the lower class colonists. While some people feel that this was the way that the colonists felt, others believe that a couple of leaders did really rile people up over the tax. This argument could go either way, but the stand that I take is both. The tax was not what people stressed over but the idea that they were not being represented in parliament. Many people started to hate the tax because of that. Sure many leaders could have done so by riling up the people, and it may very well be true, But how much would they have to extend the truth to make it such a big deal for the colonists to go that crazy over? About a year before the Stamp Act was put into full action B.W. sent out his letter into the Boston-Gazette about the taxation that was about to be headed their way. This is very believable that the people did rile people up over the tax but it was the taxation without representation that through people over the edge.