The Stamp Act Of 1765: An Analysis
At the conclusion of the French and Indian war, England realized that there were numerous issues between it and the colonies (Schultz, 2014). However, the foremost issue was one of neglect which had allowed the colonies few taxes and in reality, generalized self-governance. So, the crown decided to attempt to regain control of the colonies by reinstating the Crown’s officiants, preventing smuggling, controlling the settler’s expansion, and increasing taxes (Schultz, 2009). Through the Orders of Council, the Proclamation of 1763, Sugar Act of 1764, the Quartering Act of 1765, and the Stamp Act of 1765 the Crown laid bare its intentions towards the colonies. Although, these acts only served to agitate a population already once removed from an overbearing monarchy. The question remains, how would the colonist react to these new restrictions?
…show more content…
The Stamp Act elicited the strongest reaction from the colonist; first, they illegally convened a colonial congress to discuss their possible reactions to the Stamp Act in defiance to Parliament (Schultz, 2014).
Additionally, the colonist chose to boycott British commodities and even rioted in protest. Although, the boycotting was effective, especially in New York, the coercion of the Crown’s representatives, the vandalism of their homes, and physical violence that showed their resolve (Schultz, 2009). The colonist also worked together to send inscribed objections to this act to Parliaments stating that taxation was unfair since the colonies had no representatives in Parliament. Eventually, economic issues forced the repeal of the Stamp Act by the Crown due to fear of extreme revenue losses, but the quarrel itself was far from resolved. What would the crown do
next?
The appointment of Charles Townshend as the British Exchequer in 1766 brought realized the fears of the colonist (Schultz, 2009). Moreover, his first act was to halt the New York Assembly due to their lack of submission to the Quartering Act further implicating meddling in the colonies autonomy. Townshend’s additional taxation of imported goods and bolstering of Crown responsive governors led to unrest once again. The colonist again boycotted British imports using newspapers to spread the cause; also, there was written opposition, and again rioting to the point where soldiers were sent to quash the growing violence (Schultz, 2014). Consequently, with the sustained presence of soldiers, the inevitable deadly clash ensued with the “Boston Massacre [on] March 5, 1770” (Schultz, 2009, p. 90) where five colonists died due to the rioting. This escalation was a foreshadow of what was to come.
Parliament repealed the Townshend Acts, but left a tax on tea which led both sides to claim victory in the matter (Schultz, 2014). Additionally, the repeal brought a brief period of peace, however the issues still remained unresolved. The Tea Act in 1773, though unintentional, inflamed the colonist and incited boycotting and increasingly violent rioting and coercion in defiance (Schultz, 2009). On the night of December 16, 1773 approximately sixty colonial males boarded a ship and tossed the entire cargo of tea into Boston Harbor. Accordingly, Parliament responded by enacting the Coercive Acts in 1774 which: shut down Boston’s harbor, eliminated Massachusetts ability to govern themselves, allowed the Crown’s representatives trial in England rather than the colonies, and further imposed the housing of British soldiers. These acts were meant to weaken colonial resolve, but instead had the opposite reaction.
The colonist banded together sending supplies to Massachusetts, instead of bowing to pay the fines imposed by the Crown after the Boston Harbor incident (Schultz, 2009). Additionally, the colonist summoned yet another illegal congress to discuss the Crown’s meddling in the colonies affairs. Eventually, the congress decided to authorize a group of individuals to oversee a boycott of British imports at a truly unified level. The colonist of Massachusetts had enough of British interference of their freedoms evicting the British, and preparing themselves to fight for their freedom (Schultz, 2014). Consequently, in 1775 the escalation to armed conflict was realized and the stirrings of a war to gain freedom was the final outcome of the British attempts to tighten its control over the colonies.
The Stamp Act elicited the strongest reaction from the colonist; first, they illegally convened a colonial congress to discuss their possible reactions to the Stamp Act in defiance to Parliament (Schultz, 2014).
Additionally, the colonist chose to boycott British commodities and even rioted in protest. Although, the boycotting was effective, especially in New York, the coercion of the Crown’s representatives, the vandalism of their homes, and physical violence that showed their resolve (Schultz, 2009). The colonist also worked together to send inscribed objections to this act to Parliaments stating that taxation was unfair since the colonies had no representatives in Parliament. Eventually, economic issues forced the repeal of the Stamp Act by the Crown due to fear of extreme revenue losses, but the quarrel itself was far from resolved. What would the crown do
next?
The appointment of Charles Townshend as the British Exchequer in 1766 brought realized the fears of the colonist (Schultz, 2009). Moreover, his first act was to halt the New York Assembly due to their lack of submission to the Quartering Act further implicating meddling in the colonies autonomy. Townshend’s additional taxation of imported goods and bolstering of Crown responsive governors led to unrest once again. The colonist again boycotted British imports using newspapers to spread the cause; also, there was written opposition, and again rioting to the point where soldiers were sent to quash the growing violence (Schultz, 2014). Consequently, with the sustained presence of soldiers, the inevitable deadly clash ensued with the “Boston Massacre [on] March 5, 1770” (Schultz, 2009, p. 90) where five colonists died due to the rioting. This escalation was a foreshadow of what was to come.
Parliament repealed the Townshend Acts, but left a tax on tea which led both sides to claim victory in the matter (Schultz, 2014). Additionally, the repeal brought a brief period of peace, however the issues still remained unresolved. The Tea Act in 1773, though unintentional, inflamed the colonist and incited boycotting and increasingly violent rioting and coercion in defiance (Schultz, 2009). On the night of December 16, 1773 approximately sixty colonial males boarded a ship and tossed the entire cargo of tea into Boston Harbor. Accordingly, Parliament responded by enacting the Coercive Acts in 1774 which: shut down Boston’s harbor, eliminated Massachusetts ability to govern themselves, allowed the Crown’s representatives trial in England rather than the colonies, and further imposed the housing of British soldiers. These acts were meant to weaken colonial resolve, but instead had the opposite reaction.
The colonist banded together sending supplies to Massachusetts, instead of bowing to pay the fines imposed by the Crown after the Boston Harbor incident (Schultz, 2009). Additionally, the colonist summoned yet another illegal congress to discuss the Crown’s meddling in the colonies affairs. Eventually, the congress decided to authorize a group of individuals to oversee a boycott of British imports at a truly unified level. The colonist of Massachusetts had enough of British interference of their freedoms evicting the British, and preparing themselves to fight for their freedom (Schultz, 2014). Consequently, in 1775 the escalation to armed conflict was realized and the stirrings of a war to gain freedom was the final outcome of the British attempts to tighten its control over the colonies.