Why Is The Sugar Act Necessary
The Sugar Act
Sugar and molasses were important commodities for Britain since they were its source of revenue from the colonies. The British West Indies were originally the colonists’ main molasses provider; however the colonists bought molasses from foreign markets where the commodity was cheaper. Because the colonists depended on other countries, the British government passed the Molasses Act in 1733, which implemented a tax of six pence per gallon on molasses bought from non-British colonies. The British hoped that the high tax would persuade the colonists to buy molasses from the British West Indies. In addition, the Molasses Act was supposed to help the West Indies gain profits and raise revenue to pay off the debt from the French and Indian War in 1763. Nonetheless, it was never seriously enforced because the colonists found ways to avoid paying the tax such as smuggling molasses and bribing custom officials. …show more content…
Furthermore, the new taxation jeopardized the region Britain’s economy instead since it hurt the West Indies’ rum industry, which relied on molasses (Abdullah). British Prime Minister George Grenville passed the Sugar Act on April 5, 1764 in order to end illegal trading and collect money.
The Sugar Act was not effective in gaining income. The act decreased the tax to three pence per gallon, which was supposed to make the tax more manageable for the colonists to pay. Nonetheless, it taxed more items such as textiles and wine. Furthermore, a new system of monitoring and security in trade emerged. There was a strict shipping procedure that colonists had to follow. Items for instance lumber were forced to be exported through British ports first before they land in foreign countries. Foreign exporters were required to fill out paperwork of their cargoes to confirm that no goods were smuggled into the country. Britain hoped that these rules would cause more trading with British merchants and employment of English workers (Boyer 134).
Besides expanding the list of taxed goods and controlling shipping methods, the government created consequences for people who did not obey the law. If people tried to avoid paying the tax, they would be forced to go to court in Nova Scotia. Parliament did not want the violators to be tried in a jury comprised of their peers who could influence the verdict since they would favor the smugglers. It was difficult to escape conviction because the violators were automatically pronounced guilty unless they proved their innocence. If the ship owner did not abide the regulations for imported goods, the cargo was at risk to be confiscated and the owner would also be put on trial (“Sugar Act”). Despite these threats, the revised act did not generate the outcome the British government expected.
These new rules angered the colonists since popular food and merchandise became unaffordable, even though the tax was lowered.
The businesses of British manufacturers also declined because the taxes minimized the colonists’ purchasing power. The Sugar Act ruined the economy of Britain and the colonies. It significantly reduced foreign trade and distorted the stability of colonial currencies. Since money was not being exchanged, the currency value deflated. The decrease in value meant colonies had to spend more money to buy goods. This influenced the loss of island trade partners such as Haiti and the Canary Islands, causing a global economic recession (“The Sugar Act”). Not only did the instability of the colonial currencies affect foreign countries, it also had a negative impact on British sellers because the colonists had to pay more for their goods. In addition, buyers from outside Britain had no motivation to purchase their goods since the colonists were not trading with them. The Sugar Act ultimately hindered the financial recovery of
Britain.
Because of the prominent issues with the new act, colonists began to demand change. The government’s decision to impose the direct tax was unjust because there were no representatives for the colonists in Parliament to fight against it. The Parliament did not get actual permission from the Americans for the tax. The colonists believed that a tax could not be implemented by British governors because the British did not have the same representation as them. Boston declared that the city would not purchase all British imports to that colony. They wanted to gain the independence from Britain and be able handle the responsibilities with their own government. Therefore, the colonists created the slogan “no taxation without representation” and led a series of protests (“No Taxation without Representation”).
In August of 1764, a group of merchants from Boston decided to boycott the purchase of British imports. The city of New York followed in Boston’s footsteps and did the same. This really hurt Britain’s economy because their number of exports significantly decreased without the large colonial cities of Boston and New York purchasing their imported goods. Instead, colonists began to make movements to increase domestic manufacturing. The colonist’s reactions to the passage of the Sugar Act were generally in nonviolent boycotts. However, the passage of the Stamp Act, a similar act that required colonists to pay a tax with their purchase stamps for legal papers, documents and newspapers, was passed in 1765. This resulted in aggressive outbursts of violence. Samuel Adams and his Sons of Liberty led organized in riots in which they attacked and intimidated the tax collectors as well as burnt down British offices. The Sons of Liberty continued these violent acts for a few years until the Stamp Act was repealed in 1766 and taxes on stamps were no longer collected (“Pre-Revolutionary Activities”).
The Sugar Act ruined the economy of Britain and the colonies. The changes in shipping regulations reduced foreign trade because buying and selling goods abroad became more complicated. The act also distorted the stability of colonial currencies. Since money was not being exchanged, the value of colonial currency decreased. The British economy declined because its the colonies were not buying goods from British merchants. The high tax sparked the colonist’s anger with Britain and the power that it has over the colonies. One event led to another and eventually ended with the Boston Tea Party. Moreover, the Sugar Act prompted Americans to ask for autonomy and contributed to the development of the American Revolution. The colonists’ dissatisfaction with the laws and restraints enacted by Britain, for example the Sugar Act, as well as Britain’s oppression towards the colonists’ economy were just the beginning of the turmoil that occurred between the colonists and Britain.
The relationship between the colonies and Britain was permanently altered ever since the enactment of the Sugar Act. The colonists agreed with the fact that a tax was necessary in order to pay for the British troops that protected them. However, they disapproved Britain’s overextension of power over the colonists. The colonists would have preferred to unanimously agree on and create a tax themselves, but the British Parliament forced it upon them without their permission. The implementation of the trial system drifted the colonists and the British more. The violators had to appear in court in Nova Scotia and appear in front of a jury that consists of primarily British officials. This greatly angered the colonists because they were being tried in an unfair court and declared guilty until proven innocent, showing Britain’s distrust. The colonists desired a voice in the governmental and judicial decisions. Due to continued complaints, boycotts and an overall negative impact on Britain’s economy, the Sugar Act was repealed in 1766 and replaced by the Revenue Act of 1766. This new act lowered the tax on molasses to one penny, whether it is imported from Britain or any other nation. While this resolved the dispute over taxes, the greater tension and political and economical problems between the colonists and Britain were far from over (“The Sugar Act”).
Works Cited
Abdullah, Mansur G., and Michael C. Anderson. "Molasses Act." Encyclopedia Britannica.
Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
Boyer, Paul, Clifford Clark, Joseph Kett, Neal Salisbury, Harvard Sitkoff, and Nancy Woloch.
"Roads to Revolution 1750-1776." The Enduring Visoin: A History of the American People. 6th ed. N.p.: Cengage Learning, 2009. 123-60. Google. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
"No Taxation without Representation." US History. U-s-history.com, 2014. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
"Pre-Revolution Activities." Samuel Adams Heritage Society. Samuel Adams Historical Society, 2002. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
Schlesinger, Arthur Meier. The colonial merchants and the American Revolution, 1763-1776.
Beard Books, 1939.
"The Sugar Act -April 5, 1764." Revolutionary War and Beyond. Revolutionary War and Beyond, 27 Feb. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.
Sugar and molasses were important commodities for Britain since they were its source of revenue from the colonies. The British West Indies were originally the colonists’ main molasses provider; however the colonists bought molasses from foreign markets where the commodity was cheaper. Because the colonists depended on other countries, the British government passed the Molasses Act in 1733, which implemented a tax of six pence per gallon on molasses bought from non-British colonies. The British hoped that the high tax would persuade the colonists to buy molasses from the British West Indies. In addition, the Molasses Act was supposed to help the West Indies gain profits and raise revenue to pay off the debt from the French and Indian War in 1763. Nonetheless, it was never seriously enforced because the colonists found ways to avoid paying the tax such as smuggling molasses and bribing custom officials. …show more content…
Furthermore, the new taxation jeopardized the region Britain’s economy instead since it hurt the West Indies’ rum industry, which relied on molasses (Abdullah). British Prime Minister George Grenville passed the Sugar Act on April 5, 1764 in order to end illegal trading and collect money.
The Sugar Act was not effective in gaining income. The act decreased the tax to three pence per gallon, which was supposed to make the tax more manageable for the colonists to pay. Nonetheless, it taxed more items such as textiles and wine. Furthermore, a new system of monitoring and security in trade emerged. There was a strict shipping procedure that colonists had to follow. Items for instance lumber were forced to be exported through British ports first before they land in foreign countries. Foreign exporters were required to fill out paperwork of their cargoes to confirm that no goods were smuggled into the country. Britain hoped that these rules would cause more trading with British merchants and employment of English workers (Boyer 134).
Besides expanding the list of taxed goods and controlling shipping methods, the government created consequences for people who did not obey the law. If people tried to avoid paying the tax, they would be forced to go to court in Nova Scotia. Parliament did not want the violators to be tried in a jury comprised of their peers who could influence the verdict since they would favor the smugglers. It was difficult to escape conviction because the violators were automatically pronounced guilty unless they proved their innocence. If the ship owner did not abide the regulations for imported goods, the cargo was at risk to be confiscated and the owner would also be put on trial (“Sugar Act”). Despite these threats, the revised act did not generate the outcome the British government expected.
These new rules angered the colonists since popular food and merchandise became unaffordable, even though the tax was lowered.
The businesses of British manufacturers also declined because the taxes minimized the colonists’ purchasing power. The Sugar Act ruined the economy of Britain and the colonies. It significantly reduced foreign trade and distorted the stability of colonial currencies. Since money was not being exchanged, the currency value deflated. The decrease in value meant colonies had to spend more money to buy goods. This influenced the loss of island trade partners such as Haiti and the Canary Islands, causing a global economic recession (“The Sugar Act”). Not only did the instability of the colonial currencies affect foreign countries, it also had a negative impact on British sellers because the colonists had to pay more for their goods. In addition, buyers from outside Britain had no motivation to purchase their goods since the colonists were not trading with them. The Sugar Act ultimately hindered the financial recovery of
Britain.
Because of the prominent issues with the new act, colonists began to demand change. The government’s decision to impose the direct tax was unjust because there were no representatives for the colonists in Parliament to fight against it. The Parliament did not get actual permission from the Americans for the tax. The colonists believed that a tax could not be implemented by British governors because the British did not have the same representation as them. Boston declared that the city would not purchase all British imports to that colony. They wanted to gain the independence from Britain and be able handle the responsibilities with their own government. Therefore, the colonists created the slogan “no taxation without representation” and led a series of protests (“No Taxation without Representation”).
In August of 1764, a group of merchants from Boston decided to boycott the purchase of British imports. The city of New York followed in Boston’s footsteps and did the same. This really hurt Britain’s economy because their number of exports significantly decreased without the large colonial cities of Boston and New York purchasing their imported goods. Instead, colonists began to make movements to increase domestic manufacturing. The colonist’s reactions to the passage of the Sugar Act were generally in nonviolent boycotts. However, the passage of the Stamp Act, a similar act that required colonists to pay a tax with their purchase stamps for legal papers, documents and newspapers, was passed in 1765. This resulted in aggressive outbursts of violence. Samuel Adams and his Sons of Liberty led organized in riots in which they attacked and intimidated the tax collectors as well as burnt down British offices. The Sons of Liberty continued these violent acts for a few years until the Stamp Act was repealed in 1766 and taxes on stamps were no longer collected (“Pre-Revolutionary Activities”).
The Sugar Act ruined the economy of Britain and the colonies. The changes in shipping regulations reduced foreign trade because buying and selling goods abroad became more complicated. The act also distorted the stability of colonial currencies. Since money was not being exchanged, the value of colonial currency decreased. The British economy declined because its the colonies were not buying goods from British merchants. The high tax sparked the colonist’s anger with Britain and the power that it has over the colonies. One event led to another and eventually ended with the Boston Tea Party. Moreover, the Sugar Act prompted Americans to ask for autonomy and contributed to the development of the American Revolution. The colonists’ dissatisfaction with the laws and restraints enacted by Britain, for example the Sugar Act, as well as Britain’s oppression towards the colonists’ economy were just the beginning of the turmoil that occurred between the colonists and Britain.
The relationship between the colonies and Britain was permanently altered ever since the enactment of the Sugar Act. The colonists agreed with the fact that a tax was necessary in order to pay for the British troops that protected them. However, they disapproved Britain’s overextension of power over the colonists. The colonists would have preferred to unanimously agree on and create a tax themselves, but the British Parliament forced it upon them without their permission. The implementation of the trial system drifted the colonists and the British more. The violators had to appear in court in Nova Scotia and appear in front of a jury that consists of primarily British officials. This greatly angered the colonists because they were being tried in an unfair court and declared guilty until proven innocent, showing Britain’s distrust. The colonists desired a voice in the governmental and judicial decisions. Due to continued complaints, boycotts and an overall negative impact on Britain’s economy, the Sugar Act was repealed in 1766 and replaced by the Revenue Act of 1766. This new act lowered the tax on molasses to one penny, whether it is imported from Britain or any other nation. While this resolved the dispute over taxes, the greater tension and political and economical problems between the colonists and Britain were far from over (“The Sugar Act”).
Works Cited
Abdullah, Mansur G., and Michael C. Anderson. "Molasses Act." Encyclopedia Britannica.
Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
Boyer, Paul, Clifford Clark, Joseph Kett, Neal Salisbury, Harvard Sitkoff, and Nancy Woloch.
"Roads to Revolution 1750-1776." The Enduring Visoin: A History of the American People. 6th ed. N.p.: Cengage Learning, 2009. 123-60. Google. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
"No Taxation without Representation." US History. U-s-history.com, 2014. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
"Pre-Revolution Activities." Samuel Adams Heritage Society. Samuel Adams Historical Society, 2002. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
Schlesinger, Arthur Meier. The colonial merchants and the American Revolution, 1763-1776.
Beard Books, 1939.
"The Sugar Act -April 5, 1764." Revolutionary War and Beyond. Revolutionary War and Beyond, 27 Feb. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.