Images of Old Hawaiʻi

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Townshend Acts

To help pay its massive debts from the Seven Years’ War, the British Parliament – at the advice of Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of the British Exchequer – voted to levy new taxes on the American colonies.

The Seven Years’ War had involved virtually every great power of Europe and spanned the entire globe. While it ended French influence in North America east of the Mississippi River, the war also left the British monarchy facing massive debt.

Since parts of the war had been fought in North America (known as the French and Indian War), and British forces had protected the American Colonies from attack, the British Crown expected the colonists to pay a share of the debt.

Britain also needed additional revenue to fund the administration of its growing efforts toward global imperialism. Before the French and Indian War, the British government had been hesitant to tax its American Colonies. (Longley)

The Townshend Acts (June 15–July 2, 1767) were a series of four acts passed by the British Parliament in an attempt to assert what it considered to be its historic right to exert authority over the colonies through suspension of a recalcitrant representative assembly and through strict provisions for the collection of revenue duties.

They bear the name of Charles Townshend, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is – as the chief treasurer of the British Empire – in charge of economic and financial matters and who sponsored them.

  • The Suspending Act (New York Restraining Act) (June 5, 1767) banned the New York Colony Assembly from conducting business until it agreed to pay for the housing, meals, and other expenses of British troops stationed there under the Quartering Act of 1765.
  • The Revenue Act (Townshend duties) (June 26, 1767) imposed direct revenue duties – that is, duties aimed not merely at regulating trade but at putting money into the British treasury. These were payable at colonial ports and fell on tea, wine, lead, glass, paper, and paint imported into the colonies.  Since Britain held a monopoly on these products, the colonies could not legally buy them from any other country.  It was the second time in the history of the colonies that a tax had been levied solely for the purpose of raising revenue.
  • The Commissioners of Customs Act (June 29, 1767) established an American Customs Board. Headquartered in Boston, the five British-appointed commissioners of the Customs Board enforced a strict and often arbitrarily applied set of shipping and trade regulations (including additional officers, searchers, spies, coast guard vessels, search warrants, writs of assistance), all intended to increase taxes paid to Britain.
  • The Indemnity Act (June 29, 1767) was aimed at enabling the East India Company to compete with the tea that was smuggled by the Dutch. It lowered commercial duties on tea imported to England by the East India Company and gave the company a refund of the duty for tea that was then exported to the colonies. Compensating for the loss of revenue brought about by the Indemnity Act was another reason for the imposition of the Townshend duties.

The acts renewed a fierce debate over whether the British Parliament had the right to tax the North American colonies solely for the purpose of raising revenue.

The colonists protested, “no taxation without representation,” arguing that the British Parliament did not have the right to tax them because they lacked representation in the legislative body.  They asserted that only colonial assemblies elected by themselves should have the power to impose taxes.  (Khan Academy)

The most influential colonial objection to the Townshend Acts came in twelve essays by John Dickinson entitled “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.”  Published starting in December 1767, Dickinson’s essays urged colonists to resist paying the British taxes.

Moved by the essays, James Otis of Massachusetts rallied the Massachusetts House of Representatives, along with other colonial assemblies, to send petitions to King George III demanding repeal of the Revenue Act.

Colonists organized boycotts of British goods to pressure Parliament to repeal the Townshend Acts. As British customs officials arrived to collect taxes and prosecute smugglers, colonial opposition intensified, resulting in street demonstrations and protests that sometimes turned violent.

The presence of British troops in Boston was a standing invitation to disorder. On March 5, 1770, antagonism between citizens and British soldiers again flared into violence.  What began as a harmless snowballing of British soldiers degenerated into a mob attack. Someone gave the order to fire; this was the ‘Boston Massacre.’

Faced with such opposition, Parliament in 1770 opted for a strategic retreat and repealed all the Townshend duties except that on tea, which was a luxury item in the colonies, imbibed only by a very small minority.

To most, the action of Parliament signified that the colonists had won a major concession, and the campaign against England was largely dropped. A colonial embargo on ‘English tea’ continued but was not too scrupulously observed. Prosperity was increasing and most colonial leaders were willing to let the future take care of itself.  (University of Groningen)

Click the following link to a general summary about the Townshend Acts:

Click to access Townshend-Acts.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Declaratory Act

The Stamp Act was passed by Parliament in 1765; effectively, it required the colonists to pay a tax, represented by a stamp.

Included under the act were bonds, licenses, certificates, and other official documents as well as more mundane items such as plain parchment and playing cards.  It imposed a tax on all papers and official documents in the American colonies, though not in England.

It was a direct tax imposed by the British government without the approval of the colonial legislatures and was payable in hard-to-obtain British sterling, rather than colonial currency.

Further, those accused of violating the Stamp Act could be prosecuted in Vice-Admiralty Courts, which had no juries and could be held anywhere in the British Empire. (Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History)

The colonists had recently been hit with three major taxes: the Sugar Act (1764), which levied new duties on imports of textiles, wines, coffee and sugar; the Currency Act (1764), which caused a major decline in the value of the paper money used by colonists; and the Quartering Act (1765), which required colonists to provide food and lodging to British troops under certain circumstances.

With the passing of the Stamp Act, the colonists’ grumbling finally became an articulated response to what they saw as the mother country’s attempt to undermine their economic strength and independence.

The first legislative protest against the Stamp Act came from Virginia.  On May 30, 1765, the House of Burgesses adopted four resolutions, submitted by Patrick Henry.  On the 8th of June, Massachusetts issued the call for the Stamp Act congress.

By November 1, the date on which the Stamp Act was to go into effect, the resolutions of assemblies and public meetings, and the intimidation and violence of the ‘Sons of Liberty’ and others, had made the execution of the act impossible, even if stamps could have been had.

A circular letter from Conway to the governors, dated October 24, urging them to do their utmost to maintain law and order, and authorizing them to call upon the military and naval commanders for assistance, if necessary, was unavailing.

At the opening of Parliament, December 17, papers relating to affairs in America were submitted.

Numerous petitions were also presented setting forth the losses which the Stamp Act had inflicted upon British trade.

A resolution declaratory of the right of Parliament to tax the colonies, submitted February 3, was adopted by large majorities.

On the 6th the Lords, by a vote of 59 to 54, resolved in favor of executing the Stamp Act; but a similar proposition in the Commons was rejected by a vote of more than two to one.

On the 12th the King announced himself favorable to modification of the act; while the examination of Franklin before the House of Commons further strengthened the argument for repeal.

The repeal bill and the declaratory bill passed the Commons March 4, and on the 7th the declaratory bill passed the Lords.

The proposition to repeal the Stamp Act, however, encountered strong opposition in the Lords, where 33 members entered a protest against it at the second reading, and 28 at the third; but on the 17th the bill passed, and the next day both acts received the royal assent.

Parliament appeased the unruly colonists by repealing the Stamp Act.  However, the repeal of the Stamp Act did not mean that Great Britain was surrendering any control over its colonies.

The Declaratory Act, passed by Parliament on the same day the Stamp Act was repealed; members of Parliament were upset that colonists had challenged their authority and they asserted complete authority to make laws binding on the American colonies “in all cases whatsoever” and stated that the British Parliament’s taxing authority was the same in America as in Great Britain. (LOC)

The act particularly illustrated British insensitivity to the political maturity that had developed in the American provinces during the 18th century, partly in response to Parliament’s unwritten policy of salutary neglect toward the colonies during the first half of the century. (Select Charters Illustrative of American History)

Click the following link to a general summary about the Declaratory Act:

Click to access Declaratory-Act.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Sons of Liberty

In 1765 the American Stamp Act was introduced into Parliament by Mr. Grenville; in support, Mr. Charles Townshend concluded an able speech in its support by exclaiming,

“And now will these Americans, children planted by our care, nourished by our indulgence until they are grown to a degree of strength and opulence; and protected by our arms; will they grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the heavy weight of that burthen which we lie under?”

On this colonel Barre rose, and, after explaining some passages in his speech, took up Mr. Townsend’s concluding words in a most spirited and inimitable manner, saying, “They planted by your care! No, your oppressions planted them in America.”

“They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated and inhospitable country, where they exposed themselves to almost all the hardships to which human nature is liable; and among others, to the cruelties of a savage foe, the most subtle, and I will take upon me to say, the most formidable of any people upon the face of God’s earth”.

“As soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule them, who were, perhaps, the deputies of deputies to some members of this House, sent to spy out their liberties, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon them; men whose behaviour on many occasions has caused the blood of these Sons of Liberty to recoil within them …”

“And believe me,-remember I this day told you so, the same spirit of freedom which actuated that people at first will accompany them still, but prudence forbids me to explain myself further.  God knows I do not at this time speak from motives of party heat; what I deliever are the genuine sentiments of my heart.

“The people, I believe, are as truly loyal as any subjects the king has; but a people jealous of their liberties, and who will vindicate them if ever they should be violated. But the subject is too delicate. I will say no more.”

“These sentiments were thrown out so entirely without premeditation , so forcibly and so firmly, and the breaking off was so beautifully abrupt, that the whole house sat a while amazed, intently looking, without answering a word.”  (History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment of the Independence of the United States of America, Gordon)

Sons of Liberty was an organization formed in the American colonies in the summer of 1765 to oppose the Stamp Act. The Sons of Liberty took their name from this speech given in the British Parliament by Isaac Barré (February 1765), in which he referred to the colonials who had opposed unjust British measures as the “sons of liberty.”

The origins of the Sons of Liberty are unclear, but some of the organization’s roots can be traced to the Loyal Nine, a secretive Boston political organization.  The Loyal Nine (“Loyall Nine”), a well-organized Patriot political organization shrouded in secrecy, was formed in 1765 by nine likeminded citizens of Boston to protest the passing of the Stamp Act.

The Loyal Nine evolved into the larger group Sons of Liberty and were arguably influential in that organization.

The Boston chapter of the Sons of Liberty often met under cover of darkness beneath the “Liberty Tree,” a stately elm tree in Hanover Square (at the corner of Essex Street and Orange Street (the latter of which was renamed Washington Street)).

On the night of January 14, 1766, John Adams stepped into a tiny room in a Boston distillery to meet with a radical secret society. “Spent the Evening with the Sons of Liberty, at their own Apartment in Hanover Square, near the Tree of Liberty,” Adams wrote.

After his visit, Adams assured his diary that he heard “No plotts, no Machinations” from the Loyal Nine, just gentlemanly chat about their plans to celebrate when the Stamp Act was repealed. “I wish they mayn’t be disappointed,” Adams wrote.

On August 14, 1765, violence broke out in colonial Boston. Over the course of that day and several ensuing days, rioters attacked several buildings in the city, including the homes of colonial officials.

The protest resulted from the Stamp Act, passed by the British Parliament on March 22, which would require the colonists to pay taxes on most circulating paper items-such as pamphlets, newspapers, almanacs, playing cards, and legal and insurance documents.

The August riot, which arose largely from the agitation of this group, contributed to the eventual repeal of the Stamp Act. The Sons of Liberty claimed as members many of the later leaders of the Revolution, including Paul Revere, John Adams, and Samuel Adams.

The Sons of Liberty rallied support for colonial resistance through the use of petitions, assemblies, and propaganda, and they sometimes resorted to violence against British officials. Instrumental in preventing the enforcement of the Stamp Act, they remained an active pre-Revolutionary force against the crown.  (Britannica)

For a number of years after the Stamp Act riot, the Sons of Liberty organized annual celebrations to commemorate the event.

Due to the increasing success of the Sons of Liberty, the British Parliament eased many of the duties in the colonies. However, the Parliament continued the high tax on tea, as the British Crown desperately needed money.

In 1773, the refusal to pay for British tea on behalf of the colonists fell upon deaf ears, and the East India Company’s trading ships were to enter Boston Harbor to sell the tea. However, rather than purchase the tea, on the night of December 16th, 1773 the Sons of Liberty boarded the trade ships docked in Griffin’s Wharf and threw the shipments of tea overboard in an event known as the Boston Tea Party.

Eventually, the patriotic resistance to British rule became too much to handle and revolution and war was inevitable. When lawmakers of Virginia gathered in 1775 to discuss negotiations with the British King, Sons of Liberty member, Patrick Henry exclaimed to the Second Virginia Convention “Give me liberty or give me death!”.

Thus, cementing the American stance for independence from British rule and initiating the American commitment to the Revolutionary War. (Battlefields)

Click to access Sons-of-Liberty.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Quartering Act

In 1763, the French and Indian War ended with two important outcomes: a British victory over their traditional enemy France and an equally tremendous British debt.

At the time, the British government decided to keep a standing (permanent) army in North America. Although the mission of the peacetime army was not clearly defined, it seemed to be a combination of defending newly acquired Canada and Florida and managing Indian affairs.

One of the major problems for the British in dealing with a far-flung, enormous empire wasn’t just the issues of defense (fighting off opposing armies, Native American raids, and so forth), but the administrative issues that defense brought up, such as housing soldiers.

Housing and feeding a group of several hundred or even a few thousand soldiers was a difficult and costly proposition.

General Thomas Gage, the new British commander-in-chief, recommended that Parliament pass a quartering law for the colonies.  The Quartering Act of 1765 directed colonial governors and their councils to hire inns and vacant buildings as quarters for soldiers when regular barracks were unavailable.

The law also required colonial governments to furnish the soldiers with firewood, bedding, candles, salt, vinegar, cooking utensils plus a daily ration of beer, cider, or rum. Furthermore, the Quartering Act authorized innkeepers to feed the soldiers at the colonies’ expense.

Contrary to popular belief, the Quartering Act of 1765 did not require that colonists shelter soldiers in their private homes.

The act did require colonial governments to provide and pay for feeding and sheltering any troops stationed in their colony.  If enough barracks were not made available, then soldiers could be housed in inns, stables, outbuildings, uninhabited houses, or private homes that sold wine or alcohol.

Nevertheless many American colonists saw the Quartering Act as one more way Parliament was attempting to tax them without their consent. Others suspected that the real purpose of keeping a small standing army in America – stationed in coastal cities, not on the frontier – was not for defense, but to enforce new British policies and taxes.

Americans saw the Quartering Act of 1765 as an attempt to force the colonists to pay for a standing army that they did not want. When Parliament was forced to repeal the hated Stamp Act in 1766, Massachusetts’ radical leader, Sam Adams, pointedly asked, “Is not [the Quartering Act] taxing the Colonies as effectively as the Stamp Act?”

The Quartering Act did become a divisive issue in 1766, after 1,500 British soldiers disembarked at New York City.

The New York Provincial Assembly refused to provide funds to cover the costs of feeding and housing these men as required by the law. In response, the British Parliament voted to suspend the Provincial Assembly until it complied with the act.

As it turned out, the suspension was never put into effect since the New York Assembly later agreed to allocate revenue to cover some of the costs of quartering these troops. The Quartering Act of 1765 was largely circumvented by most colonies during the years before the Revolution.

https://imagesofoldhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/Quartering-Act.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Stamp Act

The French and Indian War had been enormously expensive and left Great Britain with a heavy debt.  And, the expense of protecting the English possessions in America seemed likely to increase rather than diminish.

The war and the British government’s attempts to impose taxes on colonists to help cover these expenses resulted in increasing colonial resentment of British attempts to expand imperial authority in the colonies.

One of the early taxes to be imposed was the Stamp Act.  Its title and text noted it was, An Act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, towards further defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same …

Then, a long list of items related to “every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be ingrossed, written or printed  within such British Colonies .. [shall pay] a stamp duty …”

Effectively, the Act required the colonists to pay a tax, represented by a stamp.  Included under the act were bonds, licenses, certificates, and other official documents as well as more mundane items such as plain parchment and playing cards.  It imposed a tax on all papers and official documents in the American colonies, though not in England.

It was a direct tax imposed by the British government without the approval of the colonial legislatures and was payable in hard-to-obtain British sterling, rather than colonial currency.

Further, those accused of violating the Stamp Act could be prosecuted in Vice-Admiralty Courts, which had no juries and could be held anywhere in the British Empire. (Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History)

With the passing of the Stamp Act, the colonists’ grumbling finally became an articulated response to what they saw as the mother country’s attempt to undermine their economic strength and independence.

They raised the issue of taxation without representation, and formed societies throughout the colonies to rally against the British government and nobles who sought to exploit the colonies as a source of revenue and raw materials.

In October 1765, delegates from the colonies convened in New York City at the Stamp Act Congress, where they drew up formal petitions to the British Parliament and to King George III to repeal the act. It was the first unified colonial response to British policy and it provided the British a taste of what would come soon thereafter.

The British had been receiving reports of mob violence in the colonies, and Prime Minister Grenville had been replaced by Lord Rockingham, who proved more sympathetic than his predecessor to the colonists’ demands. (Khan Academy)

The colonists also took exception with the provision denying offenders trials by jury. A vocal minority hinted at dark designs behind the Stamp Act. These radical voices warned that the tax was part of a gradual plot to deprive the colonists of their freedoms and to enslave them beneath a tyrannical regime.

By October of that year, nine of the 13 colonies sent representatives to the Stamp Act Congress, at which the colonists drafted the “Declaration of Rights and Grievances,” a document that railed against the autocratic policies of the mercantilist British empire.

Realizing that it actually cost more to enforce the Stamp Act in the protesting colonies than it did to abolish it, the British government repealed the tax the following year.   (History-com)

Click to access Stamp-Act.pdf

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC