American Revolution | Page 9 | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

March 30, 2023 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

March 9, 2023 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

March 2, 2023 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

February 16, 2023 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Currency Act

The paper money issued by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1690 was the first authorized by any government in the Western world. The Massachusetts Bay Colony financed a military expedition to Canada in 1690 by issuing bills of credit.

Over time, each of the thirteen colonies’ governments had emitted their own currency issues, although Great Britain opposed and tried to suppress them. Subsequent military campaigns and other expenses by other Colonies were funded with these bills. In all cases, they were a financial expedient adopted to cover a lack of funds by promising to “pay later.” (American Numismatic Society)

The French and Indian War represented the decisive turning point in British-colonial relations. The Treaty of Paris in 1763 ratified Britain’s undisputed control of the seas and shipping trade, as well as its sovereignty over much of the North American continent east of the Mississippi River, including French Canada.

The British Government had borrowed heavily from British and Dutch bankers to finance the war, and as a consequence the national debt almost doubled from £75 million in 1754 to £133 million in 1763. In order to address this onerous liability, British officials turned to larger import duties on enumerated goods like sugar and tobacco, along with a series of high excise (sales) taxes on goods such as salt, beer, and spirits.

This taxation strategy tended to burden consumers disproportionately. In addition, government bureaucracy expanded in order to collect the needed revenue. As the number of royal officials more than doubled, Parliament delegated new legal and administrative authority to them. Thus, even as British subjects lauded their pre-eminent position in the world, they chafed under the weight of increased debts and tightened government controls.

In 1764, Parliament passed the Currency Act, which banned the use of paper money as legal tender in all colonies. (This effectively took the prohibition of issuance of new bills of credit that had been imposed on New England colonies: Rhode Island, Massachusetts Bay, New Hampshire and Connecticut and extended that prohibition to all of the colonies.)

British merchants had asked for relief from the depreciated currency brought about by deficit financing in Virginia. It was argued that Parliament sought to control currency depreciation against silver and sterling and to ensure its value for payments of debt to British merchants. The Act represented an effort to take control of monetary policy from colonial assemblies.

The colonies faced a chronic shortage of hard money, which was being sent across the Atlantic to pay debts in England. To meet the shortage, they resorted to issuing their own paper money. British creditors, however, feared payment in such a depreciated currency. (JD Lewis)

To protect British merchants and creditors from depreciated colonial currency, this act regulated currency, abolishing the colonies’ paper currency in favor of a system based on the pound sterling.

Effect of the Currency Act

As a result, the colonies suffered a constant shortage of currency with which to conduct trade. There were no gold or silver mines and currency could only be obtained through trade as regulated by Great Britain.

The Act banned colonial paper money as legal tender in private transactions.

Colonial paper money was accepted for public debt payments such as provincial taxes.

It prohibited the extension of paper bills beyond its date of redemption.

The Currency Act did not place limits on the amount of paper money in circulation and on the period of redemption.

Opposition to the 1764 Currency Act started immediately. Colonial governments petitioned its repeal as the postwar economic slowdown was being felt in most colonies.

In 1770 Parliament revised the Act and allowed New York to issue bills as legal tender for all types of debt. In 1773 parliament allowed colonial legislatures to print bills to cover costs and to be used as legal tender.

Click to access Currency-Act.pdf

February 9, 2023 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Sugar Act

In 1760, twenty-two-year-old monarch George III ascended the throne of England. The French and Indian War (Seven Year War) that had stretched on for years and encircled the globe finally ended in 1763, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris by France, Great Britain and Spain.

France lost all claims to Canada and gave Louisiana to Spain, while Britain received Spanish Florida, Upper Canada, and various French holdings overseas. The treaty ensured the colonial and maritime supremacy of Britain and strengthened the 13 American colonies by removing their European rivals to the north and the south.

Colonists were proud of their role in defeating the French, but England was faced with a vast territory to safeguard and a soaring debt.

In 1764, George Grenville, First Lord of the Treasury, proposed to strengthen Britain’s hold on its American investment. Addressing the King in his declaration of intent, Grenville argued that,

“Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom, and for extending and securing the navigation and commerce between Great Britain and your Majesty’s dominions in America, which, by the peace, have been so happily enlarged and:

“whereas it is just and necessary, that a revenue be raised, in your Majesty’s said dominions in America, for defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the same.”

“We your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, being desirous to make some provision in this present session of parliament, towards the said revenue in America, have resolved to give and grant unto your Majesty the several rates and duties herein after mentioned;”

“and do most humbly beseech your Majesty, that it may be enacted; and be it enacted …, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, there shall be raised, levied, collected, and paid, unto his Majesty …,”

“for and upon all white or clayed sugars of the produce or manufacture of any colony or plantation in America, not under the dominion of his Majesty …; for and upon indico, and coffee of foreign produce or manufacture; for and upon all wines (except French wine …)

The colonies have already been mired in a post-war depression.

In Boston, town meeting (the local government) carefully considered the Sugar Act (also called Plantation Act or Revenue Act). “We . . . declare our just expectations,” Bostonians announce, as they assert their rights and advise their representatives to the Massachusetts legislature to stand firm for traditional prerogatives.

Meanwhile, in New York, American patriots urge their countrymen to cast off British luxuries and set about producing their own raw materials and home manufactures. Such self-sufficiency, they insist, will empower colonists to dispel their dread and become the “richest People upon Earth.”

Effects of the Sugar Act

In order to enforce the collection of taxes violators were tried in admiralty courts where a judge decided the outcome rather than in colonial courts in where the decision was left to a jury. Admiralty courts were located in Halifax, Nova Scotia while colonial courts were local.

Admiralty judges were awarded 5% of the confiscated cargo as compensation which gave them the financial incentive to find the violator guilty and thus enforcing the law vigorously. This new system removed the traditional British protection to a fair trial.

In addition, the new law also affected the trade of certain commodities. Lumber and iron were added to the list of products that could be traded only with England. Duties were introduced to the importation of coffee, pimiento, wine from Madeira and the Azores and French and West Indian goods.

With few exceptions vessels going to the colonies had to pass through Britain, unload its cargo, pay duty on it, reload it and sail to the colonies. These measures increased the cost of doing business and undermined local industry. (Stamp-Act-History)

The Sugar Act and the American Revolution

Because of the strict enforcement the act did accomplish its goal of reducing smuggling which affected colonial economy, especially in Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania. The protests against the act were heavier in affected colonies and almost non-existent in unaffected ones. The law nevertheless promoted boycott of British luxury goods in some colonies and gave some boost to local manufacturing.

For the first time the Sugar Act raised different constitutional issues. While many perceived the Sugar Act as an infringement of their constitutional rights because they were, for the first time, taxed to raise revenue for the benefit of the crown, others viewed it as a tax to regulate the flow of trade and as a continuation of the existing and long accepted 1733 Molasses Act.

Those who perceived the law as unconstitutional thought that the law transformed a trade regulation into a revenue measure. Colonial residents had a fragmented view and it was not perceived in a uniformed way. The following year most colonial residents would agree that the proposed Stamp Act of 1765 violated their colonial rights of “No taxation without representation”. (Stamp-Act-History)

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

Click to access Sugar-Act.pdf