Was Resistance to British Taxation Justified? - Page 2


© Brian Tubbs
Page 2
The price for maintaining order and protection was high. Britain's North American possessions had been administered at the cost of 70,000 pounds a year, prior to the Seven Years' War. By the mid-1760s, that cost had soared to roughly 320,000 pounds. Saddled with an already enormous debt and faced with such staggering annual costs, it is no wonder that British leaders expected the colonists to contribute some of their financial resources to the Mother Country.

In 1764, under the leadership of Prime Minister George Grenville, Parliament passed the Sugar Act. The law placed tariffs on sugar, coffee, wines and other products -- all of which imported into North America in high quantities. The law lowered the tariff on molasses imported from the West Indies, but Grenville tightened enforcement of the duty, which had previously been ignored by many colonial merchants and traders. Equally disturbing to Americans, the British also restricted the printing of paper money in the colonies.

Colonial reaction, in certain quarters, was swift and intense. Several colonies protested that parliamentary taxation amounted to a violation of the terms of their royal charters. Others predicted that the taxation of trade would soon lead to taxation of land and profit. A common theme in the widespread outcry was that no free people could be rightfully taxed without their consent.

Historian John Garraty writes that the British regarded such protestations as "a hypocritical quibble." According to Garraty, the British saw any distinction between tax laws and other laws passed by Parliament as "artificial." And, surely, no one would question Britain's right to legislatively oversee its own empire. Seeing no merit to American protests, the English Board of Trade reported to King George III that "the acts and resolutions of the legislature of Great Britain are treated with the most indecent respect."

In spite of the colonists' "indecent respect," Prime Minister Grenville determined that a new tax would be necessary since the Sugar Act would only collect a fraction of the cost of American colonization in revenue. So, in 1765, Parliament passed the Stamp Act. Much broader in scope than the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act applied stiff excise taxes on virtually any kind of printed material. Newspapers, legal documents, licenses, and even playing cards were among the items subject to this new tax.

Colonial reaction to the Stamp Tax exceeded all expectations of British leadership, and dwarfed in magnitude and intensity any previous protest of British policies. Whereas the Sugar Act, coupled with English restrictions on the printing of colonial paper money, had generated widespread discontent, the Stamp Tax pushed the colonies to the brink of open rebellion.

Go To Page: 1 2 3 4


The copyright of the article Was Resistance to British Taxation Justified? - Page 2 in American Revolution is owned by . Permission to republish Was Resistance to British Taxation Justified? - Page 2 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo