The Stamp Act
March 22, 1765, the day the Stamp Act was passed by the British Parliament, little did the colonist know that every piece of printed paper they used would be taxed, because of this act. After the 7 Years War, the British Empire was tapped out of money, and was in desperate need to pay the British troops located at the colonies. Since the colonies had British troops defending them, the British thought it was only fair to share the cost. So the British, used the colonist as a source of revenue, believing they should pitch in and help relieve the debt of the war. The Stamp Act was the first tax directly conducted towards the American colonist, igniting an uproar of rage. The cost of the Stamp Act didn’t offend the colonist as much …show more content…
On the other hand, colonist thought that the British were unfair, they hadn't asked them for their consent. The colonist felt that they were blindsided, they were taxed without authorization or representation. The British didn't even bother asking the colonist for a representative on an issue that so greatly affected them. James Otis, a leader in the independence movement in Boston said “taxation without representation is tyranny” because they had no representative in the British Parliament to defend their rights. Colonist thought that the British government was going against their word, “No part of His Majesty’s dominions can be taxed without their consent.. this would seem to [contradict] the theory of the constitution.” also said by James Otis. This became a common phrase among the colonies, as the fight for independence grew bigger. Although the colonist were furious at the tax, what could they …show more content…
But later some colonist were infuriated and actually initiated a protest. The normal everyday colonist didn't really take action in public affairs as this, which is why it surprised the British as well as the Americans when the colonists became violent in their protest. In the article “PUBLIC PROTESTS AGAINST THE STAMP ACT: NORTH CAROLINA” it states that in a protest “near Five Hundred People assembled together in this Town [Wilmington], and exhibited the Effigy of a certain Honorable Gentleman… they made a large Bonfire with a Number of Tar Barrels, &c, and committed it to the Flames.-The Reason assigned for the People’s Dislike to that Gentleman, was, from being informed of his having several Times expressed himself much in Favor of the STAMP-DUTY.” Although, the colonist were very angered at the Stamp Act they were certainly getting out of hand, not everyone may have the same opinion as them, and for that reason they executed them, which in some ways is unfair. The colonies boycotted, burned, and threatened in the protest to get the act repealed. In the article “PUBLIC PROTESTS AGAINST THE STAMP ACT: NORTH CAROLINA” it states that “William Houston Esq; Distributor of STAMPS for this Province, came to this Town; upon which three or four Hundred People immediately gathered together… [they] carried him into the Court-House, where he signed a Resignation satisfactory to the Whole.” The colonist
March 22, 1765, the day the Stamp Act was passed by the British Parliament, little did the colonist know that every piece of printed paper they used would be taxed, because of this act. After the 7 Years War, the British Empire was tapped out of money, and was in desperate need to pay the British troops located at the colonies. Since the colonies had British troops defending them, the British thought it was only fair to share the cost. So the British, used the colonist as a source of revenue, believing they should pitch in and help relieve the debt of the war. The Stamp Act was the first tax directly conducted towards the American colonist, igniting an uproar of rage. The cost of the Stamp Act didn’t offend the colonist as much …show more content…
On the other hand, colonist thought that the British were unfair, they hadn't asked them for their consent. The colonist felt that they were blindsided, they were taxed without authorization or representation. The British didn't even bother asking the colonist for a representative on an issue that so greatly affected them. James Otis, a leader in the independence movement in Boston said “taxation without representation is tyranny” because they had no representative in the British Parliament to defend their rights. Colonist thought that the British government was going against their word, “No part of His Majesty’s dominions can be taxed without their consent.. this would seem to [contradict] the theory of the constitution.” also said by James Otis. This became a common phrase among the colonies, as the fight for independence grew bigger. Although the colonist were furious at the tax, what could they …show more content…
But later some colonist were infuriated and actually initiated a protest. The normal everyday colonist didn't really take action in public affairs as this, which is why it surprised the British as well as the Americans when the colonists became violent in their protest. In the article “PUBLIC PROTESTS AGAINST THE STAMP ACT: NORTH CAROLINA” it states that in a protest “near Five Hundred People assembled together in this Town [Wilmington], and exhibited the Effigy of a certain Honorable Gentleman… they made a large Bonfire with a Number of Tar Barrels, &c, and committed it to the Flames.-The Reason assigned for the People’s Dislike to that Gentleman, was, from being informed of his having several Times expressed himself much in Favor of the STAMP-DUTY.” Although, the colonist were very angered at the Stamp Act they were certainly getting out of hand, not everyone may have the same opinion as them, and for that reason they executed them, which in some ways is unfair. The colonies boycotted, burned, and threatened in the protest to get the act repealed. In the article “PUBLIC PROTESTS AGAINST THE STAMP ACT: NORTH CAROLINA” it states that “William Houston Esq; Distributor of STAMPS for this Province, came to this Town; upon which three or four Hundred People immediately gathered together… [they] carried him into the Court-House, where he signed a Resignation satisfactory to the Whole.” The colonist