1763 Dbq
In order to help cover the cost of the war between Great Britain and France, British officials began to establish new taxes in the Colonies. In 1765, a tax was passed by Great Britain known as the Stamp Act. This law required all colonists to pay a tax to Great Britain on all of the printed materials that they used, newspapers, magazines, and even playing cards. All of these materials were required to have a stamp placed on them, in order to show that the tax had been paid. Colonist were outraged, and responded by boycotting all British goods. They also attacked officials who were sent by Great Britain to enforce the Stamp Act, and burned the stamps in the street. Many of the colonies sent representatives to a special meeting in
…show more content…
To be admitted to the bar or enrolled as a notary one would pay a tax of £10 in America, but only £2 in Britain. The tax on newspapers raised considerable opposition, especially from the newspapers themselves. Colonists also didn't see the advantage of a standing army. Posts such as Fort Detroit and Fort Pitt needed garrisons. But their main purpose was to protect the fur trade, not settlers. Indeed, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 had limited western settlement. For seventy years the European Wars had carried over to North America. Coastal properties and towns had been attacked by the French, Spanish, and Dutch at various times, and they had been protected by colonial militia, not the regular army. The militia had even been assigned to support actions in Canada and the west, with limited compensation from the Crown. Stamps were generally ignored, and were often unavailable. Protest and discussion over these acts gave way to open violence in a number of instances. In Boston, an effigy of the stamp agent, Andrew Oliver was hanged and then burned. His home was broken into, and his office, along with the stamps, was burned. The mob even went on to vandalize Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson's home, destroying records and forcing him and his family to …show more content…
This law and the Sugar Act of the previous year would be the beginning of the outcry of the Thirteen Colonies, “No taxation, without representation” and “Taxation, without representation is tyranny.” Dispite in the colonies over the Stamp Act had actually begun in the spring of 1764 when Parliament passed a resolution that contained the assertion, "That, towards further defraying the said Expences, it may be proper to charge certain Stamp Duties in the said Colonies and Plantations." Both the Sugar Act and the proposed Stamp Act were designed principally to raise revenue from the colonists. The Sugar Act was to a large extent a continuation of past legislation related primarily to the regulation of trade (termed an external tax), but its stated purpose to collect revenue directly from the colonists for a specific purpose was entirely new. The novelty of the Stamp Act was that it was the first internal tax (a tax based entirely on activities within the colonies) levied directly on the colonies by Parliament. Because of its potential wide application to the colonial economy, the Stamp Act was judged by the colonists to be a more dangerous
To be admitted to the bar or enrolled as a notary one would pay a tax of £10 in America, but only £2 in Britain. The tax on newspapers raised considerable opposition, especially from the newspapers themselves. Colonists also didn't see the advantage of a standing army. Posts such as Fort Detroit and Fort Pitt needed garrisons. But their main purpose was to protect the fur trade, not settlers. Indeed, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 had limited western settlement. For seventy years the European Wars had carried over to North America. Coastal properties and towns had been attacked by the French, Spanish, and Dutch at various times, and they had been protected by colonial militia, not the regular army. The militia had even been assigned to support actions in Canada and the west, with limited compensation from the Crown. Stamps were generally ignored, and were often unavailable. Protest and discussion over these acts gave way to open violence in a number of instances. In Boston, an effigy of the stamp agent, Andrew Oliver was hanged and then burned. His home was broken into, and his office, along with the stamps, was burned. The mob even went on to vandalize Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson's home, destroying records and forcing him and his family to …show more content…
This law and the Sugar Act of the previous year would be the beginning of the outcry of the Thirteen Colonies, “No taxation, without representation” and “Taxation, without representation is tyranny.” Dispite in the colonies over the Stamp Act had actually begun in the spring of 1764 when Parliament passed a resolution that contained the assertion, "That, towards further defraying the said Expences, it may be proper to charge certain Stamp Duties in the said Colonies and Plantations." Both the Sugar Act and the proposed Stamp Act were designed principally to raise revenue from the colonists. The Sugar Act was to a large extent a continuation of past legislation related primarily to the regulation of trade (termed an external tax), but its stated purpose to collect revenue directly from the colonists for a specific purpose was entirely new. The novelty of the Stamp Act was that it was the first internal tax (a tax based entirely on activities within the colonies) levied directly on the colonies by Parliament. Because of its potential wide application to the colonial economy, the Stamp Act was judged by the colonists to be a more dangerous