History
lacwil
the_stamp_act_1765.pptxThe stamp act (1765)
Henry Small
Columbia Southern University
Background
Passed officially on the 22nd day of march 1965 (Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland., S.L.S. (Organization), & Queen's University of Belfast, 1936, pp.310)
Political debates over the act had started as early as November 1964 in both Britain and its colonies
Economists challenged it as a levy that did not qualify as a tax
Was associated with the cost of the Seven Year War
Role
The stamp act was designed to raise money for Britain from its colonies. Mercantilist Britain believe that money was the base of political supremacy
It was meant to raise funds from all printed papers used in the colonies.
It created levies on legal documents, newspapers, licenses, ships’ papers and all other documentation designed for official use.
Great Britain intended to raise money from its colonies without draining the financial resources. Therefore, the money was expended in the American colonies.
Another major role of the stamp duty was to curtail the growth of the elite groups such as students and lawyers. For this reason, the duty was paid in hard currency which was not easy to come by.
The stamp duty was expected to play a fundamental role in re-introducing religiously governed courts
Reasons
The most notable reason for the introduction of the stamp act was to cater for the costs of protecting and safeguarding the American frontiers stationed near the Appalachian mountains (McNeese, 2002, pp.3).
Secondly, the act was considered a significant contributor to the remuneration of the 10000 troops that were supposed to be serving at the American frontiers.
Impacts on the colonies
The financial burden was not as heavy as one would expect on the colonies because the stamp duty was not much. What made it difficult is that they demanded hard currency.
As one would expect, it created a political outrage among the American colonists.
It introduced political misunderstandings. For instance, Virginia Governor Fauquier did not agree with the House of Burgesses.
The act demeaned the colonial courts through weakening them using the levies on legal documents.
The act evoked activism from students and such professional as lawyers who saw the act as a tool of intimidation.
The colonists felt like Britain was exploiting their efforts in its American colonies.
Arguments for the stamp Act
Fundamentally, most people in the colonies were not in support of the stamp duty as they considered it exploitative. However, some British imperialists supported the act arguing that it would solve a number of problems related to the cost of war.
The governor of Virginia – governor Fauquier supported the act, arguing that the counter-legislation designed by the House of Burgesses was economically baseless.
Arguments against the Stamp Act
Economists argued that the levy did not qualify as a tax because the essence of tax was to regulate business and not to raise war-related funds.
Secondly, the colonists argued that the tax imposed through the act was illegal as it did not consider the reality that the colonists should not be taxed by their representatives.
Americans had the same rights as the British, and the British mercantilist policies were not justifiably applicable in taxing the colonies.
The stamp duty introduced some degree of political sabotage because it was meant to weaken the rising elite, especially the legal professionals.
Reactions to the stamp act
The stamp act (1765 Newspaper excerpt above) evoked bitter reactions from the colonies.
Foremost, it triggered counter-legislation. For instance the House of Burgesses in Virginia crafted the Patrick Henry’s Stamp Act Resolves (Norton, Kamensky, Sheriff, Blight, Chudacoff, Logevall & Bailey, 2014, pp.130).
Secondly, it triggered the rise of such secret revolutionary groups as the Sons of Liberty.
The American media were enraged, and opposed it bitterly (see figure below)
The American colonists resorted to street protests (see below)
Political leaders among the colonists began sensitization campaigns against an impending overbearing central government.
Under the crown, the colonial government was mercantilist and overbearing.
References
Norton, M. B., Kamensky, J., Sheriff, C., Blight, D. W., Chudacoff, H. P., Logevall, F., & Bailey, B. L. (2014). A people & a nation: A history of the United States.
Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland., S.L.S. (Organization), & Queen's University of Belfast. (1936). The Northern Ireland legal quarterly. Belfast, Northern Ireland, etc.: SLS Legal Publications (NI), Faculty of Law, Queen's University
McNeese, T. (2002). The American frontier. St. Louis, Mo: Milliken Pub. Co.
