In 1651, Britain passed its first Navigation Act and continued to update trade laws as needed. The goal, however, was not to increase incomes, but to impose a sufficiently high tariff on foreign trade to channel trade between Britain and its colonies. [15] Grenville`s proposed tariffs would increase revenues and be strictly enforced, reducing the settlers` ability to evade the tariffs. Pitt`s response to Grenville included, “I`m glad America resisted. Three million people, who died to all feelings of freedom as they volunteered to submit as slaves, would have been appropriate instruments to turn the rest into slaves. [107] In Frederick, Maryland, a 12-judge court declared the Stamp Act on March 23. In November 1765 he was declared invalid and ordered colonial companies and officials to proceed without the use of stamps in all areas. A week later, a crowd organized a mock funeral procession for the act in the streets of Frederick. The judges were dubbed the “12 immortal judges” and November 23 was declared “rejection day” by the Maryland legislature. On October 1, 2015, Senator Cardin (D-MD) read a statement in the Congressional Record that designated 2015 as the 250th anniversary of the event. Among the 12 judges was William Luckett, who later served as a lieutenant colonel in the Maryland militia at the Battle of Germantown. Organized colonial demonstration. The American settlers responded to the actions of the parliament with organized protests.

In the colonies, a network of secret organizations known as the Sons of Liberty emerged to intimidate stamp agents who collected parliamentary taxes. Even before the Stamp Act came into force, all stamp agents appointed in the colonies had resigned. The Massachusetts Assembly proposed a meeting of all the colonies to work towards the repeal of the Stamp Act. All but four colonies were represented. The Stamp Act Congress passed a “Bill of Rights and Grievances” stating that American settlers were on an equal footing with all other British citizens, protesting against taxation without representation and declaring that Parliament could not tax settlers without colonial representation in parliament. In addition, the settlers intensified their non-import efforts. Repeal of the Stamps Act. Although some in Parliament felt that the army should be used to enforce the Stamp Act (1765), others praised the settlers for opposing a tax passed by a legislative body in which they were not represented. The law was repealed and the colonies abandoned their ban on imported British products. Under the peace treaty, Britain gained huge new territories, including French Canada and French territory east of the Mississippi. How would Britain repay its war debts and the additional costs of defending its expanded North American empire? How would American settlers react to British policy? [7] Many newspapers adopted a relatively conservative tone before the law came into force, suggesting that they could be closed if it was not repealed.

However, as time passed and violent protests followed, the perpetrators became more aggressive. Several newspaper editors have been involved in the Sons of Liberty, such as William Bradford of the Pennsylvania Journal and Benjamin Edes of the Boston Gazette, and they have repeated the group`s sentiments in their publications. The stamp law came into effect in November and many newspapers printed their editions with black edges on the edges and columns, sometimes containing images of tombstones and skeletons, pointing out that their papers were “dead” and could no longer be printed due to the stamp law. [58] However, most of them returned in the following months, the printers were very relieved when the law was rescinded the following spring and the repeal asserted their positions as a powerful voice (and compass) for public opinion. [59] It was fortunate for America`s freedoms that newspapers were subject to high stamp duty. Printers, when influenced by the government, have generally positioned themselves on the side of freedom, and they are no less notable for paying attention to the profits of their profession. A stamp duty that openly penetrated the former and threatened a major downsizing of the latter provoked their united zealous resistance. [55] A member of the British Parliament argued that American settlers were no different from the 90% of Britain who did not own property and therefore could not vote, but were nevertheless represented “virtually” by landowner voters and representatives who had common interests with them. [5] Daniel Dulany, a Maryland lawyer and politician, refuted this in a widely circulated pamphlet by pointing out that relations between Americans and English voters were “too weak a knot to rely on” to get adequate representation, “virtually” or otherwise.

[6] Local protest groups formed correspondence committees that formed a loose coalition from New England to Maryland. Protests and demonstrations multiplied, often initiated by the Sons of Liberty and sometimes with the hanging of portraits. Very quickly, all stamp tax distributors were intimidated into giving up their commissions, and the tax was never actually collected. [7] For Grenville, the first question was the amount of tax. Shortly after announcing the possibility of a tax, he told U.S. agents that he was not opposed to americans proposing an alternative way to collect the money themselves. The only other alternative, however, would be to take over each colony and allow them to determine how to increase their share. This had never worked before, not even during the French and Indian wars, and there was no political mechanism to ensure the success of such cooperation. On February 2, 1765, Grenville met to discuss the tax with Benjamin Franklin, Jared Ingersoll of New Haven, Richard Jackson, agent of Connecticut, and Charles Garth, the agent of South Carolina (Jackson and Garth were also members of Parliament). These colonial representatives had no specific alternative to the present; They simply proposed to leave the decision to the colonies.

Grenville replied that he wanted to raise the money “with the simplest and least reprehensible means for the colonies.” Thomas Whately had drafted the Stamp Act, and he said the delay in implementation was “out of tenderness to the colonies” and that the tax was considered “the simplest, most equal and safest.” [28] Parliament advanced the Stamp Act despite the objections of the settlers. Colonial opposition to the law initially grew slowly, but gained momentum as the expected date of its implementation approached. In Virginia, Patrick Henry (1736-99), whose fiery speeches against British tyranny would soon make him famous, presented a series of resolutions to the assembly of his colony, the House of Burgesses. These resolutions deprived Parliament of the right to tax the colonies and called on the settlers to oppose the Stamp Act. The repeal of the Stamp Act did not mean that Britain was relinquishing all control over its colonies. The declaratory law, passed by Parliament on the same day the stamp law was repealed, states that Parliament can pass laws that bind the U.S. colonies “in any case.” The main problem being the constitutional rights of the English, the French in Quebec did not react. Some English-speaking merchants opposed it, but belonged to a relatively small minority. The Quebec Gazette suspended publication until the law was repealed, apparently due to reluctance to use stamped paper.

[81] In neighbouring Nova Scotia, a number of former New England residents opposed it, but younger British immigrants and London business interests based in Halifax, the provincial capital, had more influence. The only major public protest was the hanging of a portrait of the stamp dealer and Lord Bute. The law was enforced in both provinces, but the Nova Scotia stamp dealer resigned in January 1766, beset by unfounded fears for his safety. Authorities were ordered to allow ships with unstamped papers to enter their ports, and business continued unabated after merchants ran out of stamps. [82] The legislation sparked protests in Newfoundland and petitions were written not only for the Stamp Act, but also for the existence of customs in St. . .