Further tension came in 1765 with the Stamp Act and the Sugar Act. It was the Stamp Act that caused the most unease. This was a tax levied on the paper required for legal transactions and on newspapers, it created a lot of problems, Firstly, the policy of limiting westward expansion that it was intended to help fund was not popular in the colonies. Secondly, it was the first direct taxation to be imposed on the colonies from London. Finally, the act made the Americans feel they had no control and that Parliament in London had control over them. Combined with a boycott of British goods, the riots caused by the Stamp Act caused the fall of the government of Lord Grenville. The new government of Lord Rockingham repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, but at the same time passed a Declaratory Act saying that Parliament had overall control of the colonies, so was this really the best outcome?
The next attempt by the British to raise money was the Revenue Act of 1767. This was a scheme based on indirect taxes on trade, organised across all of the colonies by a board of commissioners. It was suggested that the proceeds could fund both the armed forces needed on the borders. The government had reasonable grounds to expect that this new approach would be accepted. During the unrest over the Stamp Acts the Americans had accepted the validity of indirect taxation; however it faced controversy, on both sides of the Atlantic. In Britain protest came from merchants whose exports were being taxed and then boycotted. In America the Revenue Act aroused deep concern. The talk of a civil list made the Americans feel that the Act was designed to allow complete authority from Britain. The more radical voices of the colonists were able to link the Declaratory Act and the Revenue Act and create a British plot to destroy colonial liberties. The Revenue Act was commonly held to have overstepped the laws that limited the authority of Parliament.
The blocking of imports, as a result of the spread of lawlessness, convinced American opinion that resistance to the Revenue Act was threatening society. On 5 March 1770 a Boston mob attacked soldiers guarding the customs house, the soldiers stood firm, until one was knocked down by the rioters at which point the soldiers were allowed to fire, killing five rioters ('Boston Massacre'). While some radical campaigners saw this as a sign of what they saw as the brutality of British rule, much colonial opinion was repulsed by the actions of the mob. A conservative reaction in New York meant that by the end of the summer of 1770 New York abandoned non-importation, which soon collapsed across the colonies, leaving only an unwillingness to drink taxed tea.
This unwillingness to drink taxed tea was felt most by the British East India Company. They needed a scheme for disposing of the Company's Tea surplus. Previously, East India Company tea had to imported into England, where it paid 1s tax before being exported to American by English middlemen, who paid a further 3d. They were now given permission to sell direct to the American colonies, paying only the 3d duty. This new policy worried the radicals in the Americas, The boycott on Tea was the only protest against British rule that was still effective, and there was a great fear amongst the radicals that this new cheap tea would end that boycott. Boston was seen as a weak point. Too well policed for smuggling, they were afraid that if tea was landed here, it would be drunk across the colonies, breaking the boycott. On 16 December 1773 a group of Boston radicals, dressed as Indian braves, dumped thousands of pounds worth of tea into the harbour, a protest immortalised as the Boston Tea Party. The British reaction to this was critical. A low-key response could have calmed the situation, but instead Lord North decided on confrontation, the reactions were to create a series of acts, called the 'coercive' or 'intolerable', these were passed in an attempt to restore order in Boston. The port was to be closed until the lost tea had been paid for; the governor was given the power to transfer trials across to Britain and Boston was made to provide barracks for troops inside the town.
At the same time news of the Quebec Act reached the Americas, this was a response to the problem facing in Canada, of ruling a largely French population. It allowed for tolerance of French Catholicism, even giving the Catholic majority a place on the new Canadian council. Canada's borders were also expanded to include parts of Illinois and Detroit. In the thirteen colonies this act caused great hostility. Once again westward expansion had been blocked. Worse, at least as far as New England was concerned, was the tolerant attitude to Catholicism. The colonial response was the first Continental Congress, which met in Philadelphia in September 1774.
When this Congress met it demanded the repeal of all colonial legislation passed since 1763. Until this demand was agreed to, Congress agreed to block all imports and exports to and from Britain other than those crops which the southern states depended on, to refuse to pay any taxes to Britain and to prepare to resist any British troops. However, the Congress did not at this stage want independence. Despite this, conflict was now inevitable. In British eyes Congress was an illegal body, not to be dealt with. Even so, opinion was split on how to respond to American discontent. In November George III was already certain that there would be fighting, but there were still conciliatory voices in Parliament. In America, General Gage, now Governor of Massachusetts as well as commander in chief of the British forces in North America, warned that the discontent was widespread and requested large-scale reinforcements, but back in Britain the scale of the trouble was not yet appreciated. Lord North was not alone in seeing Massachusetts as the heart of the problem, then in April 1775 that idea hit home by the first fighting.
I feel that the most important factor leading up to the war of independence was the meeting of congress, although it is seen as only a small issue this was the first time that the colonies had united against the British as a collective, and it would have been far more intimidating for the British to have to face a united 13 colonies that one at a time, I feel that it is this is why Conflict began, each state knew it had the backing of the other 12 states so they would have been more inclined to start fighting against the British.
