power of colonial governments. Colonists condemned the act as an oppressive
measure introduced by an alien government.
The Sugar Act was passed in 1764 with a goal of raising £100,000, which would offset
was debts brought on by the French and Indian war. The act increased duties on
imported sugar and other items such as textiles, coffee, wine and indigo. Most
importantly the Sugar Act reduced the duty on foreign molasses by halving it to 3
pence per gallon in an attempt to stop colonists smuggling. Parliament believed that
colonists would be less likely to smuggle with the duty at a lower rate, and thus more
likely to pay which in turn would increase the income for the British government.
Americans however were used to light taxation and minimal government became
deeply angered by these measure and began to question British right to control the
colonies.
Britain next step- Stamp Act of 1765 excited not a protest but a firestorm that swept
through the colonies with amazing force. 4 This act imposed the first direct tax on the
American colonies by imposing duties on all legal and official papers, newspapers,
pamphlets and playing cards in an attempt to raise British revenue to pay for
3, 4. Bailyn Bernard, The Great Republic, Canada 1992. 227, 230
American defence. The act was met by a ferocious storm of protest, as it was a
“parliamentary tax, which directly touched American everyday affairs and exposed
the nature of political authority within the empire in a way no other issue of the
eighteenth century ever had.” 5. Colonists had never been taxed internally by Britain
before and had traditionally taxed themselves through their own colonial assemblies.
Taxation was a primary function of the self-government to which colonists so
passionately clung and so saw this act imposed by the British as a distinct threat to
their colonial liberty. Colonists reacted angrily to the stamp act when to government
passed it without any response to their petitions. They argued that parliament could
not tax anyone outside of Great Britain. It is this disagreement that would question the
constitutional relationship between Britain and the colonies and thus led to further
confrontation between the two.
In 1765 the Virginia House of Burgesses adopted a series of resolutions that
denounced parliamentary taxation and declared that only their elected representatives
had the right to raise taxation. In Boston opposition led to violence. Stamp collector
Andrew Oliver was forced to resign from his post and opposition came to a climax
when lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson‘s house was destroyed. Political
dissent became quickly organised. Groups known as the Sons of Liberty were formed
throughout the colonies to control the spread of violence. They “ emphasised the scale
of colonial resistance and set precedents for the future” 6 . Sons of Liberty took
distinct and successful measures of achieving goals by using violent demonstrations
against property, not people. In effect it was the acts of the Sons of Liberty, most
notably the boycott of British goods, which in the end led parliament to repeal the act.
5. Bailyn Bernard, The Great Republic, Canada,1992, 229
6. Bonwick Colin, The American Revolution, London 1991, 72
In March 1766 parliament finally repealed the stamp act by passing the Declaratory
Act, which reasserted parliaments authority to legislate for the colonies in all cases. In
other words, parliament insisted that colonies would not be exempt from any
parliamentary measure, including taxation. Americans however interpreted the act as
excluding taxation and so did not consider it to be a threat and it is this fundamental
disagreement that would be the source of future disagreement.
After the Stamp Act crisis American sensitivities to all forms of English taxation were
thoroughly aroused.7 With the passing of the Townshend Duties in 1767 resistance
reappeared within the colonies. John Dickinson, a Philadelphia lawyer published
Letters from a Pennsylvanian Farmer, the most popular pamphlet of the 1760’s. He
conceded that parliament could regulate trade and acknowledged that the processes
might bring in incidental revenue but denied that any duty could be imposed which
had the prime objective of producing tax. 8 In 1768 the Massachusetts assembly
issued a Circular Letter to all other legislatures. It argued that parliament derived its
authority from the constitution and could not overstep its limits and insisted that the
Townshend Duties infringed American rights since the colonists were represented not
in parliament but only in their own assemblies. 9 Parliament saw in these letters the
seeds of rebellion and reacted strongly. Lord Hillsborough, secretary of state for
American affairs ordered the Massachusetts assembly to recall the letter. The
assembly voted 92-17 in defiance of the order. Governor Francis Bernard dismissed
the assembly causing colonists to break out in anger. Boston merchants adopted a
series of non- importation agreements, under which they refused to purchase British
goods, the October arrival of two British regiments to aid the civil authorities in
7. Bailyn Bernard, The Great Republic, Canada 1992, 235
8,9 Bonwick Colin, the American Revolution 1991, 74, 75
Boston reinforced Americans worst fears as to the governments real intensions. 10
This marked the crucial turning point in the controversy: for the first time the British
government had sent a substantial number of soldiers to enforce British authority in
the colonies.11 It became obvious that collecting duties would be difficult. On 5th
March 1770 duties on glass, paper and china were repealed. However the 3-penny tax
on tea remained. By continuing at the government maintained the central principal
that parliament was entitled to levy duties.12 On the same day British soldiers fired on
a threatening crowd killing five people. The event quickly became known as the
Boston massacre and marked the peak of colonial opposition to the Townshend
duties.
In 1772, rumours were confirmed that royal governors were being paid from custom
revenue. In response Samuel Adams organised opposition by requesting every town to
set up committee of correspondence. These comities encouraged voting and
convinced colonists their rights were in danger. Reaction to the Townshend Duties
signalled the worsening of the relationship between British government and American
colonists. What Townshend and parliament had down in the revenue act was to revive
fears and resentment in a people already convinced that a plot against their liberty and
property had been hatched.13 Colonists were now aware and fed up with British
interference and an eventual confrontation now seemed inevitable.
In 1773 parliament provided the occasion for a confrontation, by granting the east
India Company the exclusive privilege of selling tea in America. Although the north
government intended this tea act only to be a means of saving the East India, it set off
10,12 Bonwick Colin, The American Revolution, London 1991, 75
11 Bailyn Bernard, The Great Republic, Canada, 1992. 236
13,Middlekauff Robert, the Glorious Cause:The American Rev 1763-80,NY,1982.151
the final series explosions.14 Colonists believed that the act left them no choice, it
forced the issue; it expressed still another claim by parliament to tax them. This claim
meant, as far as they were concerned that the English plot to enslave them had been
revived. If they went on paying the duties now that government intensions were laid
bare, they would be cooperating with the enslavers.15. Opposition came to a height on
December 1773 when a group of masked men dumped around £90,000 of tea into the
Boston harbour. “This is the most magnificent movement of all” exulted John Adams
“ this destruction of tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible and it
must have consequences, and so lasting that I cant but consider it an epocha in
history” 16.
Adams was right, the British were outraged. Wishing to establish their authority over
the colonies, parliament passed a series of Coercive Acts or Intolerable Acts as the
Americans called them. These were designed to strengthen British authority in
Massachusetts and secure colonial dependence on the crown and parliament. 17 The
Boston Port Act effectively shut down all commercial shipping in Boston Harbour
until compensation was paid for the destroyed tea. The second act altered the colonies
charter thus extending royal authority to appointed judges, local officials and selected
jurymen. The third act allowed royal officials charged with murder to be tried in
England where they would avoid a bias jury. The forth act, the Quartering act allowed
governor to take over private buildings for the quartering of troops. These Coercive
Acts were the last straw. They convinced Americans once and for all that parliament
had no more right to make laws for them than to tax them.18 The tea acts and the
14,16,18 Bailyn Bernard, The Great Republic, Canada,1992, 239, 240, 240
17, Bonwick Colin, The American Revolution, London 1991, 78
15,Middlekauff Robert, The Glorious Cause: the American rev1763-89,NY 1982.221
Coercive acts were therefore the climax of the crisis between parliament and the
colonists and were the final straw that would led to war.
In conclusion, although it is difficult to point out any singular event which led to the
American revolution, it is clear that the British attempt to impose taxes on the colonies
helped led to the revolution. British bore a heavy dept and the colonies, lightly taxed
might take over a part of the burden. 19 Therefore the financial situation of the British
government essentially caused Britain to introduce these measure thus eventually
leading to war.
19. Middlekauff Robert, The Glorious Cause:The American Rev 1763-89, NY,1982. 151
