Massachusetts appointed a corresponding five-member committee in June 1764 to coordinate actions and exchange information on the Sugar Act, and Rhode Island formed a similar committee in October 1764. This attempt at unified action represented a significant step forward in colonial unity and cooperation. The House of Burgesses of Virginia sent a protest against the taxes to London in December 1764, arguing that they did not have the means to pay the tax. [45] Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Connecticut also sent protests to England in 1764. The content of the messages varied, but they all stressed that taxing settlements without colonial consent was a violation of their rights. By the end of 1765, the thirteen colonies, with the exception of Georgia and North Carolina, had sent out a kind of protest, which was passed by the colonial legislatures. [46] Politicians in London always expected American colonists to share the cost of their own defense. As long as there was a French threat, there was little difficulty in convincing colonial legislators to provide aid. This assistance was usually provided through the creation of colonial militias, financed by taxes levied by colonial legislators. In addition, legislators were sometimes willing to help maintain regular British units to defend the colonies. As long as this kind of aid was provided, there was little reason for the British Parliament to impose its own taxes on the colonists.
But after the peace of 1763, the colonial militias were quickly crushed. The militia officers were tired of the contempt shown to them by the regular British officers and were frustrated by the almost impossible possibility of obtaining regular British commissions; They were not ready to remain in service after the end of the war. In any case, they had no military role, because the Indian threat was minimal and there was no foreign threat. Colonial legislators saw no need for British troops. Descriptions of the Stamp Act that appear in U.S. textbooks often reduce the content to a brief summary. Brief attention is paid to taxes levied on official documents, playing cards, brochures and newspapers. It is sometimes pointed out that many of these taxes were relatively insignificant.
Massachusetts Governor Francis Bernard believed his colony`s delegates to Congress would support the legislature. In particular, Timothy Ruggles was Bernard`s husband and was elected president of the congress. Bernard`s Ruggles instruction was to “recommend submission to the Stamp Act until Parliament can be persuaded to repeal it.” [95] Many delegates believed that a final resolution of the Stamp Act would bring Britain and the colonies closer together. Robert Livingston of New York stressed the importance of removing the Stamp Act from public debate and wrote to his colony`s representative in England: “If I really wanted to see America in a state of independence, I would like the Stamp Act to be applied as one of the most effective means of that end.”[96] In Frederick, Maryland, a court of 12 magistrates declared the Stamp Act invalid on November 23, 1765, and ordered colonial societies and officials to proceed in all cases without using stamps. A week later, a crowd simulated a funeral procession for the crime through the streets of Frederick. The justices were called the “12 Immortal Judges” and November 23 was declared “Day of Repudiation” by the Maryland State Legislature. On October 1, 2015, Senator Cardin (D-MD) read a statement in the minutes of Congress in which 2015 was considered the 250th anniversary of the Assembly of Congress. The anniversary of the event was noted. Among the 12 judges was William Luckett, who later served as a lieutenant colonel in the Maryland militia at the Battle of Germantown. Many newspapers adopted a relatively conservative tone before the law went into effect, suggesting they could be shut down if it was not repealed.
However, over time and violent protests, the perpetrators have become increasingly vicious. Several newspaper editors were involved with the Sons of Liberty, such as William Bradford of the Pennsylvania Journal and Benjamin Edes of the Boston Gazette, and they repeated the group`s sentiments in their publications. The stamp law came into force in November, and many newspapers printed their issues with black borders 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 because of the stamp law. [58] However, most of them returned in the following months. appear provocative without the authorization stamp deemed necessary by the Stamp Act. The printers were greatly relieved when the law was repealed the following spring and the repeal affirmed their position as a powerful voice (and compass) for public opinion. [59] The debate in the colonies had indeed begun in the spring of 1764 over the Stamp Act, when Parliament passed a resolution declaring that “it might be appropriate to levy certain stamp duties in the said colonies and plantations in order to continue to cover the said expenses.” The main purpose of the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act was to increase the income of the settlers. The Sugar Act was largely a continuation of the previous laws which mainly concerned the regulation of trade (called external tax), but its stated purpose was entirely new: to collect income directly from the settlers for a specific purpose. The novelty of the Stamp Act was that it was the first domestic tax (a tax based solely on activities within the colonies) levied directly on the colonies by Parliament.
The settlers felt it was a more dangerous attack on their rights than the Sugar Act, because of its potential application to the colonial economy. [40] William Pitt stated in the parliamentary debate that everything done by the Grenville Department was “completely false” with regard to the colonies. He continued: “I believe that this kingdom has no right to impose a tax on the colonies.” Pitt always retained “the authority of this realm over the colonies to be sovereign and sovereign, in all situations of government and legislature,” but he distinguished himself that taxes were not part of governance, but “a voluntary gift and a grant from the House of Commons alone.” He dismissed the notion of virtual representation as “the most despicable idea that has ever entered the mind of man.” [105] In the midst of economic hardship in the colonies, the stamp law met with fierce opposition. Although most settlers continued to accept Parliament`s power to regulate their trade, they insisted that only their representative assemblies could levy direct domestic taxes imposed by the Stamp Act. They reject the British government`s argument that all British subjects are effectively represented in Parliament, even if they cannot vote for MPs. Under the law, obligations, licenses, certificates, and other official documents were included, as well as more mundane items such as ordinary parchment and playing cards. Parliament held that the American colonies would have to compensate for the sums necessary for their maintenance. He intended to use the extra taxpayers` money to cover the war costs incurred in Britain`s battles with France and Spain. Most printers were critical of the stamp law, although there were some loyalist voices.
Some of the more subtle loyalist sentiments can be seen in publications such as the Boston Evening Post, which was run by British sympathizers John and Thomas Fleet. The article describes a violent demonstration that took place in New York City in December 1765, then describes the participants in the uprising as “imperfect” and describes the group`s ideas as “contrary to the general feeling of the people.” [56] These loyalist beliefs can be seen in some of the earliest newspaper articles on the Stamp Act, but anti-British writings were more widespread and seem to have had a stronger impact. [57] Arguing that only their own representative assemblies could tax them, the settlers insisted that the law was unconstitutional and used mob violence to intimidate stamp collectors into resigning.