In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
The British parliament expected some grumbling in response to the Stamp Act. Few parliamentarians anticipated the diversity and the strength of the colonial response. News of the act reached the colonies in April 1765, with the tax itself scheduled to take effect on November 1st. In that ensuing seven months there was a firestorm of debate, posturing, protest and petitioning in most of the 13 colonies. Colonial assemblymen, who often felt disregarded and snubbed by their fellow politicians in London, were furious at the apparent lack of consultation. Merchants, who had been griping about the Sugar Act for months prior, joined in the chorus of protest. Town meetings heard speakers ranging from political theorists discussing issues of representation, down to rabble-rousers predicting a whole raft of British taxation that would eventually bleed them dry. The public consensus was that if no stamps were purchased then the act couldn’t be enforced; they pledged to boycott the stamps and were, for the most part, true to their word. Some wanted to go further, a less savoury element of the crowd deciding that harassment, intimidation and violence against royal officials was the best course of action. Their actions were motivated as much by boredom, long-standing grudges, booze and yearning for a fight as much as any political ideal.
The most famous victims of these mobs – often called the ‘Sons of Liberty’, although that label is not definitive – were Andrew Oliver and Thomas Hutchinson. Oliver was the man appointed to oversee the implementation of the Stamp Act. On August 14, Oliver’s home was burgled, supplies of the stamp paper stolen and an effigy of Oliver himself was hanged and burned outside. The implied threat was too much for the ‘stamp man’ and he resigned from this office. A fortnight later there was an attack on the home of Hutchinson, the Massachusetts lieutenant-governor who was widely disliked (Samuel Adams loathed him and he was a target for some vindictive cartoonists, see picture at right). Although Hutchinson considered the Stamp Act to be a flawed policy, he nevertheless considered it legal and pledged to implement it. On August 26 a large mob gathered outside Hutchinson’s stately home in Boston. He fled for his life when the crowd smashed windows, ransacked the building and destroyed his priceless collection of books (but not before helping themselves to Hutchinson’s wine cellar). Never a supporter of democracy or popular politics, the actions of the mob embittered Hutchinson, who was to become governor of Massachusetts in 1771 with Oliver as his lieutenant. Other lower officials were victims of threats, intimidation, vandalism, arson and beatings throughout the second half of 1765, to the extent where virtually nobody wanted to be seen selling the hated tax stamps, let alone buying them.
A historian’s view: “According to General Gage, the lawyers and merchants who started the mobs in New York also became uneasy about the extraordinary power which they had called into being. Once the violence had begun, a number of demagogues appeared, not distinguished by birth or breeding and only too eager to call out the mob on any pretext. Gage thought that the better sort would have preferred to end all riots, but that they would never call in troops to suppress the mob… They must use the power of the mob to defeat the power of Parliament, but they must not allow the mob to escape from their own direction and upset the delicate balance of social classes within the colony.”
Edmund S. Morgan
Sugar Act. Parliament, desiring revenue from its North American colonies, passed the first law specifically aimed at raising colonial money for the Crown. The act increased duties on non-British goods shipped to the colonies. Currency Act. This act prohibited American colonies from issuing their own currency, angering many American colonists.
Beginnings of Colonial Opposition. American colonists responded to the Sugar Act and the Currency Act with protest. In Massachusetts, participants in a town meeting cried out against taxation without proper representation in Parliament, and suggested some form of united protest throughout the colonies. By the end of the year, many colonies were practicing nonimportation, a refusal to use imported English goods.
Quartering Act. The British further angered American colonists with the Quartering Act, which required the colonies to provide barracks and supplies to British troops.
Stamp Act. Parliament's first direct tax on the American colonies, this act, like those passed in 1764, was enacted to raise money for Britain. It taxed newspapers, almanacs, pamphlets, broadsides, legal documents, dice, and playing cards. Issued by Britain, the stamps were affixed to documents or packages to show that the tax had been paid.
Organized Colonial Protest. American colonists responded to Parliament's acts with organized protest. Throughout the colonies, a network of secret organizations known as the Sons of Liberty was created, aimed at intimidating the stamp agents who collected Parliament's taxes. Before the Stamp Act could even take effect, all the appointed stamp agents in the colonies had resigned. The Massachusetts Assembly suggested a meeting of all the colonies to work for the repeal of the Stamp Act. All but four colonies were represented. The Stamp Act Congress passed a "Declaration of Rights and Grievances," which claimed that American colonists were equal to all other British citizens, protested taxation without representation, and stated that, without colonial representation in Parliament, Parliament could not tax colonists. In addition, the colonists increased their nonimportation efforts.
By Stefanie Kunze
The Stamp Act of 1765 was ratified by the British parliament under King George III. It imposed a tax on all papers and official documents in the American colonies, though not in England.
King George III imposed a tax on official documents in American colonies
Included under the act were bonds, licenses, certificates, and other official documents as well as more mundane items such as plain parchment and playing cards. Parliament reasoned that the American colonies needed to offset the sums necessary for their maintenance. It intended to use the additional tax money to pay for war expenses incurred in Great Britain’s struggles with France and Spain.
Many American colonists refused to pay Stamp Act tax
The American colonists were angered by the Stamp Act and quickly acted to oppose it. Because of the colonies’ sheer distance from London, the epicenter of British politics, a direct appeal to Parliament was almost impossible. Instead, the colonists made clear their opposition by simply refusing to pay the tax.
Prominent individuals such as Benjamin Franklin and members of the independence-minded group known as the Sons of Liberty argued that the British parliament did not have the authority to impose an internal tax. Public protest flared and the ensuing violence attracted broad attention. Tax commissioners were threatened and quit their jobs out of fear; others simply did not succeed in collecting any money. As Franklin wrote in 1766, the “Stamp Act would have to be imposed by force.” Unable to do so, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act just one year later, on March 18, 1766.
American separatist movement grew during protest of Stamp Act
The colonists may well have accepted the stamp tax had it been imposed by their own representatives and with their consent. However, the colonists’ emerging sense of independence — nurtured by the mother country and justified by their multiple interactions with other trading nations — heightened the colonists’ sense of indignation and feelings of injustice. Even had they submitted to it, there is little doubt that many would have been troubled by the negative impact of a tax on the free press.
Scholars contend that the American separatist movement gained a great deal of influence as a result of its success in protesting the Stamp Act.
Stamp Act aftermath influenced constitutional safeguards, First Amendment
The act and the violence that erupted with its passage remained fresh in the young country’s memory. The crafters of the Constitution were careful to include safeguards against usurpations of freedom and the violence such acts could breed. Article 5 provides for a constitutional amending process, allowing for changes in the laws without resort to violent revolution.
The First Amendment secures freedom of speech, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to petition government. It also protects the freedom of the press.
This article was originally written in 2009. Stefanie Kunze has a PhD in Political Science and is a Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at Northern Arizona University. Dr. Kunze specializes in perpetrators of ethnocide, and more specifically Native American experiences with settler colonialism.
Send Feedback on this articlePage 2
Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) stands as the first U.S. Supreme Court case to expound upon the concept of academic freedom though some earlier cases mention it.
Most constitutional academic freedom issues today revolve around professors’ speech, students’ speech, faculty’s relations to government speech, and using affirmative action in student admissions.
Although academic freedom is regularly invoked as a constitutional right under the First Amendment, the Court has never specifically enumerated it as one, and judicial opinions have not developed a consistent interpretation of constitutional academic freedom or pronounced a consistent framework to analyze such claims.