AMERICA:
1763-1776
Colonial Opposition to
the Stamp Act
In late summer 1765, a group of Boston
artisans, shopkeepers, and businessmen formed a group known as the Loyal Nine
to oppose the Stamp Act. The Loyal Nine planned to lead the public in forcing
stamp distributors, who alone could collect money for stamped paper, to resign
before taxes were due on November 1, 1765.
Bostonians were in the habit of congregating
in large groups to express themselves politically. On certain festival days it
was not uncommon for large crowds from the North End and South End of the city
to converge upon each other, throwing stones and whatever else they could find,
and engaging in rowdy fistfights. The Loyal Nine, in an effort to harness the
power of both groups, oversaw a truce between the two groups, which were united
under the leadership of a South End shoemaker, Ebeneezer MacIntosh.
On the morning of August 14, 1765, Bostonians
awoke to find an effigy of stamp collector Andrew Oliver hanged from a tree.
Oliver did not take the hint to resign immediately, so at dusk, MacIntosh led
several hundred men in destroying a new building that Oliver owned. At this
point the Loyal Nine disappeared, and the mob moved on without their
controlling influence. They demonstrated outside Oliver's house,
"stamping" his effigy to pieces. They then ransacked his house,
destroying it. Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson arrived with the sheriff
driving off the mob with a barrage of stones. Oliver resigned.
Violence was contagious in the colonies.
Twelve days later, Hutchinson's home was destroyed as well. Violence next
struck in Newport, Rhode Island, where a crowd organized by local merchants
grew beyond control. The crowd burned effigies and destroyed the homes of three
stamp distributors, and then turned against the merchants. A sailor named John
Webber assumed control, and threatened to destroy the merchants' homes and
warehouses if they did not pay an enormous sum. He was caught and jailed before
any destruction took place.
Political dissent became organized quickly.
Groups calling themselves the Sons of Liberty formed throughout the colonies to
control the widespread violence. They directed violent demonstrations against
property rather than individuals, and ensured that no one was killed. They
forbade their followers to carry weapons, and used military formations to
maneuver large crowds. On October 7, 1765, representatives of nine colonial
assemblies met in New York City, at the Stamp Act Congress. The colonies agreed
widely on the principles that Parliament could not tax anyone outside of Great
Britain, and could not deny anyone a fair trial, both of which had been done in
the American colonies.
By late 1765, most stamp distributors had
resigned, and legal and business proceedings only continued because the
colonial legislatures threatened to withhold the salaries of those in a
position to halt them. By the end of 1765, almost every colony was functional,
without stamped paper.
By this point, social and political elites had
assumed leadership of the colonial opposition to the Stamp Act. On October 31,
1765, New York's merchants decided to boycott British goods, and they were soon
joined by other cities. This move put the British economy, which exported about
40 percent of its manufactures to America, in considerable danger. Soon Britain's
businessmen were clamoring for the repeal of the Stamp Act.
In mid 1765, the Marquis of Rockingham had
succeeded Prime Minister Grenville. He hesitated to advocate repeal and offend
the House of Commons, which was outraged and resentful of colonial resistance.
However, led by William Pitt, support for repeal grew. In March 1766 Parliament
finally repealed the Stamp Act, and passed the Declaratory Act, which stated
that Parliament had the authority to legislate for the colonies in all cases.
Commentary
It was not surprising that Boston emerged as
the center of resistance to the Stamp Act. In 1765, Bostonians were not living
particularly well. The port city, which relied on trade, had been substantially
hurt by British restrictions--more so than other cities in the colonies.
Moreover, in 1760 the city suffered a great fire that burned nearly 200
warehouses down and left ten percent of the city's population homeless. By
1765, the city had still not completely recovered. The majority of the
population blamed British policy for the continued hard times that followed theFrench and Indian War. Additionally, the
Boston town meeting was known for its somewhat radical views on
self-government. Many of the most vociferous critics of Parliament, including
James Otis and Samuel Adams, lived in Boston.
It is therefore understandable that the first
demonstrations against the British took place in Boston. It is also
understandable that the primary feature of the so-called Stamp Act crisis,
organized political action, would have risen up in Boston. The formation of the
Loyal Nine was the first step on a road to what would eventually become unified
thinking and action spanning the colonies. Without organization, violence would
have been without direction, as it was in the incident in Rhode Island. The
Loyal Nine took the first step in channeling the power of the people, uniting
two groups that would otherwise have been antagonistic toward each other, and directing
that energy against a common foe. This sort of coalition building would prove
crucial in the years to come as political leaders went about uniting the
thirteen distinctive colonies in resistance.
From its beginnings in the Loyal Nine,
grass-roots political organization took on even more sophistication with the
leadership of the Sons of Liberty. Now, instead of simply pointing the masses
in the right direction, the movement had goals, and the Sons of Liberty took
distinct and successful measures to achieve those goals. Also, they exhibited a
firm control over their followers that demonstrated an acute knowledge of
social and political realities. For instance, they did not want to alienate
elites with overly violent and disorganized mob tactics. Therefore they used
the utmost discipline and did not permit their followers to carry guns. Knowing
the value of martyrs, they decided early on that the only lives lost during the
resistance would be American.
Without the organization of the Sons of
liberty, elites would never have bought into the resistance. However, seeing
that the masses were capable of controlled political expression, politicians
and businessmen alike decided that they should join the opposition and lead it
to an even more sophisticated, more publicly visible plane. These elites
reigned in the scattered demonstrations of the masses, fearing that passion and
turmoil would lead the opposition to an early death. It was the actions of the
elites, most notably the boycott of British goods, which in the end led
Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act.
Because the Declaratory Act's wording was
vague, colonists chose to interpret it to their advantage. They saw it as a way
for Parliament to save face after the Stamp Act had failed, and did not
consider it to be a threat. However, Parliament chose to interpret the act
broadly, to mean that the colonies could not claim exemption from any
Parliamentary measure, including taxation. This fundamental disagreement would
be the source of much future disagreement.
Despite the difficulties of 1765, most
colonists soon put the year's strife behind them, and thanked king and
Parliament for repealing the Stamp Act. The vast majority of the colonists
still felt a deep emotional loyalty to Britain, but after 1765, they viewed the
government in London with a higher level of scrutiny.
REFERENCE
Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American
Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard UP, MA: 1967.
Brown, Richard D., ed. Major Problems in the Era of the
American Revolution 1760 - 1791. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co.,
1992.
Cook, Don. The The Long Fuse; How England Lost the
American Colonies, 1760 - 1785. New York: The Atlantic Monthly Press,
1995.
Darling, Arthur B. Our Rising Empire 1763 - 1803. New
Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1940.
Egerton, H.E. The Causes and Character of the American
Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923.
Gipson, Lawrence H. The Coming of the Revolution. New
York: Harper and Row, 1954.
Greene, Jack P. Understanding the American Revolution:
Issues and Actors.Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1995.
Karpalides, Harry J. Dates of the American Revolution. Shippensburg,
PA: Burd Street Press, 1998.
Knollenberg, Bernhard. The Origin of the American
Revolution 1759 - 1766. New York: Collier Books, 1961.
Lecky, William E.H. The American Revolution 1763 - 1783. New
York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898.
Miller, John C. Origins of the American Revolution. Stanford,
CA: Stanford UP, 1943.
Edmund S. Morgan. The Birth of the Republic 1763 - 89. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1956.
Wahlke, John C. The Causes of the American Revolution. D.C.
Heath and Co., Lexington, MA: 1973
Ward, Harry M. The American Revolution: Nationhood
Achieved 1763 - 1788. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995.
Social Plugin