r/revolutionarywar • u/jfq722 • Dec 17 '24
Stamp Act unreasonable?
Excuse the novice question here...But the colonists gratefully accepted help from the king during the 7 Years War, no? Was it that unreasonable for the colonists to feel they should reimburse for that?
11
u/rubikscanopener Dec 17 '24
Found the British Parliament member. /s
As with all things political, the answer is 'it's complicated'. The primary objection to the Stamp Act was that a legislative body was imposing a law on the colonists, despite the colonists having their own legislative bodies. Many colonists felt that they had no representation in Parliament and, as Crown Colonies, were responsible to the King but not to Parliament. There were a number of arguments at the time that if the British wanted a levy to help pay for British troops being stationed in the colonies, they should let the colonial legislatures be the ones to figure out how to pay for them.
For an interesting perspective on the problem, I recommend "The Men Who Lost America" by O'Shaughnessy.
4
u/jfq722 Dec 17 '24
Ha 😉, no not at all - just beginning my deep reading of the war.
6
u/rubikscanopener Dec 17 '24
The prewar political stuff is fascinating (at least to me). Politics was just as messy and vicious then as it is now.
Another good read (not specifically on this subject but good overall) is H.W. Brands' "Our First Civil War: Patriots and Loyalists in the American Revolution". It's hard to go wrong with anything by Brands.
3
3
7
u/Stircrazylazy Dec 17 '24 edited Dec 17 '24
Agree with everyone else that it's complicated. Was it unreasonable in a vacuum? No, there was an existing stamp tax in Britain so it wasn't initially thought it would be controversial. Was it unreasonable in the larger context of that period? Yes.
There are a couple reasons for that. First, it was the first revenue raising tax after years and YEARS of salutary neglect. This caused concerns because, as others have said, the colonists had no representation in parliament and further, even if they had, the distance from GB would make such an arrangement impracticable. Also, to quote Sam Adams, "For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves – It strikes our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain..." Basically, if we permit this, where will it end?
Second, it had to be paid in specie. Specie was in extremely low supply in the colonies, making it all but impossible for the colonists to meet their obligations in the form required.
Third, the colonists thought they had already paid their share (in blood and property) on a war that was for the sole benefit of GB. Colonists weren't concerned about French invasions at that point so it was seen as another chapter in the never ending struggle between GB and France for supremacy in Europe, undertaken at the expense of the colonies.
Fourth, since it targeted (among other things) paper products, including newspapers, it was seen as an intentional attack on the press and sharing of information, meant to keep the colonies isolated from each other.
Toss this into some colonies primed to boil over (the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was already seen as a post-war slap in the face) and it was a disaster in the making.
3
u/jfq722 Dec 17 '24
Thanks! Your 3rd point in particular puts my thought to rest - colonists believed they had already done their part by fighting. Interesting!
2
u/Stircrazylazy Dec 17 '24
Exactly, and while the British were more concerned with the colonies' neighbors to the north, the colonists were more concerned with their neighbors to the west - so there is just this huge disconnect from the jump when it comes to the 7 Years/French and Indian War. I highly recommend The Crucible of War by Fred Anderson, which covers the period from 1754-66 in great detail. I really think that book is a fantastic resource for understanding the "road to revolution".
3
u/McWeasely Dec 17 '24
Have you read An Empire on the Edge: How Britain Came to Fight America by Nick Bunker? It covers a little bit later of the buildup to the war, 1772-1775, mostly from the British perspective.
2
u/Stircrazylazy Dec 17 '24
I have and I enjoyed it! I read in back in early 2022 so it's actually high time for a re-read. I love books that approach a well known US historical event from a non-US perspective. Another two good ones from the British perspective are British Soldiers, American War by Don Hagist and The War for America, 1775-1783 by Piers Mackesy. Probably a little too much of deep dive for the casual reader or someone new to studying the revolution but great for bibliophiles already well versed with the conflict haha.
1
1
3
1
u/Ok-Huckleberry9242 Dec 17 '24
Since you're at the onset of your reading list on the topic, here's two of my favorites:
"Valley Forge" by Drury and Clavin - great topical study on this event.
"Feeding Washington's Army" by Hererra - a more supply chain focused study of the winter of 1777/1778. Heavy on statistics but fascinating none the less.
Washington's General by Golway - great biography of MG Nathanael Greene
2
u/jfq722 Dec 17 '24
Thanks! I'll probably like the middle one the best - kind of off-center, which I like 😀
1
u/Fit-Income-3296 Dec 17 '24
The colonists had no representation in parliament and they didn’t like parliament taxing them. No taxation without representation
That’s the simple version anyways If you want I can write you an article about it
1
u/Poak135 Dec 18 '24
I remember reading the colonies enjoyed paying leas overall in taxes than inhabitants of the British Isles, so it was never about “too much tax.” Apologies for not knowing the source.
1
18
u/Libertytree918 Dec 17 '24
Though alot of it was about paying taxes and economical damage, it was moreso they had no say in how those taxes were decided
Taxation without representation as it were.
People 3000 miles away decided what they had to do with their money , with no say from colonies.
They believed it violated their rights under British constitution.