Stamp Act Dbq

well the very first reaction to the Stamp Act was led by the Merchants and their wives said James. well,see Boston Merchants had previously Mounted tax protest in 1764 which were efficiently boycotts of many British ‘finished goods’ that had to be Important from England Said James. oh yeah and didn’t they also boycotted goods like Satin,lace and ruffles asked Willie?

The colonialist hated the Stamp Act because the act was a was a direct tax that was unavoidable. Every paper document was taxed within the colonies. This new act would force the colonist to provide a stamp on all paper documents in order for the documents to be valid. The Stamp Act caused bitter resentment within the colonies because the settlers were not used to paying for this form of taxation. Before the Stamp Act, income was raised through trade.

In March of 1766, Britain annulled the burdensome Stamp Act, because of the great resistance. The ordinance had to be enforced on the first of November in 1765. However, only a few stamps were sold. Moreover, the spreaders of these marks were prosecuted by furious colonials, which opposed such regime. The opposition to the Stamp Act was depicted in different ways.

The date was March 22, 1765, the Stamp Act had just been passed, and the colonies were outraged. One Massachusetts family in particular was discussing it. The Miller family had a complex view about the Stamp Act. The mother, Maribeth was a patriot, and hated the stamp act, the father, George however, still disliked the Stamp Act, but this made his job very difficult, for he owned a mail and delivery system. The older, sixteen year old daughter, May was very rebellious against her parents, and thought the Stamp Act was very necessary, and because of this, she didn’t get along well with her family, since they were patriots, and because of her father’s job.

This surprised the British government. The colonists even threatened tax collects forcing them to quit their jobs or to even leave the colonies. Protests spread into the streets and groups like the Sons of Liberty encouraged the colonists to boycott British products. These boycotts soon hurt British businesses in the colonies. The British government was forced to repeal the Stamp Act.

Parliament’s unpopular passage of the Sugar Act and Quartering Act came with little backlash from the colonists when in comparison to the Stamp Act (Schultz, 2011, p. 69). The colonist’s profound response was (1) because the Stamp Act placed a tax on goods used by those of higher education like merchants and lawyers rather than just layman; (2) because the tax was also passed in March and did not go into effect until November of 1765, which gave colonists an ample amount of time to organize against it; and (3) because the imposed tax was to pay the salaries of colonial officials rather than to regulate trade, which was a clear undermining of the colonial self-rule and an indication that Parliament was attempting to limit colonists’ liberties (Schultz, 2011, p. 69). Themed as “no taxation without representation,” colonists convened the Stamp Act Congress in October 1765 in which they vocalized their opposition to the tax. Most colonists called for a boycott of British goods, and some organized attacks on customhouses and homes of tax collectors (History.com Staff, 2009).

The enforcement of boycotts created violence in the colonies, and drew more British soldiers. Militias were established

As the taxes angered more and more of the colonists they began to boycott. Boycotting British goods and even ending trade with America could greatly hurt the economy in Britain. The merchants relied on the trade with America. During the war of 1812 America tried to end British trade using an embargo. This was not as effective because Britain's economy was stronger.

The Sugar and Stamp Acts were enacted by the British government in an attempt to raise funds to pay off massive debts acquired from the Seven Years war. At the end of the Seven Years war in 1763, the British national debt had doubled and led British politicians to find an alternate source of revenue. The Sugar Act of 1764 lowered the import tax on French molasses, making it more feasible for shippers to pay the import taxes. The act also stiffened the penalty for smuggling and allowed British naval crews to board any suspicious ship and act as customs officials. These measures were meant to deter smugglers and boost import tax revenue.

The effect of the Stamp Act crisis was the Virginia Resolves which stated that anyone who approved the taxation of Virginia was an enemy of the colony. The British government also imposed their troops onto the colonists’ lands, placing four regiments of regular troops in the city. The troops often looked for jobs during off-duty in which created competition for the locals. The effect of this was the Boston Massacre which was British troops shooting into a crowd of Boston laborers. In the perspective of the colonists, the British comes in and tries to take what is theirs, imposes taxes for a war the colonists didn’t even ask Britain to interfere with, sends their troops which the colonist has to maintain and care for even though their taking their jobs thus, leaving little to no jobs left for the locals, then after getting fed up with the fact that Britain is controlling a land that isn’t theirs, they protest in which causes the same British troops that took their jobs and to enter their homes to shoot into a crowd that was weaponless.

Seeing this as highly unfair, they took action and started to boycott merchandise from Britain. This led to the Restraining Acts 1775. These two acts basically banned the boycotts that were going on. Britain passed these acts as a response to the boycotts in Massachusetts and the overall boycotts of the colonies.

The British merchants had some problems of their own. Their imports to the colonies had declined by one-third, but soon rebounded back to its former level. They did not desired to deal with future issues, so they pushed to stop the Townshend duties (Fonder,

After the French and Indian War, Britain needed money to pay for the war debts. So, they decided that to raise money they can tax the colonists for lead, glass, paper, tea, and much more. Many acts were passed that said that the colonists have to pay for certain goods. The colonists thought that Britain did not have the right to tax them. So, they started protesting, boycotting, and many things that can have negative effects for the British.

In the spring of 1769, Virginian gentry initiated a boycott against British goods. Although not initially popular, boycotting importation of foreign goods both in 1769 and 1774 provided double-fold opportunity for Virginian. First, Virginians struggled against the Coercive Act set forth by Parliament. Banning importation of goods aided in the elimination of the oppressive laws. Similarly, nonimportation did not allow Virginian gentry to satisfy their lavish British lifestyle, thus, providing an opportunity for Virginian gentry to lower their debt.

The British were low on money from the French and Indian war, so Charles Townshend decided place a duty, or tax, on certian goods the colonies imported from Great Britain. Glass, paint, paper, and tea were a few of the taxed items. The colonists were not happy that they were getting taxed without their consent. Sameul Adams helped convince the colonies to start a boycott. Women played a very important part in the boycott.