essay on stamp act

Kia ora - welcome to our new website. We've tried to ensure old links will redirect to the correct pages, but some links may no longer work. Find out more .

About us Mō mātou

About the Ministry of Health and the New Zealand health system. 

Quick links

• Consultations

New Zealand’s health system

• Government Policy Statement
• Health system roles and organisations
• Overview and statutory framework
• Vote Health

Organisation and leadership

• Chief clinical officers
• Executive Governance Team
• Ministry directorates
• Public Health Agency
• Statutory roles

Corporate publications

• Annual reports
• Briefings to incoming Ministers
• Health and Independence reports
• Mental health annual reports
• Strategic intentions
• Current vacancies
• Employee benefits
• Information for job applicants

Regulation & legislation Ngā here me ngā ture

Health providers and products we regulate, and laws we administer.

• Legislation we administer
• Rest home audit reports

Assisted dying

Certification of health care services, drug checking, health practitioners competence assurance act, medicinal cannabis, medicines control, mental health and addiction, notifiable diseases, pharmacy licensing, psychoactive substances, smoked tobacco, vaping, herbal smoking and smokeless tobacco, strategies & initiatives he rautaki, he tūmahi hou.

How we’re working to improve health outcomes for all New Zealanders.

Health strategies

• New Zealand Health Strategy
• Health of Disabled People Strategy
• Pae Tū: Hauora Māori Strategy
• Rural Health Strategy
• Te Mana Ola: The Pacific Health Strategy
• Women’s Health Strategy

Programmes and initiatives

• Gambling harm
• Health workforce
• Mental health, addiction and suicide prevention
• Pacific health
• Smokefree 2025

Māori health Hauora Māori

Increasing access to health services, achieving equity and improving outcomes for Māori.

• Subscribe for Māori health updates

Ao Mai te Rā anti-racism initiative

Māori health models, te tiriti o waitangi framework, wai 2575 health services and outcomes inquiry, whakamaua: māori health action plan, statistics & research he tatauranga, he rangahau.

Data and insights from our health surveys, research and monitoring.

• New Zealand Health Survey
• Health targets

System monitoring

• Mental health and addiction targets
• Planning and performance data
• New Zealand Gambling Survey
• Past surveys

Statistics and data sets

• Māori health data and statistics
• Mental health data and statistics
• Obesity data and statistics
• Suicide data and statistics
• Tobacco data and statistics
• COVID-19 and immunisation research projects
• Gambling harm research and evaluation
• Our role in health research

Cabinet material: Repealing the Therapeutic Products Act

These documents have been proactively released by the Ministry of Health on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health, Hon Casey Costello.

These papers progress commitments in the National-ACT New Zealand and National-New Zealand First coalition agreements to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act.

Titles of Cabinet papers:

• Repealing the Therapeutic Products Act
• Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill: Approval for Introduction

Titles of minutes:            

• Report of the Cabinet Social Outcomes Committee: Period Ended 3 May 2024 (CAB-24-MIN-0154)
• Repealing the Therapeutic Products Act (SOU-24-MIN-0032)
• Progressing the Government's Commitment to Repeal the Therapeutic Products Act 2023: A Proposed Reset for Health Product Regulation (CAB-MIN-0065)
• Report of the Cabinet Legislation Committee: Period Ended 21 June 2024 (CAB-24-MIN-0224)
• Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill: Approval for Introduction (LEG-24-MIN-0122)

Some parts of this information release would not be appropriate to release and, if requested, would be withheld under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act). Where this is the case, the relevant sections of the Act that would apply have been identified. Where information has been withheld, no public interest has been identified that would outweigh the reasons for withholding it.

Key to redaction codes:

• Out of scope of this proactive release.
• S 9(2)(f)(iv) to maintain the constitutional conventions that protect the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers and officials.
• Document download Cabinet material: Repealing the Therapeutic Products Act (CAB-24-MIN-0154) ( pdf , 1.18 MB )
• Document download Cabinet material: Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill Approval for Introduction LEG (CAB-24-MIN-0224) ( pdf , 1.17 MB )
• email Email
• print Print
• chat Feedback

© Ministry of Health – Manatū Hauora

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• What are the American colonies?
• Who established the American colonies?
• What pushed the American colonies toward independence?
• When did the American colonies declare independence?
• How does taxation relate to government revenue?

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University - Stamp Act of 1765 (1765)
• World History Encyclopedia - Stamp Act
• United States History - Stamp Act
• American Battlefield Trust - Stamp Act of 1765
• National Endowment for the Humanities - The History of the Stamp Act Shows How Indians Led to the American Revolution
• Stamp Act - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• Stamp Act - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)

Stamp Act , (1765), in U.S. colonial history, first British parliamentary attempt to raise revenue through direct taxation of all colonial commercial and legal papers, newspapers, pamphlets, cards, almanacs, and dice. The devastating effect of Pontiac’s War (1763–64) on colonial frontier settlements added to the enormous new defense burdens resulting from Great Britain’s victory (1763) in the French and Indian War . The British chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir George Grenville , hoped to meet at least half of these costs by the combined revenues of the Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act, a common revenue device in England.

Completely unexpected was the avalanche of protest from the colonists, who effectively nullified the Stamp Act by outright refusal to use the stamps as well as by riots, stamp burning, and intimidation of colonial stamp distributors. The Sons of Liberty formed in the summer of 1765 to oppose the act and destroyed the stamps wherever they encountered them. In addition to tarring and feathering stamp agents, the Sons of Liberty sacked homes and warehouses of the wealthy, whom they presumed were favourites of the royal governors. Colonists passionately upheld their rights as Englishmen to be taxed only by their own consent through their own representative assemblies, as had been the practice for a century and a half. In the set of resolutions against the act that he created for the town of Braintree , Massachusetts, John Adams wrote

We have called this a burdensome tax, because the duties are so numerous and so high, and the embarrassments to business in this infant, sparsely settled country so great, that it would be totally impossible for the people to subsist under it, if we had no controversy at all about the right and authority of imposing it…We further apprehend this tax to be unconstitutional. We have always understood it to be a grand and fundamental principle of the constitution that no freeman should be subject to any tax to which he has not given his own consent, in person or by proxy .

In addition to nonimportation agreements among colonial merchants, the Stamp Act Congress was convened in New York (October 1765) by moderate representatives of nine colonies to frame resolutions of “rights and grievances” and to petition the king and Parliament for repeal of the objectionable measures. Because they were more conservative in their response to the act than colonial legislatures had been, some of the delegates to the congress refused to sign even the moderate petitions that resulted from their gathering, which was the first intercolonial congress to meet in America. In spite of the petitions’ mildness, Parliament rejected them.

Bowing chiefly to pressure (in the form of a flood of petitions to repeal) from British merchants and manufacturers whose colonial exports had been curtailed, Parliament, largely against the wishes of the House of Lords , repealed the act in early 1766. Simultaneously, however, Parliament issued the Declaratory Act, which reasserted its right of direct taxation anywhere within the empire, “in all cases whatsoever.” The protest throughout the colonies against the Stamp Act contributed much to the spirit and organization of unity that was a necessary prelude to the struggle for independence a decade later.

Stamp Act Resistance

Written by: bill of rights institute, by the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain how British colonial policies regarding North America led to the Revolutionary War

Suggested Sequencing

Use this Narrative with The Boston Massacre Narrative and The Boston Tea Party Narrative following the Acts of Parliament Lesson to show the growing tensions between England and the colonies.

British prime minister George Grenville wanted the colonists to pay the cost of stationing British troops on the North American frontier after the French and Indian War. To raise the money, the Stamp Act of 1765 imposed taxes on almanacs, legal documents, newspapers, playing cards – in fact, every kind of printed paper document in the colonies – and even dice. The colonies had been paying relatively low imperial taxes under the Navigation Acts and enjoyed the benefits of imperial trade networks, thus becoming very prosperous. The new act, named for the official stamp verifying that the tax had been paid, reversed a decades-long British policy sometimes called salutary neglect, which allowed the colonists to govern themselves without much interference. It also affected the daily lives of nearly all in the colonies. A broad spectrum of people, from wealthy merchants to ordinary artisans, loudly resisted taxation without representation as a matter of an ancient constitutional principle.

(a) Under the Stamp Act, anyone who used or purchased anything printed on paper had to buy a revenue stamp for it. (b) The Stamp Act protests took many forms, including this mock stamp which reads, “An Emblem of the Effects of the STAMP. O! the fatal STAMP.”

Colonists learned of the impending Stamp Act in late 1764 and immediately petitioned the king and Parliament in protest. The Virginia House of Burgesses claimed the rights of Englishmen under the Magna Carta and argued it was a “fundamental principle of the British constitution . . . that the people are not subject to any taxes but such are laid on them by their own consent.” The burgesses asserted that the violations of their natural and traditional rights made them “slaves of Briton” – an ironic statement coming from slave-owning planters.

In April 1765, the colonists learned that the king had ignored their petitions and approved the Stamp Act. On May 29, Patrick Henry proposed several controversial resolutions in the House of Burgesses that stirred up a lively debate. The burgesses voted for the first four resolutions, which claimed the rights of Englishmen and declared Virginians would tax and govern themselves as a matter of justice. Thomas Jefferson, then a student at the College of William and Mary, observed the “most bloody debate” over the more contentious fifth resolution, which stated that the “General Assembly of this colony have the only and sole and exclusive right and power to lay taxes,” and that any attempt by Parliament to tax the colonies “has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom.” The following day, when Henry warned against tyrants, moderate members leaped to their feet, yelling, “Treason!” Despite the verbal fireworks, the fifth resolution passed by a single vote. It was revoked the next day, however, after Henry rode out of Williamsburg.

Peter F. Rothermel painted Patrick Henry Before the Virginia House of Burgesses (1851) nearly one hundred years after Henry’s speech denouncing the Stamp Act. How has the artist romanticized this moment in history?

Colonial newspapers raised the stakes by falsely reporting that the fifth resolution was still law. The Newport Mercury and Maryland Gazette printed the even more radical sixth and seventh resolutions, which Henry had evidently not presented to the House of Burgesses. The sixth asserted that colonists were “not bound to yield obedience to any law or ordinance whatsoever designed to impose any taxation whatsoever upon them.” The seventh warned that anyone who supported the Stamp Act was “an enemy to this his majesty’s colony.” Colonists were electrified by the boldness of what they read.

On the morning of August 14, Boston protesters hanged an effigy of Andrew Oliver, a Massachusetts government official responsible for enforcing the Stamp Act, from a “liberty tree.” Thousands of angry Bostonians then paraded the effigy through the town and tore down Oliver’s “Stamp Office” building. That night, using wood from the destroyed building, they marched to Oliver’s home and built a bonfire. They decapitated the effigy and threw it into the fire before attacking Oliver’s home. Oliver resigned the next day. On the night of August 26, a mob of artisans, laborers, and sailors dismantled the home of Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson, plundering valuables while shouting “Liberty and property!” to protest the Stamp Act and taxation without consent.

No one was ever brought to trial for the August riots in Boston. Similar threatening actions occurred across the colonies as stamp collectors were forced to resign. Irate citizens burned effigies, tore down collectors’ homes, and even began the process of burying one collector alive until he relented and resigned his office. The protestors began calling themselves the Sons of Liberty.

In October, twenty-seven delegates from nine colonies met in New York to decide on a unified response to British taxes. At this Stamp Act Congress, the delegates issued a declaration of rights, asserting, “It is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives.” Many colonial merchants agreed not to import British goods, applying pressure by pinching the profits of British merchants and manufacturers. Aided by British merchants who then petitioned the king and Parliament to rescind the taxes, members of the colonial resistance persuaded the new British ministry to repeal the Stamp Act. Parliament, however, also passed the Declaratory Act, insisting that it had the right to legislate for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.”

With Parliament firmly declaring its authority over the colonies while many colonists were encouraged by their successful resistance, the stage seemed set for future conflict. Other outcomes remained possible, however. Would the British allow the colonial legislatures to tax themselves and contribute to the cost of Empire, as had been the custom? The colonists were generally satisfied, loyal subjects who wanted to remain part of the British Empire. Could they moderate their actions? From the vantage point of 1766, the course of imperial relations seemed impossible to predict.

Review Questions

1. Which of the following would not have been taxed by the Stamp Act?

• Legal documents
• Quills and wax for sealing
• Playing cards

2. What was the purpose of the Stamp Act?

• To test the limits of the colonists’ tolerance of abuse and tyranny
• To punish the colonies for their rebellious, destructive, and violent actions
• To demonstrate clearly that the colonies were still subject to the will of Parliament and the king despite salutary neglect
• To increase revenue and help defray the cost of keeping British soldiers on the frontier after the Seven Years’ War

3. What does “taxation without representation” mean?

• The colonies were taxed directly by the king rather than by representatives in Parliament.
• The colonists did not elect the representatives in Parliament who passed the tax.
• The tax was applied to all colonies equally without regard for the opinion of their representation in Parliament.
• The tax was enforced despite the colonies’ protests and petitions.

4. Which colony was the first to organize a legislative protest against the introduction of the Stamp Act?

• Massachusetts
• South Carolina

5. The Stamp Act overturned the policy of salutary neglect, which for years had

• allowed the colonists to govern themselves without too much interference
• asserted Britain’s right to legislate for the colonies in any jurisdiction
• forbade the colonists to settle west of the Appalachian Mountains
• enabled American Indians to become naturalized British citizens after a waiting period

6. Which of the following is the most accurate statement about the Sons of Liberty?

• They strictly adhered to the laws passed by Parliament and encouraged others to do the same.
• They encouraged and orchestrated protests that sometimes included the burning of effigies and destruction of property.
• They protected the tax collectors and held fast that the rule of law allowed people to be free.
• They were self-appointed delegates who met to discuss possible peaceful responses to the king and Parliament.

7. Which of the following does not describe a significant effect of the Stamp Act Congress?

• It was one of the first intercolonial cooperative congressional bodies.
• Its plea to the king contributed to the successful repeal of the Stamp Act.
• Its Declaration of Rights formed a basis for later colonial protest.
• It represented a turning point in history when the colonists united in their resolution to separate from Great Britain.

Free Response Questions

• Explain how the British, given their views of the relationship with British North America, believed themselves justified in imposing the Stamp Act on the colonies.
• Explain why the colonists reacted as they did to the Stamp Act. What was the basis of their argument, and what were they trying to achieve?

AP Practice Questions

“The members of this Congress, sincerely devoted, with the warmest sentiments of affection and duty to His Majesty’s Person and Government . . . esteem it our indispensable duty to make the following declarations of our humble opinion, respecting the most essential rights and liberties Of the colonists, and of the grievances under which they labour, by reason of several late Acts of Parliament. . . . That His Majesty’s liege subjects in these colonies, are entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great-Britain. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives. That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great-Britain. That the only representatives of the people of these colonies, are persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been, or can be constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective legislatures. . . . Lastly, That it is the indispensable duty of these colonies, to the best of sovereigns, to the mother country, and to themselves, to endeavour by a loyal and dutiful address to his Majesty, and humble applications to both Houses of Parliament, to procure the repeal of the Act for granting and applying certain stamp duties. . . .”

Stamp Act Congress, October 19, 1765

1. Which of the following statements best describes the purpose of the Stamp Act Congress as demonstrated by the excerpt?

• To develop a plan for declaring independence from the British government
• To create rules and procedures for enforcing the tax fairly throughout the colonies
• To develop a unified plan for protesting the unjust Stamp Act throughout the colonies
• To write petitions to King George III and Parliament calling for the repeal of the Stamp Act

2. The Stamp Act Congress based its grievances on which of the following principles?

• Parliament’s relationship to the citizens of England is similar to the colonial legislature’s relationship with the British colonies.
• The king’s relationship to the citizens of England is similar to the colonial legislature’s relationship to the British colonies.
• The prime minister’s relationship to the citizens of England is similar to the colonial governors’ relationship to the British colonies.
• The General Assembly’s relationship to the citizens of England is similar to the colonial governors’ relationship to the British colonies.

3. Which of the following best describes the way the English tradition of rights shaped colonial resistance to the Stamp Act?

• The Stamp Act stripped certain citizens of their rights, which was taken as an offense against all colonists.
• The Stamp Act was viewed as an impediment to self-government, which the practice of salutary neglect had encouraged.
• The Stamp Act meant the colonies no longer benefitted economically from British rule, and thus the colonists’ rights were injured.
• The Stamp Act was permitted under the English tradition of taxing those whose rights are protected, which the colonists disagreed with.

“Q. Do you think it right that America should be protected by this country, and pay no part of the expense? A. That is not the case. The Colonies raised, cloathed and paid, during the last war, near 25000 men, and spent many millions. . . . Q. Do you not think the people of America would submit to pay the stamp duty, if it was moderated? A. No, never, unless compelled by force of arms. . . . Q. What was the temper of America towards Great-Britain before the year 1763? A. The best in the world. . . . Q. And what is their temper now? A. O, very much altered. Q. Did you ever hear the authority of parliament to make laws for America questioned till lately? A. The authority of parliament was allowed to be valid in all laws, except such as should lay internal taxes. It was never disputed in laying duties to regulate commerce. Q. In what light did the people of America use to consider the parliament of Great-Britain? A. They considered the parliament as the great bulwark and security of their liberties and privileges, and always spoke of it with the utmost respect and veneration. . . . Q. And have they not still the same respect for parliament? A. No; it is greatly lessened.”

Benjamin Franklin Testimony in the British House of Commons, 1766

4. A historian might use the excerpt provided to support

• the gradual shift toward colonial resistance to Great Britain’s ruling government after the French and Indian War
• a successful example of unbiased and direct testimony from a witness
• the evolution of colonial fashion and style as distinct subset of British culture
• the diverging use of language as the colonists tried to distinguish themselves from the British

5. Which of the following best describes the response to the excerpt provided?

• Encroachment of imperial rivals on colonial territory in the Southeast
• Prohibition of settlements west of the Appalachian Mountains
• Increased British legislation that introduced direct taxes on the colonists
• Heightened levels of patriotism throughout the colonies after the Seven Years’ War

6. Which of the following groups would most likely support the sentiments and viewpoints provided in the previous answers?

• American Indians

Primary Sources

“The resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress, October 19 1765.” American History. University of Groningen. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1751-1775/the-resolutions-of-the-stamp-act-congress-october-19-1765.php

Revere, Paul. A View of the Obelisk under Liberty-Tree in Boston on the Rejoicings for the Repeal of the Stamp Act (1766), engraving. Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2003690787/

Virginia Resolves, May 1765. http://www.constitution.org/bcp/vir_res1765.htm

Suggested Resources

Archer, Richard. As If an Enemy’s Country: The British Occupation of Boston and the Origins of Revolution . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Beeman, Richard R. Patrick Henry: A Biography . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.

Maier, Pauline. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776 . New York: Norton, 1972.

Meade, Robert Douthat. Patrick Henry: Patriot in the Making. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1957.

Morgan, Edmund S. and Helen M. Morgan. The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953.

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

The Stamp Act of 1765

March 22, 1765 — History of No Taxation Without Representation

The Stamp Act was passed by Parliament in 1765 to raise money from the 13 Original Colonies. It required printers and publishers to buy stamps and place them on many legal documents and printed materials in the American colonies, increasing the cry of "No Taxation Without Representation" — a direct cause of the American Revolution and the War for Independence.

George Grenville, Prime Minister of Britain, proposed the Stamp Act to raise money from the colonies to help pay Britain’s debt and to fund a standing army in Colonial America. Image Source: American History Central Digital Illustration.

Stamp Act Summary

The Stamp Act of 1765 was an act of Parliament that levied taxes on the American colonies for the purpose of raising revenue for the British Treasury. The bill received Royal Assent from King George III on March 22, 1765, and went into effect on November 1.

It required publishers and printers to buy stamps for all legal documents and printed materials in the American colonies, including newspapers, pamphlets, and even playing cards.

Prime Minister George Grenville and Parliament needed the money to help pay for the army in North America that protected the western frontier of the colonies Although the Grenville Ministry and Parliament believed the army was necessary, many Americans did not agree. The Sugar Act had already upset Americans because it hurt the economy, and colonial leaders were certain the Stamp Act would make things worse.

Rumors of the Stamp Act caused trouble in the colonies. Americans were afraid of more taxes and the idea of “ taxation without representation ” upset them. The Stamp Act Crisis developed in the colonies — an intense political and social movement against Parliament and British colonial policy.

Americans protested with pamphlets, just like they had done to voice their displeasure with the Sugar Act. Some of the colonial legislatures passed resolutions against the Stamp Act and American merchants refused to order products from British merchants.

In October 1765, the colonies took a bold step toward unification and held the Stamp Act Congress , which produced a document called the Declaration of Rights and Grievances that challenged the authority of Parliament. The Stamp Act Crisis also led to the formation of a secret organization that caused riots, vandalized property, and harassed British officials — the Sons of Liberty.

Ultimately, British officials feared for their safety and did not widely enforce the Stamp Act. The lack of enforcement and complaints from British merchants over lost revenue forced Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act. Unfortunately, the damage to the relationship between Britain and its colonies along the East Coast of North America was significant and helped lead to the American Revolution and the War for Independence.

Stamp Act Causes

The direct cause of the Stamp Act was Parliament’s desire to force the American Colonies to help pay part of the cost of a standing army in North America after the French and Indian War was over. However, the causes of the Stamp Act go far beyond that one simple idea, and the roots are found in how England and, later, Britain, used laws and policies to control the economy of the colonies.

The Navigation Acts

Before 1763, most of the laws Parliament passed to govern the American Colonies dealt with two things. First, Parliament controlled when, where, and how merchants could ship goods and products by imposing a complex system of taxes, fees, and fines. Second, Parliament restricted the manufacturing of certain products in the colonies — like hats — in order to protect manufacturers located in England and Ireland.

The laws, which are known as the Navigation Acts , were based on the economic concept of Mercantilism . In the Mercantile System, the colonies existed to provide natural resources for manufacturers in the Mother Country and to provide a market for merchants in the Mother Country to sell finished products to. The Navigation Acts regulated shipping to ensure valuable raw materials went to Britain, kept Americans from making their own products and forced Americans to buy from British merchants.

The one thing the Navigation Acts did not do was raise revenue simply to line the coffers of the British Treasury. The taxes, fines, and fees associated with them were meant to encourage Americans to comply with the shipping laws, but American merchants were innovative. They found ways around the laws and conducted trade with other nations, especially plantations in the West Indies.

Americans thought they were doing good business, finding the best products at the best prices, which allowed colonial merchants to flourish. However, British officials saw the violations as smuggling — the illegal transportation of goods.

Salutary Neglect Allows Colonial Merchants to Flourish

Britain only complicated the relationship with colonial merchants through an unwritten policy called Salutary Neglect . Salutary Neglect is defined as a policy of the British government under which trade laws and government supervision were not strictly enforced on the American Colonies – they were neglected – by the government and customs officials.

Salutary Neglect was practiced up until 1763 , which allowed colonial merchants to flourish, which also benefited British merchants. As Americans prospered, they were able to purchase more products from British merchants.

Britain was also involved in significant wars in Europe, and the British government needed to focus its attention on those events. The reality is, that it was almost necessary to leave the Americans alone because there was very little Britain could do to enforce compliance with trade laws. There were no customs officials in the American Colonies, or very few, and it was impossible to check every shipment made by an American vessel.

A Standing Army in North America

After the French and Indian War, the situation changed. In the 1763 Treaty of Paris , France ceded most of its territory in North America to Britain. Parliament decided to leave a standing army of around 10,000 soldiers in the colonies to help defend the new territory from foreign armies and hostile Native American Indian tribes.

Parliament decided to force the colonies to help pay for some of the costs of the army. However, colonists were not convinced the army was needed. In fact, they feared the presence of the army. It is very important to understand that up until the late 18th century, standing armies controlled by the government were viewed as a threat by most people.

This is when the trouble with the American Colonies started.

The Sugar Act Sets the Stage for the Stamp Act

Parliament’s first attempt to raise money from the colonies was the Sugar Act of 1764 . The Sugar Act was similar to the Navigation Acts because it taxed shipments of goods and products. The Sugar Act actually lowered the tax on molasses but added taxes to other popular goods, like sugar and coffee, that were often imported from foreign manufacturers. However, the Sugar Act marked a significant change in Parliament’s policies toward the American Colonies because it was passed for the purpose of raising revenue from the colonists.

The Sugar Act also included provisions that required British customs officials to start enforcing the Navigation Acts and gave commanders of ships in the Royal Navy the authority to stop merchant vessels to check their cargo. The Sugar Act also provided financial rewards to customs officials and naval officers for accusing merchants of smuggling. The Sugar Act made it easy to collect the reward because trials of accused smugglers were held in the Vice-Admiralty Courts. In those courts, decisions were made by a judge, not a jury. If the trial was held in a court where the judge was a British official then the American merchant was usually found guilty of smuggling, regardless of the evidence.

In passing the Sugar Act, Parliament did three important things, all of which contributed to how Americans would respond to the Stamp Act.

• It levied taxes on the colonies to raise money.
• It ended the unwritten policy of Salutary Neglect.
• It violated the right of Americans accused of a crime to have their case heard in a trial by a jury of their peers.

Americans responded to the Sugar Act in two ways.

First, they started writing pamphlets and newspaper articles that criticized Parliament and the provisions of the Sugar Act. Those writings laid the foundation for the idea of “No Taxation Without Representation” and brought men like James Otis , Samuel Adams , and Stephen Hopkins into the spotlight as leaders of the Patriot cause.

Second, some merchants joined together to form trade boycotts against British merchants. American merchants simply refused to buy goods from British merchants. Although it was an effective tactic, and one reason the Sugar Act was eventually repealed, the effort was not well-coordinated between the colonies, or even between major cities in the colonies.

Soon after the Sugar Act went into effect, Parliament was working on another law that would raise revenue from the colonies — the Stamp Act.

Effects of the Stamp Act — The Stamp Act Crisis

News of the Stamp Act arrived in the American Colonies in the spring of 1765 and was met with immediate outrage, even though it would not go into effect until November 1.

What upset the colonists about the Stamp Act was it went beyond the idea of taxing shipments of goods and products and introduced a direct tax on Americans throughout the colonies, not just merchants.

Printers and publishers were affected, as were their customers, who had to pay higher prices for newspapers, playing cards, and legal documents.

The Virginia Resolves

Colonial legislatures responded to the Stamp Act by passing resolutions that condemned Parliament for levying new taxes without their consent. The most famous of those resolutions are the Virginia Resolves, which were written by Patrick Henry .

The Sons of Liberty

Outside of the legislatures, Americans continued to write pamphlets and newspapers in protest of British taxation. However, the people took things further and started to hold violent protests that turned into riots. The most significant riots took place in Boston and New York, and much of the public opposition to the Stamp Act was coordinated by a new organization that called itself the Sons of Liberty . The Sons of Liberty were also responsible for helping to organize additional trade boycotts.

The Stamp Act Congress

In October, merchants and politicians — many of whom were also embers of the Sons of Liberty — met in New York City to discuss how the colonies could respond to Parliament and the King. The idea was to create a single, unified response that represented the interests of the colonies as a whole.

It was the first time the colonies had done such a thing on their own. In 1754, something similar had been done with the Albany Congress, but that meeting had been called by the British Board of Trade.

This meeting in New York City, known as the Stamp Act Congress, was the first time the colonies had decided to call such a meeting on their own. As a result, some governors thought the meeting was illegal and even bordered on treason, so they refused to send delegates.

Although only 9 of the 13 colonies sent delegates, the meetings produced the first unified challenge to Parliamentary authority in colonial history. Congress produced a document called the Declaration of Rights and Grievances that challenged the authority of Parliament to levy taxes on the colonies without the consent of the colonial legislatures.

The Leedstown Resolves and the Westmoreland Association

In February 1766, planters in Westmoreland County, Virginia signed the Leedstown Resolves . The document established the Westmoreland Association, which successfully prohibited the enforcement of the Stamp Act. Unlike the Sons of Liberty, the Westmoreland Association was a formal organization.

Outcome of the Stamp Act

Parliament was shocked by the reaction of the colonies and also received criticism from British merchants, who suffered due to the boycotts. Parliament succumbed to pressure from the British merchants and repealed the Stamp Act on March 18, 1766. However, Parliament asserted its authority to pass laws to govern the colonies as it saw fit by passing the Declaratory Act on the same day.

Impact of the Stamp Act

The impact of the Stamp Act was significant because it led Americans to stand up to Parliament politically, socially, and economically. Most important was that it led the colonies to start communicating with each other on a more consistent, organized basis. The organized communication contributed to the colonial legislatures taking a stand against Parliament, the Stamp Act Congress, and the rise of the Sons of Liberty as forces of resistance against British policies governing the American Colonies.

Stamp Act Significance

The Stamp Act is important to United States history because it was a cause of the American Revolution, created the Stamp Act Crisis, and led to the Stamp Act Congress. The protests over the Stamp Act also led to the formation of groups known as the Sons of Liberty. Those groups communicated with each other and coordinated their efforts through Committees of Correspondence. Over time, many leaders of the Sons of Liberty rose to prominence as leaders of the American Revolution.

Stamp Act Primary Documents

• Stamp Act of 1765 (full text)
• Stamp Act Repeal
• Stamp Act Congress, Declaration of Rights and Grievances
• Massachusetts Circular Letter Proposing the Stamp Act Congress
• Virginia Stamp Act Resolves — May 29, 1765
• Rhode Island Stamp Act Resolves — September 15, 1765
• Pennsylvania Stamp Act Resolves — September 21, 1765
• Massachusetts Stamp Act Resolves — October 29, 1765
• New York Merchants Non-Importation Agreement — October 31, 1765
• South Carolina Stamp Act Resolves — November 29, 1765
• New Jersey Stamp Act Resolves — November 30, 1765
• Connecticut Sons of Liberty, Resolutions on the Stamp Act, December 10, 1765
• Written by Randal Rust

Home — Essay Samples — History — Colonialism — Stamp Act

Essays on Stamp Act

The stamp act, a trigger for the american revolution, how the stamp act pushed the american revolution, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Stamp Act Provisions Pertaining to Immovable Property

The stamp act - an act of the parliament of great britain, colonist resistance in the french and indian war, review of the book "a people's history of the united states", let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

On The Stamp Act of 1765: a Pivotal Moment in American History

British America and the British West Indies

George Grenville

Stamp Act was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain which imposed a direct tax on the British colonies in America to raise revenue through taxation of all colonial commercial and legal papers, newspapers, pamphlets, cards, almanacs, and dice. The act came at a time when the British Empire was deep in debt from the Seven Years' War (1756-63).

Parliament passed the Stamp Act on March 22, 1765 and repealed it in 1766. The act was passed to help replenish their finances after the costly Seven Years’ War with France. The Stamp Act was very unpopular among colonists.

The Sons of Liberty formed in the summer of 1765 to oppose the act and destroyed the stamps. Determined colonial resistance made it impossible to bring the Stamp Act into effect. In 1766, Parliament repealed it.

Relevant topics

• Christopher Columbus
• Louisiana Purchase
• The Columbian Exchange
• Colonialism Phenomenon
• Exploration
• Great Depression
• Industrial Revolution

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

How the Stamp Act Riots Laid the Groundwork for the Revolutionary War

By: Christopher Klein

Updated: March 18, 2024 | Original: August 14, 2015

Andrew Oliver could have been excused if he didn’t feel very welcome in his hometown of Boston. After awaking on August 14, 1765, the wealthy 59-year-old merchant and provincial official learned that his effigy was hanging from a century-old elm tree in front of Deacon Elliot’s house. After dusk, angry Bostonians paraded Oliver’s likeness through the streets and destroyed the brick building he had recently built along the waterfront. In case Oliver still hadn’t received the hint, the mob beheaded his effigy in front of his finely appointed home before throwing stones through his windows, demolishing his carriage house and imbibing the contents of his wine cellar.

Oliver had become the public’s enemy after news arrived from England weeks earlier that he would be responsible for the local implementation of a reviled law imposed by the British government—the Stamp Act .

What Was the Stamp Act?

Approved by Parliament on March 22, 1765, the measure imposed a tax on all printed materials for commercial and legal use—including wills and deeds, newspapers, pamphlets and even playing cards—as a means to pay for the deep debt Great Britain had incurred protecting the American colonies from French and Native American forces during the Seven Years’ War , which ended in 1763. The Stamp Act also denied offenders a trial by jury because colonists had a habitual tendency to find their smuggling peers not guilty.

The Stamp Act was the first direct tax on internal commerce, rather than a duty on external trade goods, imposed on the American colonies, and it had colonists who believed that only their own representative assemblies could levy direct taxes in an uproar. When news of the Stamp Act arrived in May, newly elected Patrick Henry railed against the law in the Virginia House of Burgesses and led the adoption of the radical Virginia Resolves, which denied the right of an unrepresentative Parliament to tax the colonies.

Violence Erupts in Boston

In Boston, opposition moved from fiery rhetoric to inflamed violence, fanned by a secret organization known as the Loyal Nine. The clandestine group of artisans and shopkeepers printed pamphlets and signs protesting the tax and incited the mob that ransacked Oliver’s house.

The Stamp Act commissioned colonial distributors to collect a tax in exchange for handing out the stamps to be affixed to documents, and Oliver, without his knowledge, had been appointed the distributor for Massachusetts. The day after his property had been destroyed, Oliver resigned a position he never asked for and one he never held, since the Stamp Act wasn’t due to take effect until November 1.

The resignation, however, didn’t douse the violent protests in Boston. On August 26, another mob attacked the home of Oliver’s brother-in-law—Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson. The rioters stripped the mansion, one of the finest in Boston, of its doors, furniture, paintings, silverware and even the slate from its roof.

The Sons of Liberty Become a Force

Similar riots broke out in seaports from Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to Savannah, Georgia, and forced the resignations of crown-appointed officials. Mobs turned away ships arriving from Great Britain with stamp papers. The Loyal Nine expanded and became known as the Sons of Liberty , which formed local committees of correspondence to keep abreast of protests throughout the colonies.

In October, delegates from nine colonies traveled to New York to attend the Stamp Act Congress, which drafted a “Declaration of Rights and Grievances” that affirmed that only colonial assemblies had the constitutional authority to tax the colonists. Merchants in seaports such as Boston, New York and Philadelphia united to boycott British imports, which prodded British merchants to lobby for the Stamp Act’s repeal.

The intimidation campaigns and boycotts worked. When November 1 arrived, the mass resignations of the stamp distributors impeded the administration of the tax. In many parts of the colonies, printers proceeded with business as usual. When it proved impossible to implement the Stamp Act, Parliament repealed it almost a year to the day after it had approved it. However, it also passed the Declaratory Act to reaffirm its authority to pass any legislation impacting the colonies.

When news of the Stamp Act’s repeal reached Boston in May, the Sons of Liberty returned to the elm tree from which they had dangled Oliver’s likeness, this time to hang celebratory lanterns, not effigies, from its mighty boughs. Every year on August 14, the Sons of Liberty gathered under the shade of the elm, which they christened the “ Liberty Tree ,” to commemorate the 1765 protest.

Revolutionary War Breaks Out

The issue of taxation without representation continued to fray the relations between the American colonies and the mother country over the next decade until war broke out in 1775. During that summer, British soldiers and Loyalists under siege in Boston took axes to the Liberty Tree and chopped it into firewood. Although the tree was missing when the patriots returned to Boston after the British evacuation, they still gathered around its stump on August 14, 1776, to commemorate the protest from 11 years earlier that was one of the first rebellious steps on the path to revolution.

The Sons of Liberty also never forgot Andrew Oliver, whose reputation improved little among Boston’s patriots after becoming lieutenant governor in 1770. When Oliver passed away four years later, a Sons of Liberty delegation was at his graveside to give three cheers as his coffin was lowered into the ground.

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Visit the new and improved Hamilton Education Program website

• AP US History Study Guide
• History U: Courses for High School Students
• History School: Summer Enrichment
• Lesson Plans
• Classroom Resources
• Spotlights on Primary Sources
• Professional Development (Academic Year)
• Professional Development (Summer)
• Book Breaks
• Inside the Vault
• Self-Paced Courses
• Browse All Resources
• Search by Issue
• Search by Essay
• Become a Member (Free)
• Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
• Program Information
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Applying and Enrolling
• Eligibility (In-Person)
• EduHam Online
• Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
• Official Website
• Press Coverage
• Veterans Legacy Program
• The Declaration at 250
• Black Lives in the Founding Era
• Celebrating American Historical Holidays
• Browse All Programs
• Donate Items to the Collection
• Search Our Catalog
• Research Guides
• Rights and Reproductions
• See Our Documents on Display
• Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
• Interactive Exhibitions Online
• About the Transcription Program
• Civil War Letters
• Founding Era Newspapers
• College Fellowships in American History
• Scholarly Fellowship Program
• Richard Gilder History Prize
• David McCullough Essay Prize
• Affiliate School Scholarships
• Nominate a Teacher
• State Winners
• National Winners
• Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
• Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
• George Washington Prize
• Frederick Douglass Book Prize
• Our Mission and History
• Annual Report
• Contact Information
• Student Advisory Council
• Teacher Advisory Council
• Board of Trustees
• Remembering Richard Gilder
• President's Council
• Scholarly Advisory Board
• Internships
• Our Partners
• Press Releases

History Resources

A report on the reaction to the Stamp Act, 1765

A spotlight on a primary source by archibald hinshelwood.

Adverse colonial reaction to the Stamp Act ranged from boycotts of British goods to riots and attacks on the tax collectors. In this letter, Archibald Hinshelwood, merchant and rising politician from Nova Scotia, described his impressions of the Stamp Act and of the resulting colonial unrest: “There is a violent spirit of opposition raised on the Continent against the execution of the Stamp Act, the mob in Boston have carried it very high against Mr. Oliver the Secry (a Town born child) for his acceptance of an office in consequence of that act. They have even proceeded to some violence, and burnt him in effigy &c.” Despite the evidence of hostility in the colonies to the south, Hinshelwood was hoping to be appointed a tax collector in Halifax. Although the Stamp Act occurred eleven years before the Declaration of Independence, it defined the central issue that provoked the American Revolution: no taxation without representation.

A full  transcript  is available.

There is a violent spirit of opposition raised on the Continent against the execution of the Stamp Act, the mob in Boston have carried it very high against Mr. Oliver the Secry (a Town born child) for his acceptance of an office in consequence of that act. They have even proceeded to some violence, and burnt him in Effigy &c. They threaten to pull down & burn the Stamp Office now building, and that they will hold every man as Infamous that shall presume to carry the Stamp Act into Execution; so that it is thought M r . Oliver will resign. I don’t find any such turbulent spirit to prevail among us, if it should, the means are in our Hands to prevent any tumults or Insults; what the consequences may be in the Colonies who have no military force to keep the rabble in order, I cannot pretend to say.

Questions for Discussion

Read the introduction, view the image of the letter, and read the transcript. Then apply your knowledge of American history as well as the content of the document to answer the following questions:

• Why did the English government impose the Stamp Act?
• What job did Archibald Hinshelwood hope to obtain?
• How did Mr. Hinshelwood expect the reaction to the English taxes by colonists in Halifax, Nova Scotia, would differ from the reaction of colonists in Boston, Massachusetts?
• Why did many American colonists strongly object to the Stamp Act?
• According to the events described by Mr. Hinshelwood, how did the Bostonians react to the imposition of the Stamp Act?

A printer-friendly version is available  here .

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter..

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

Server Costs Fundraiser 2024

The Stamp Act of 1765 was the first direct tax imposed on the 13 American colonies by the Parliament of Great Britain . It required the colonists to pay a tax on all printed materials including newspapers, legal documents, magazines, and playing cards. This triggered a wave of resistance across the colonies and helped spark the American Revolution (c. 1765-1789).

At the end of the French and Indian War (1754-1763), as the North American theater of the Seven Years War is often called, the belligerent powers signed the Treaty of Paris of 1763. While most of the colonial territories captured during the war were returned to their previous owners, there were several notable exceptions: the vanquished Kingdom of France, for instance, was forced to cede Canada and all its North American holdings east of the Mississippi River to its victorious rival, Great Britain. This greatly expanded Britain’s colonial territory in North America but also came with a new set of problems, particularly regarding defense. The ink on the peace treaty was barely dry when a steady stream of American colonial settlers began trickling into the newly won lands between the Appalachian Mountains and Mississippi River. It did not take long for these settlers to begin fighting with the displaced Native American nations who lived there.

A Royal Proclamation issued in October 1763 that forbade American colonists from settling this region went largely ignored; conflict between white settlers and native peoples escalated into the bloody Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763-1764). Though the native revolt was crushed by the end of 1764, the destructiveness of the conflict convinced Parliament that new steps would have to be taken for the defense of the American colonies. It was decided, therefore, that a standing army of 10,000 British regulars would be dispatched to keep the peace in North America. The maintenance of such an army was estimated to cost an annual £200,000, an expense that Parliament could ill-afford, as it was grappling with mountains of postwar debt. A new source of revenue would have to be found and, since the money was going toward the defense of the American colonies, many in Parliament believed it only fair that the colonists themselves footed part of the bill.

Passage of the Stamp Act

Although the Sugar Act outraged the colonial merchant class, the level of overall protest remained low, as the tax did not affect the every-day American. But by mid-1764, rumors began circulating that Grenville meant to implement another tax on paper documents, which would affect more colonists than the previous molasses duties. Colonial anxieties continued to rise over what Grenville’s new tax would entail and, on 2 February 1765, four agents representing the colonies met with Grenville in London to find out. The agents, who included the already famous Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) of Philadelphia, told Grenville that the colonies were worried about the forthcoming Parliamentary tax, and that the colonial assemblies preferred to tax themselves. If the colonies lost this ability, the fear was that Parliament would inadvertently subvert the institutions of representative government in America, since royal governors would no longer have a reason to convene the colonial assemblies. Grenville recognized the colonists’ concerns but expressed his belief that the Americans had to help pay for their own defense; since the agents had not presented a viable alternative plan, Grenville decided to go ahead with the vote.

On 6 February 1765, Grenville brought his resolution before the House of Commons. Unlike the Sugar Act, which Parliament had passed without opposition, there was lively debate surrounding the proposed Stamp Act. Describing the Americans as “children planted by our care,” and “nourished up by our indulgence,” Charles Townshend asked his fellow MPs why the colonists should be allowed to refuse to shoulder the financial burden of their own defense. To this, the Anglo-Irish Colonel Isaac Barre issued a dynamic reply:

They planted by your care? No! Your oppression planted them in America. They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated and unhospitable country – where they exposed themselves to almost all hardships to which human nature is liable…They nourished up by your indulgence? They grew by your neglect of them: as soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over them…to spy out their liberty, to misrepresent their actions and to prey upon them; men whose behavior on many occasions has caused the blood of these Sons of Liberty to recoil within them (Middlekauff, 79).

The oratory of Colonel Barre and his compatriots was impressive but was not enough to stop the stamp bill from receiving its first reading on 13 February. The opposition asked to introduce several petitions from the colonies of Massachusetts, Virginia, and Connecticut, but the House of Commons refused to hear them. The bill was approved in the House of Commons by a vote of 245-49 and was passed unanimously in the House of Lords. On 22 March, George III of Great Britain (r. 1760-1820) affixed his royal signature to the bill, and the Stamp Act became law . It was set to go into effect on 1 November 1765.

The Stamp Act & Its Controversy

While the unpopular Sugar Act had been a tax on trade, the Stamp Act was the first direct tax imposed by the Parliament of Great Britain on the American colonies. It required that all paper documents – including wills, marriage licenses, legal contracts, diplomas, newspapers, calendars, almanacs, and playing cards – carry stamps, which were representative of the tax. The stamps would be distributed by political appointees, and could only be purchased with British hard currency, as opposed to the American paper currency that was more plentiful in the colonies. Anyone caught violating the act was to be subjected to a vice admiralty court; in other words, they would not be tried by a jury of their peers but by a judge appointed by the Crown.

To understand why the Stamp Act was so outrageous, one must first understand the differing viewpoints that the colonists and Parliament held regarding the American identity. Certainly, in 1765, both the colonists themselves and Parliament would have agreed that the colonists were Britons; after all, the colonists were subjects of King George III and part of the broader British Empire. However, the colonists believed that as Britons, they had retained the rights of Englishmen even in the New World, including the right to tax themselves; this idea of representation was one of the basic pillars from which Parliament derived its authority. For this purpose, the American colonists had raised their own colonial legislatures. Parliament, however, saw things differently; while the Americans enjoyed the rights of Britons, they were no different than the 90% who owned no land and could therefore not vote in Britain. Parliament claimed to virtually represent the interests of the colonists who should, after all, be subject to the same mandates that affected the rest of the king’s far-flung subjects.

So, the Stamp Act, and the Sugar Act before it, were protested based around the belief that Parliament had no authority to tax the colonies because the colonists had no representatives in Parliament. This idea of ‘no taxation without representation’ became one of the building blocks of the American Revolution. It was championed early on by prominent colonists like Samuel Adams (1722-1803) of Boston, who warned that the imposition of a Parliamentary tax without the colonists’ consent would transform the Americans from “the character of free subjects to the miserable state of tributary slaves” (Schill, 73).

The Colonies React

The colonies received the news that the Stamp Act had passed in early April, and for six weeks no colonial legislature appeared eager to take the lead in challenging it. For the Virginia House of Burgesses , it appeared that the tax would not be discussed and, as the legislative session wound down at the end of May, most of the legislators set out for home. Only 39 of the 116 legislators remained when the 29-year-old Patrick Henry (1736-1799), attending his first session, stood and proposed a series of resolutions. Known as the Virginia Resolves, the first four stated, in part:

• Resolved , that the first Adventurers and Settlers of this, His Majesty’s Colony and Dominion of Virginia, brought with them, and transmitted to their posterity…all the liberties, privileges, franchises, and immunities that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of Great Britain.
• Resolved , that by two royal charters, granted by King James the First, the colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all liberties, privileges, and immunities of denizens and natural subjects…as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England .
• Resolved , that the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen to represent them…is the only security against a burdensome taxation, and the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist.
• Resolved , that His Majesty’s liege people of this, his most ancient and loyal colony, have without interruption enjoyed the inestimable right of being governed by such laws…[which] hath been constantly recognized by the Kings and People of Great Britain (Middlekauff, 84).

In summation, the resolves acknowledged that the colonists retained the same rights that Englishmen enjoyed, including the right to tax themselves. The eloquent Henry succeeded in getting the Resolves passed by the rump of the House of Burgesses, and their text was reprinted in newspapers across the colonies. By the end of 1765, the lower houses of eight other colonies followed Virginia’s example by renouncing the Stamp Act and rejecting Parliament’s authority to tax them altogether.

From 7-25 October 1765, representatives from nine of the Thirteen Colonies met in New York City to discuss a unified response to the Stamp Act; afterward known as the Stamp Act Congress, this was the first major gathering of colonial representatives since the 1754 Albany Congress. During this meeting, the representatives issued a Declaration of Rights and Grievances, in which they echoed many of the claims made in the Virgnia Resolves: that they retained the rights of Englishmen and rejected any Parliamentary taxes on the basis that the colonies were unrepresented in Parliament. Delegates conceded that Parliament had the right to legislate for the colonies in matters of ‘external policy’, which was loosely defined as issues of common interest to the British Empire as a whole. The Stamp Act Congress unnerved Parliament, who had not expected the colonies to coordinate in such a way; the Congress is often recognized as the first unified political action made by the colonies during the American Revolutionary era.

As Virginia’s House of Burgesses and the Stamp Act Congress pushed back against the tax with petitions and rhetoric, other colonists were eager to take direct action. The epicenter of the Stamp Act riots was in Boston, Massachusetts, where a small group of men had formed themselves into a group known as the Loyal Nine. This group included artisans, shopkeepers, and even the printer of the Boston Gazette ; though Sam Adams and John Hancock (1737-1793) were not members, they were closely involved with the group. Hoping to recruit some ruffians to do their dirty work, the Loyal Nine turned to the North and South End mobs of Boston, rival gangs which were known for their annual brawls on Guy Fawkes’ Day. Sometime in early 1765, the two mobs put aside their differences and joined into a unified group under the leadership of Ebenezar MacIntosh, a cobbler.

The Loyal Nine approached MacIntosh and redirected the fury of the mobs toward the Stamp Act and its collectors. In particular, the Loyal Nine targeted Andrew Oliver, the distributor of stamps for Massachusetts. On 14 August 1765, an effigy of Oliver was discovered hanging from an Elm tree. Lt. Governor Thomas Hutchinson of Massachusetts ordered the sheriff to cut the effigy down, but he refused; the sheriff argued that the crowd was in such a frenzy that any attempt to do so would cost him and his men their lives. At dusk, MacIntosh roused the combined North and South End mobs, took the effigy from the tree, and marched toward Oliver’s office, which was promptly torn to the ground. The mob then ransacked Oliver’s house. Calls went up to find and kill Oliver, and several houses were searched; the fact that Oliver had fled to Castle William in the Boston Harbor probably saved his life.

Sign up for our free weekly email newsletter!

Shaken by this near- death experience, Oliver resigned the next day. Unsatisfied, the mob attacked the home of Lt. Governor Hutchinson, seen as a supporter of the Stamp Act, on 26 August; everything movable was stolen from the house, and Hutchinson himself probably only survived because he was not home. These riots became celebrated throughout the colonies; the tree on which the effigy of Oliver was hanged became the first ‘Liberty Tree’, and a new group of colonial patriots, called the Sons of Liberty, dated the founding of their organization to these August riots.

Similar riots occurred in other colonies. On 27 August in Newport, Rhode Island, protestors hung effigies of three stamp distributors from gallows outside the Town House. Before long, the demonstration spun out of control and the crowd attacked the homes of the distributors; the home of one, Martin Howard, was ransacked three separate times that night, and the home of another, Thomas Moffat, was struck twice. Both houses were little more than burnt-out shells by the following morning. Another official, George Meserve, arrived in Boston harbor to take up his appointment as stamp distributor of New Hampshire. He was greeted on the deck of his ship by a Bostonian pilot who warned him to resign before stepping onshore, for his own safety. Meserve took the pilot’s advice and resigned his commission before disembarking, at which point he was cheered by the same mob that had been on the verge of attacking him. Similarly, stamp distributors in New York, North Carolina, and Georgia resigned their commissions rather than face the wrath of colonial mobs.

In London, meanwhile, concerns about the effectiveness of the Stamp Act arose, especially after news of the American street violence made its way to Parliament. Trade with the colonies was also in decline because of merchants boycotting British goods as a protest to the Sugar Act; this led British merchants to lobby for the repeal of both Sugar and Stamp acts to return to business as usual. The most prominent supporter of the Stamp Act, George Grenville himself, had been dismissed from office on 10 July 1765, and was replaced as prime minister by Lord Rockingham. Though Grenville remained in Parliament, the case for keeping the Stamp Act in effect had weakened with his dismissal.

When Parliament convened in December 1765, the Stamp Act was the main point of contention. George III gave the opening address, in which he spoke of the situation in America but did not reveal the extent of the resistance. After the speech, Grenville rose and proposed an amendment that would condemn colonial defiance of the Stamp Act. This amendment was ultimately rejected, but support for the Stamp Act remained firm amongst Grenville’s supporters, who argued that repealing the act would set a dangerous precedent. As the session adjourned for the New Year, the London merchants began working with Rockingham’s ministry to devise a strategy of repeal.

When Parliament reconvened on 14 January 1766, Rockingham formally proposed such a repeal. Petitions were read from merchants across Britain, who complained that the act had made it difficult for them to collect American debts which in turn was causing economic hardships throughout the country. On 7 February, a resolution was proposed by Grenville’s followers that the House of Commons would pledge to back the king in support of the Act; this resolution was defeated, prompting Grenville to accuse Parliament of sacrificing Britain’s sovereignty to placate the colonies. From 11-13 February, the House of Commons heard testimony from witnesses including Benjamin Franklin himself, who assured Parliament that Americans wanted nothing more than “to indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great Britain” (Middlekauff, 120).

On 21 February, a resolution was introduced to repeal the Stamp Act. This was passed by a vote of 276 to 168. On 18 March 1766, George III gave his approval, and the Stamp Act was no more. However, along with the Repeal bill, Parliament passed the Declaratory Act, which stipulated that Parliament had the power to make binding laws in the American colonies “in all cases whatsoever”, which many interpreted to include taxation (Middlekauff, 118). Because of this, Parliament would impose further taxes on the colonies, known as the Townshend Acts , which would lead to further resistance. Therefore, the passage of the Stamp Act, and the fierce colonial resistance against it, marked an important turning point in Britain’s relationship with its North American colonies and helped spark the American Revolution.

Subscribe to topic Related Content Books Cite This Work License

Bibliography

• Anderson, Fred. Crucible of War. Vintage, 2001.
• Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press, 2017.
• Brands, H. W. The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin. Anchor, 2002.
• David McCullough. 1776. Simon & Schuster, 2006.
• Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause. Oxford University Press, 2007.
• Schiff, Stacy. The Revolutionary: Samuel Adams. Little, Brown and Company, 2022.
• Stamp Act - Fact, Reaction & Legacy , accessed 27 Oct 2023.

About the Author

Translations

We want people all over the world to learn about history. Help us and translate this definition into another language!

Questions & Answers

What was the stamp act of 1765, why did the americans resist the stamp act, when was the stamp act of 1765 repealed, related content.

Richard Grenville

Sugar & the Rise of the Plantation System

First Continental Congress

Second Continental Congress

Patrick Henry

Free for the world, supported by you.

World History Encyclopedia is a non-profit organization. For only $5 per month you can become a member and support our mission to engage people with cultural heritage and to improve history education worldwide.

Recommended Books

Cite This Work

Mark, H. W. (2023, October 30). Stamp Act . World History Encyclopedia . Retrieved from https://www.worldhistory.org/Stamp_Act/

Chicago Style

Mark, Harrison W.. " Stamp Act ." World History Encyclopedia . Last modified October 30, 2023. https://www.worldhistory.org/Stamp_Act/.

Mark, Harrison W.. " Stamp Act ." World History Encyclopedia . World History Encyclopedia, 30 Oct 2023. Web. 27 Aug 2024.

License & Copyright

Submitted by Harrison W. Mark , published on 30 October 2023. The copyright holder has published this content under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike . This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon this content non-commercially, as long as they credit the author and license their new creations under the identical terms. When republishing on the web a hyperlink back to the original content source URL must be included. Please note that content linked from this page may have different licensing terms.

Portrait of Benjamin Franklin

First edition of adam smith’s “the wealth of nations”.

George Lyttelton (1709–1773) Protest against the Bill to Repeal the American Stamp Act , annotated by Benjamin Franklin Paris: Chez J.W. Imprimeur (false locus; London), 1766 Rare Book Division

Protest against the Bill to Repeal the American Stamp Act , annotated by Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin was in England as the agent for Pennsylvania in 1765 when Parliament imposed a tax on newspapers as well as legal and commercial documents in the 13 colonies. Franklin initially supported the Stamp Act, so called because the materials it affected would be stamped upon payment of the tax, but reconsidered when he learned of the colonists’ anger. Franklin filled this volume by the first Baron Lyttleton, a British statesman, with copious marginal notes that are highly critical of the author’s pro-Stamp Act stance. On February 13, 1766, Franklin testified against the tax before England’s House of Commons, answering Parliamentarians’ questions so deftly that the ill-advised nature of the legislation became obvious. The tax was abolished one month later, in part due to Franklin’s persuasiveness. He himself attributed success “to what the Profane would call Luck , & the Pious Providence .” 

Holding Division : Rare Book Division

Catalog Record : View record

Digital Collections : View record

Currently on View at Stephen A. Schwarzman Building

The New York Public Library believes that this item is in the public domain under the laws of the United States, but did not make a determination as to its copyright status under the copyright laws of other countries. This item may not be in the public domain under the laws of other countries. Though not required, if you want to credit us as the source, please use the following statement, "From The New York Public Library," and provide a link back to the item on our Digital Collections site. Doing so helps us track how our collection is used and helps justify freely releasing even more content in the future.

Items in Beginnings

Beginnings introduction, benjamin franklin’s notes about the stamp act, “new york world’s fair: the world of tomorrow” poster, cherokee syllabary developed by sequoyah, emigrant savings bank test book, explore more themes.

The Role and Importance of the Stamp Act Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The period between 1754 and 1775 was rich in events pertaining to the colonists’ intensifying disapproval of the British rule, and the Stamp Act of 1765 can be called the point of no return in terms of colonies’ readiness to fight. Five years before the Boston Massacre, at the time of the Stamp Act, colonies’ adverse reactions to the unwanted legislation varied between the refusal to pay and sporadic violence (Skalenko, 2020). Despite the active use of extralegal methods of protest, there were limited opportunities for direct confrontation with the representatives of power (Skalenko, 2020). Nevertheless, the colonists’ unwillingness to accept paying the new direct tax as their unavoidable duty was extremely strong. It promoted the first attempts to challenge the structure of power by intimidating and assaulting tax collectors (Corbett et al., 2022). The Boston Massacre further solidified the revolutionary moods that emerged five years earlier by reinforcing the colonists’ readiness to use missiles to withstand pressure from British soldiers (Zabin, 2020). Experiences with forcing the cancellation of the Stamp Act have promoted the determination to unite and fight.

The Stamp Act became a turning point in the relationships between the empire and the colonies relationships by giving rise to organized opposition to challenging the British government’s right to control trade and economic life. When the new Stamp Act became a popular topic in the news, mobs started to scheme even in rural areas, creating a real threat for loyalist police officers (Wagner, 2018). The fight for freedom from the empire’s unjust laws became extremely intense, with pro-revolutionary moods spreading to sailors, farmers, merchants, and other professional categories (Wagner, 2018). The Stamp Act became the legislative decision to clarify the actual power distribution patterns to the colonists and the British Parliament’s failure to respect constitutional principles (Corbett et al., 2022). The act’s role in promoting unity in suppressing Britain’s economic and legislative power made the colonial society’s reactions the point of no return.

Corbett, P. S., Janseen, V., Lund, J., Pfannestiel, T., Vickery, P., & Waskiewicz, S. (2022). U.S. history . OpenStax.

Skalenko, N. (2020). William Livingston and the Stamp Act crisis of 1765 . The Macksey Journal, 1 (1), 1-17.

Wagner, R. L. (2018). The Stamp Act: Revolutionary resistance in New York [Unpublished master’s thesis]. State University of New York College at Buffalo.

Zabin, S. (2020). The Boston Massacre: A family history . Houghton Mifflin.

• Comparing USA Historical Documents: Separation of State and Religion
• Manifest Destiny in Creating American Identity
• American Revolution: Seven Years War in 1763
• The American Revolution and Its Controversies
• The Stamp Act Resolutions and Declaratory Act
• Thomas Jefferson and the Challenge of Living in a Slave Society
• History of the California Gold Rush and the Independence of Texas
• The Most Significant Reason for the Europeans’ Defeat by the Maroons
• Reflection on US Foreign Relations in Early 1900s
• U.S. Foreign Relations: Late 1800s–Early 1900s
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, March 14). The Role and Importance of the Stamp Act. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-role-and-importance-of-the-stamp-act/

"The Role and Importance of the Stamp Act." IvyPanda , 14 Mar. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/the-role-and-importance-of-the-stamp-act/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'The Role and Importance of the Stamp Act'. 14 March.

IvyPanda . 2023. "The Role and Importance of the Stamp Act." March 14, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-role-and-importance-of-the-stamp-act/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Role and Importance of the Stamp Act." March 14, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-role-and-importance-of-the-stamp-act/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Role and Importance of the Stamp Act." March 14, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-role-and-importance-of-the-stamp-act/.