The alternative proposed by the colonies was virtually the same as the
system of requisitions already in use, and the inefficiency of which, in
securing a revenue, had been abundantly proved by the French war.
Parliament therefore rejected it, and early in 1765 the Stamp Act was
passed. It is worthy of remark that the idea that the Americans would
resist its execution did not at once occur to Franklin. Acquiescence
seemed to him, for the present, the only safe policy. In writing to his
friend Charles Thomson, he said that he could no more have hindered the
passing of the Stamp Act than he could have hindered the sun's setting.
"That," he says, "we could not do. But since it is down, my friend, and
it may be long before it rises again, let us make as good a night of it
as we can. We may still light candles. Frugality and industry will go a
great way towards indemnifying us." But Thomson, in his answer, with
truer foresight, observed, "I much fear, instead of the candles you
mentioned being lighted, you will hear of the works of darkness!" The
news of the passage of the Stamp Act was greeted in America with a burst
of indignation. In New York, the act was reprinted with a death's-head
upon it in place of the royal arms, and it was hawked about the streets
under the title of "The Folly of England and the Ruin of America." In
Boston, the church-bells were tolled, and the flags on the shipping put
at half-mast.
[Illustration: SPEAKER'S CHAIR, HOUSE OF BURGESSES]
[Sidenote: The Parson's Cause]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account