The war myth in United States history — John Shaqi
The war myth in United States historyHamlin, C. H. (Charles Hunter)
History
The war myth in United States history
Hamlin, C. H. (Charles Hunter)
Propaganda, American; United States -- History; War
(5) The popular conception today is that the Stamp Act of 1765 was
the principal if not the sole cause of the American Revolution. This
fact is greatly exaggerated but it is the easiest to understand, and
for that reason has been given the chief place among the many causes
of the conflict. The Stamp Act was an act passed by Great Britain
requiring the placing on all legal documents of stamps to be sold to
the colonies by Great Britain. The usual impression is that this
revenue was to go to the mother country and was to be a continual tax
upon the colonies for the sole benefit of the crown. This impression
is entirely false, however. The revenue from these stamps was to be
used to pay one-third of the expense of a colonial army of about
10,000 men to be kept here for the defense of the colonies. Not one
penny was to go to Great Britain. Examine any elementary text on
United States history. They speak of taxing the colonies, but leave
the impression that the money was to go to Great Britain, whereas
actually it was all to be spent for the protection of the colonies
against possible trouble with the Indians and the French. This
colonial army had been proposed before by the colonies. In 1739
colonial leaders under the leadership of the Governor of Pennsylvania
had themselves proposed such an army supported by such a tax. But at
that time they had felt the danger of the French in Canada. After
the defeat of the French in 1763 this danger was no longer so
threatening. When this Stamp Act was passed in 1765 its operation
was delayed for one year in order to give the colonies an opportunity
to agree among themselves upon some other method of raising the money
if they objected to the Stamp Act. The act was repealed in 1766
because of the bitter opposition of the colonies, who disliked a tax
of any sort. "No Taxation Without Representation" has been greatly
over-emphasized. It is only half true, for it implies that taxation
with representation would have been accepted.
(6) When the colonies objected to the Stamp Act, calling it an
"internal" tax, Great Britain repealed it and in 1767 passed the
Townshend Act, which provided for a tariff on imports to the
colonies. The imported goods, however, were boycotted and Great
Britain was forced to repeal the tariff on imports in 1770. The
amount of imported goods in the New England colonies alone dropped
from 1,363,000 pounds in 1768 to 504,000 pounds in 1769. After the
repeal in 1770 the imports in 1771 were doubled. Thus the boycott
was a powerful weapon in the hands of the colonies. With it the
colonies were in a position to enforce almost any demand they liked
upon Great Britain.
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