“What,” they asked him, according to the Parliamentary Register of that year, “was the temper of America towards Great Britain, before the year 1763?” “The best in the world,” was his reply. “They submitted willingly to the government of the crown, and paid, in their courts, obedience to the acts of Parliament. They were governed at the expense of only a little pen, ink and paper. They were led by a thread. They had not only respect, but an affection for Great Britain, for its laws, its customs, and manners, and even a fondness for its fashions, that greatly increased the commerce. Natives of Great Britain were always treated with particular regard; to be an Old-England man was, of itself, a character of some respect, and gave a kind of rank among us.” “And what is that temper now?” “Oh! it is very much altered.” “If the act is not repealed, what do you think will be the consequences?” “A total loss of the respect and affection the people of America bear to this country, and of all the commerce that depends upon that respect and affection.” “Do you think the people of America would submit to pay the stamp duty if it was moderated?” “No, never,” Franklin replied, “unless compelled by force of arms.” II. GIVING THE APPEARANCE AND KEEPING THE SUBSTANCE On March 18, 1766, the obnoxious Stamp Act was repealed, but the repeal contained a clause that took all the merit out of the repeal, by maintaining the principle that the King, with the consent of Parliament, had the authority and power to “bind the colonies, and the people of America, in all cases whatsoever.” If the colonies consented to this repeal with its clause, they would be affirming the very thing they were opposing in the Stamp Act. Such “sharp practice” could not win. It was not the stamps they were opposing alone, nor the imposing of taxes. They repudiated the idea and the motive of the right to tax them without their consent, one of the ways of which was to make them buy stamps to legalize any of their business transactions. This explicitly proves that the Revolutionary War was not “an economic war,” as some theorists endeavor to prove, but a war of principle, liberty and justice, as it claimed to be. The King was now asserting a right over the colonies which he did not have anywhere in his own country. This was his will, his “divine right,” as it were. If he tried to establish and enforce that will and the colonies endeavored to establish and enforce their will against that will, then it would be, as had so often happened before in English history, a war of the King against the People. So it is often described in history as “the King’s war” against the colonies. To such an extent did the people refuse to fight it that the Hanoverian King had to hire Hessian mercenaries.