Colonial opposition.—To the colonies the Stamp Act, the Quartering Act, and the extension of admiralty jurisdiction were unconstitutional. Trials in the admiralty courts had always been looked upon with disfavor, as they violated the right of trial by jury. The new regulation allowing alleged violators of the trade laws to be taken to Halifax for trial was looked upon as a dangerous innovation. The Quartering Act was viewed as a violation of the constitutional principle that troops were not to be quartered upon the people. The provisions of the law were especially aggravating to New York which, because of the strategic position of the colony, would have to bear an undue part in the support and transportation of troops. But the Stamp Act aroused the greatest furor. All of the elements of discontent united against an act which encroached upon the right of the assemblies to control taxation. Indirect taxation was not looked upon as taxation. To the colonial economists the navigation acts were merely trade regulations and the right of parliament to regulate commerce was fully recognized. But a direct tax imposed by parliament to support an obnoxious soldiery set in motion the forces of discontent and produced a unity of opposition which surprised the ministers of George III.
The Virginia Resolutions.—Virginia took the lead in opposition. On May 29, 1765, the burgesses resolved themselves into a committee of the whole to consider the steps necessary to be taken in consequence of the Stamp Act. Patrick Henry, the "rustic and clownish youth of the terrible tongue," introduced a series of resolutions which boldly challenged the British government. The preamble stated that, as the House of Commons had raised the question of how far the general assembly had power to enact laws for laying taxes and imposing duties payable by the people of Virginia, the House of Burgesses, to settle and ascertain the same to all future time, resolved: (1) that the first adventurers and settlers of Virginia brought with them and transmitted to their posterity and to other English subjects who had come to five in the colony all the rights of the people of Great Britain; (2) that these were granted to them by two charters of James I; (3) that taxation of the people by themselves or by their representatives was a distinguishing characteristic of British freedom without which the ancient constitution could not exist; (4) that the people of Virginia had uninterruptedly enjoyed the right of being governed by their own assembly in matters of taxes and internal police, a right which had never been forfeited and had been constantly recognized by the kings and people of Great Britain. (5) Therefore it was resolved that the general assembly had the sole right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of Virginia, and that every attempt to vest such power in any other person or persons had a tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom; (6) that the inhabitants of Virginia were not bound by any law or ordinance designed to impose any tax upon them other than those imposed by the general assembly; (7) and that any person who maintained that Virginians were bound to obey such laws not imposed by the assembly should be deemed an enemy of the colony.
The resolutions precipitated an acrimonious debate in which the democratic members of the western counties supported Henry against the aristocratic leaders. The committee of the whole appears to have adopted the resolutions, but on the following day the burgesses rejected the preamble and the last two resolutions, the other five being passed by a slender majority. Henry then left the assembly and the following morning the conservatives expunged from the record the fifth resolution. The manuscript of the entire series, except the third resolution which was omitted by error, was already on its way to the other colonies and was widely published. "Beyond question the Virginia resolves mark an important crisis in the impending revolution."
Resistance and violence.—In June the Massachusetts general court, at the suggestion of Otis, sent a circular letter to the other colonial assemblies asking them to send delegates to meet at New York in the following October to consider the danger from the Stamp Act. Before the delegates met fierce opposition appeared in nearly every colony. Remonstrances came from towns, counties, and assemblies. Newspapers and pamphlets inveighed against the act, and non-importation agreements were made in many localities. Associations called "Sons of Liberty" sprang up. At first they worked secretly, but they soon announced their committees of correspondence which worked to unify the opposition.
In Boston occurred riots of greater violence than in any other place. On August 14 the stamp distributor's effigy was hung on the "Liberty Tree," and after other demonstrations, that night a mob demolished a building which it was believed the collector was erecting for an office. On August 26 the houses of two of the customs officials were sacked and the house of Chief Justice Hutchinson was pillaged and destroyed. At Newport the stamp distributor and a sympathizer found it necessary to seek safety on a British man-of-war. Scenes of violence occurred in the other colonies and the stamp distributors resigned with more haste than dignity.
REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT
The Stamp Act Congress.—The Stamp Act Congress met at New York on October 7, 1765. Nine colonies were represented, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and New Hampshire failing to send delegates. Prominent among those in attendance were John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, John Rutledge and Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina, and James Otis of Massachusetts. On October 19 a declaration of rights and grievances, originally drafted by Dickinson, was adopted. In the declaration the argument was presented that the colonies were entitled to the inherent rights and liberties of native-born Englishmen, one of which was that no taxes were to be imposed upon them except by their own consent or by their representatives. The colonists were not and from their local circumstances could not be represented in the House of Commons, their only representatives being those in the colonies who alone had the constitutional right to impose taxes upon them. All supplies to the crown being free gifts of the people, it was unreasonable and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British constitution for the people of Great Britain to grant to the king the property of the colonists. Trial by jury was an inherent right of every British subject in the colonies, but the Stamp Act and other laws, by extending the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts, had a tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists. The duties imposed by recent acts of parliament would be burdensome and grievous, and from the scarcity of specie the payment of them would be impracticable. The recent restrictions would make it impossible to purchase the manufactures of Great Britain. The right to petition the king or either house of parliament was also asserted. By an address to the king and by applications to both houses of parliament, they endeavored to procure the repeal of the Stamp Act, of clauses in recent acts which increased admiralty jurisdiction, and of recent acts placing restrictions on American commerce.
Repeal of the Stamp Act.—In July, 1765, Grenville fell from power, but not because of opposition to the Stamp Act. The Marquis of Rockingham, a man of moderate ability, was selected to form the new cabinet. The question of the repeal of the Stamp Act came up in parliament early in 1766. During the debate in the commons on February 13, Franklin, then agent for Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, was questioned regarding the colonial attitude, and he made it clear that the Stamp Act could not be enforced. The American cause was strengthened by the powerful support of Pitt and by the protests of English merchants and manufacturers who were losing trade through colonial boycotts. After a momentous debate, the act was repealed.
The Declaratory Act.—Although parliament had given ground it did not surrender, for in the Declaratory Act of March 18, 1766, it asserted its right to tax the colonies. The act declared that the colonies were subordinate unto and dependent upon the crown and parliament, and that the king by and with the consent of parliament had full power and authority to make laws to bind the colonies in all cases. All resolutions, votes, orders, and proceedings in the colonies denying the power and authority of parliament to make laws imposing taxes and regulations were declared null and void.
Other legislation.—The Quartering Act was then renewed, but with certain changes to make it more effective. The imposts on textiles which had previously been collected in America were henceforth to be collected at the point of exportation. The duty on molasses was changed from three pence a gallon on the foreign product to one penny a gallon on all molasses brought to the continental colonies.