Danver Steven L. (Edited). Revolts, Protests, Demonstrations, and Rebellions in American History: An Encyclopedia (ENG)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Tucker, Robert W., and David C. Hendrickson. TheFalloftheFirstBritishEmpire:

Origins of the War of American Independence. Baltimore: Johns Hopki ns University

Press, 1982.

Webking, Robert H. The American Revolution and Politics of Liberty. Baton Rouge:

Louisiana State University Press, 1988.

Stamp Act Congress (1765)

As a res ult of the passage of the Stamp Act by Parliament, representatives from

nine of the colonies assembled in Federal Hall, New York, in October 1765. Only

Georgia, Virginia, and New Hampshire were absent from a successful meeting of

the various colonies in their call for unity. The subject for discussion was to “con-

sult together on the present circumstances of the colonies.” Most of the vocal

opponents were educated and inﬂuential members of colonial society. This

congress provided the ﬁrst opportunity for passionate individuals to express their

views colony-wide. This action scorched the political atmosphere after a period

of political neglect by London caused by the French and Indian War.

The Massachusetts colonial assembly, operating under the auspices of he royal

governor, sent a circular letter to all the colonies in June 1765. All the invited

delegates had served in colonial legislatures; t hey were aware of parliamentary

procedures, and all s upported King George III. But the provisions of the Stamp

Act were onerous to the colonials but a necessity for the ﬁnancial maintenance

of the Empire.

The assembled met in secret. The major issues reﬂected their “traditional rights

of Englishmen”: lack of self-representation, lack of a jury trial and opposition to

the Admiralty Court, not a common-law court, whose jurisdiction covered smug-

gling. Robert Livingston led the attack by questioning the right of Parliament to

regulate, and the issue of internal and/or external trade arose. The lack of represen-

tation, gleaming back to the Magna Carta, only irritated those averring the legisla-

tion was a violation of their traditional rights of Englishmen. Assertions of “virtual

representation” did not mollify the assemblage.

When the de legates gathered on October 19, the delegates adopted a Declara-

tion of Rights and Grievances. Fearing being identiﬁed as traitors and subject to

execution, they did not sign the document. Only the clerk of the court afﬁxed his

signature. The document was redacted several times, but the number willing to

sign the petitions was small.

Lord Dartmouth, who alleged the document was inappropriate, rejected the

ﬁnal petition by the New York House under grounds that an unapproved body

144 Stamp Act Protests (1765)

submitted it. However, the threat of a united front compelled the Crown to revoke

the act because of the broad level of opposition realizing that it was unenforceable.

In March 1766 while revoking it, the Crown and parliament reasserted its right to

complete legislative authority over the colonies. Despite the repeal, the damage

had be en done. Both the c olonie s and London recognized th e power of colonial

America to assert itself. British withdr awal of the act convinced many that pres-

sure would force England to reconsider its conduct.

Those who eventually aspired to independence could take heart and look to the

future. From passage of the Stamp Act to a call for independen ce was not a long

trip. Replicating the organizational efforts of the colonies and their react ion to

London provided a form for Americans such as Patrick Henry, James, Jonathan

Mayhew, and Samuel Adams a forum from which to preach independence.

—Arthur K. Steinberg

Further Reading

Maier, Pauline. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of

American Opposition to Britain, 1765–1776. New York: Knop f, 1972.

Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789.New

York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Nash , Gary B. The Unknown Ame rican Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and

the Struggle to Create Amer ica. New York: Viking, 2005.

Reid, John Phillip. Constitutional History of the American Revolution: The Authority to

Tax. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.

Tucker, Robert W., a nd David C. Hendricks on. The Fall of the First British Empire: Ori-

gins of the War of American Independence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,

1982.

Webking, Robert H. The American Revolution and Politics of Liberty. Baton Rou ge: Loui-

siana State University Press, 1988.

Stamp Act Resolutions of the Virginia House

of Burgesses (1765)

After his ally, George Johnston, moved that the House resolve itself into a committee of the

whole, Patrick Henry introduced the following provocative resolutions into a thinly attended ses-

sion of Virginia’s House of Burgesses in May 1765. Because many of the conservative plantation

owners and gentlemen who comprised the membership of the House were not present, Henry’s

resolutions were adopted after some debate. A fifth resolution was also passed, but on the fol-

lowing day, when Henry was not present, the House leadership succeeded in having it rescinded,

thought attempts to also rescind the only four resolutions failed. The fifth resolution, the text of

which was later found among Henry’s papers, stated that only the House of Burgesses had the

right to impose taxes on the people of Virginia, and that attempts by anyone else to do so had

“a manifest Tendency to destroy British as well as American Freedom.”

Attorney, from the Committee of the whole House, reported, according to Order, that the

Committee had considered of the Steps necessary to be taken in Consequence of the Res-

olutions of the House of Commons of Great Britain relative to the charging Stamp Duties in

the Coloni es and Plantations in America, and that they had come to several Resolutions

Stamp Act Protests (1765) 147

thereon; which he read in his Place, and then delivered in at the Table, where they were

again twice read, and agreed to by the House, with some Amendments, and are as follow:

Resolved, T hat the ﬁrs t Adventur ers and Sett lers of this his Maj esty’s Colony and

Dominion of Virginia brought with them, and transmitted to their Posterity, and all other

his Majesty’s Subjects since inhabiting in this his Majesty’s said Colony, all the Liberties,

Privileges, Franchises, and Immunities, that have at any Time been held, enjoyed, and pos-

sessed, by the people of Great Britain.

Resolved,ThatbytworoyalCharters,grantedbyKingJames the First, the Colonists

aforesaid are declared entitled to all Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities of D enizens

and natural Subjects, to all Intents and Purposes , 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 by them-

selves to represent them, who can only know what Taxes the People are able to bear, or

the easiest Method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every Tax laid on

the Peopl e, is the only Security against a burd ensome Taxati on, and the distingui shing

Characteristick 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 with-

out Interruption enjoyed the inestimable Right of being governed by such Laws, respecting

their internal Polity and Taxation, as are derived from their own Consent, with the Appro-

bation of their Sovereign, or his Substitute; and that the same hath never been forfeited or

yielded up, but hath been constantly recognized by the Kings and People of Great Britain.

Source: Kennedy, John Pendleton, ed., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virgin ia 1761–

1765 (Richmond, VA: The Colonial Press, E. Waddey Co., 1907), 359–360.

An Account of the Destruction of Lt. Governor Hutchinson’s

House by the Stamp Act Rioters in Boston (1765)

The following selection from the diary of Boston resident John Tudor describes the violence that

erupted in Boston in August 1765 as a result of American anger over the Stamp Act. Tudor, who

was an eyewitness but not a participant, describes the destruction by a mob of the home of

Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson, who was held by the citizens to be partly responsible

for the Stamp Act. Tudor, like many Bostonians, later felt ashamed of his failure to act in prevent-

ing the destruction, once it became known that Hutchinson had nothing to do with the passage

of the act, and had even apparently protested against it.

August 14

This morning was discovered hanging on the great Trees at the South end of Boston

the Efﬁgies of ...Oliver Esqr as Stamp Master & a Large Boot with the Devil coming

148 Stamp Act Protests (1765)

out of the top &c. The Boot to represent Lord Bute &c. The efﬁgies hung all Day and

towards evening a number of people assembled, took down the efﬁgies carried them

through the Town as far as the Townhouse, then March’d down King Street, and then

proceeded to Oliver’s dock, pulled down a New Brick Building called the Stamp

Ofﬁce, belonging to said Oliver & carried the Woo den part of it up to Fort Hil l and

with Shouting made a Bonﬁre of it with said Oliver’s Fence which stood near said Hill;

and then surrounded Mr. Oliver’s House, Broke his Windows & entered the House &

destroyed great part of the Furniture &c. The next Day a Proclamation was Issued out

by Governor Bernard and the Counci l offering £100 ...Reward for the discove ry of

any person concerned as aforesaid &c. Things remained something quiet till the 26th

when toward evening a number of people assembled in King Street & Attack’d the

House and ofﬁce of WTM Story, Esqr Deputy Register of the Court of Admiralty

(which stood near the Town House) Broke the Windows of the House and Ofﬁce,

destroy’d & burnt part of the Goods scattered & burnt most of the papers in a Bonﬁre

they made in King Street near the House. Then proceeded to the House of Benj. Hal-

lowell, Esqr Comptroller of the Custom House; Broke down the Fence & Windows of

his Dwelling house, & then entered the House, Broke the Wainscot and great part of

the Furniture &c. and carried off £30 Sterling in money &c. This brought it to the dusk

of the evening, though it was a moonlight Night near the full Moon. Then the Monsters

being enﬂam’d with Rum & Wine which they got in said Hallowell’s Celler proceeded

with Shouts to the Dwelling House1 of the Hon. Thos. Hutchinson Esqr Lieutenant

Governor & enter’d in a Voyalant manner, broke the Wainscot, partitions, Glasses

&c.; broke & distroy’d every Window, Broke, tore or c arried off all the Family’’s

Apparel Jewels, Books &c. and Carried off about £900 Sterling in Cash, they worked

hard from 8 O’clock on the House, Fences &c. till about 12 or one O’Clock; when

they got on the top of the House and cut down a large C upola, or Lanthron which

took up their Time till near Daylight, leaving the House a mere Shell. So great a piece

of Cruelty (I believe) on so good, so innocent a Gentleman was never committed since

theCreation.ThenextDaytheGovernor&Council Issued out a proclamation of

£3oo Lawful money to anyone w ho should discover the Leader, or Leaders of the

Mob and £100 reward for the discovery of any Actors in the affair. T’was supposed

that severa l Country Fello ws & sailors was concerned in this Mob , as there was but

few of them known. There was a number of Boys from 14 to sixteen years of age,

some mere Children which did a great deal of damage in bre aking the Windows &

destroying the Furniture Apparel &c. But what is surprising there was some hundreds

of people looking on as spectators, I was one, that had they known each other’s minds

they might have prevented the Mischief done at the Lieutenant Governor’s; But there

was such a Universal abhorrence of the Stamp Act which [had] past in England & was

soon to be put in execution in America and which was the cause of the Mob’s rising

and committing such cruelty on the Governor; thinking he had some hand in the

Stamp Act, but it was soon known that he was not only innocent, bu t ha d protested

against it.

Stamp Act Protests (1765) 149

Aug. 26

The next Day there was a full town Meeting, when they Voted unanimously their utter

detestation of the violent pr oceedi ngs of the Mob &c. and had the minds of the people

and the Innocence of Governor Hutchinson been known before, as it was at this meeting,

the mischief at his house might easily have been prevented, as the next day there was a

Universal Lamentation for the Destruction done.

Source: Tudor, William, ed. Deacon Tudor’s Diary (Boston: Press of Wallace Spooner,

1896), 17–20.

150 Stamp Act Protests (1765)

Boston Massacre (1770)

The Boston Massacre was the term given to the event that involved a small group

of British soldiers s hooting on American civilians who were taunting them in

Boston on March 5, 1770. It led to tensions which, in turn, proved to be a cause

of the general distrust among the Whigs who opposed elements of British rule,

which r esulted in the outbreak of the War of American Independence ﬁve years

later. The shooting in Boston itself resulted in the death of three civilians at the

scene, and two afterwards. Although the incident was important, and led to a trial

of some of the soldiers, it is best known by the e ngraving by Paul Revere, a nd

became one of the causes of rise in tensions that was to lead to the War of Ameri-

can Independence, which broke out in 1775.

There had been tension in North America since the end of the Seven Years’ War

(1754–1763). The British victory in the war had removed the French as a threat to

the British settlements in the region, but the costs incurred in winning the war had

me ant that the Bri tish government had to raise the level of taxation. The Town-

shend Revenue Act and other laws, collectively known as the Townshend Acts,

were passed by the British Parliament in 1767, taking their name from the pro-

poser, the politician Charles Townshend,whowantedataxplacedoncommon

products imported into the British colonies in North America—Townshend him-

self died just before the Act bec ame law. This included taxes placed in tea, lead,

painters’ colors, gla ss, and paper. It was expected that this would help the

government raise about £40,000.

The taxes led to much opposition from many of the residents in North America.

Some objected to paying the taxes, but others were angry because the ta xes were

paid to the British governor and other British-appointed ofﬁcials in each of the col-

onies, whereas most other taxes were paid to town assem blies. This would there-

fore mean that the British authorities w ere able to fund their rule directly, rather

than having to rely on the will of the local assemblies. For the British, however,

they saw the taxes as fair owing to the large expense incurred in defending British

North America in the wars against the French and the Indians. The latter argument

was supported by the Tories—Americans who supported the Briti sh—who were,

in the American War of Independence, to become the Loyalists.

The British foresaw that many people in the city of Boston might resist the new

taxes—it was a hotbed of radicalism—so, as a result, the British general Thomas

151

Gage sent over the 29th Regiment of Foot and the 14th West Yorkshire Fusiliers to

Boston. The former, after 1881 the 1st Bn, Worcestershire Regiment, was la rgely

raised in Worcestershire in the west Midlands of England. The latter, largely

drawn from men from Yorkshire and Kent, had previously been based in Dublin,

Ireland, and then in the south of England. As the ships brought the soldiers to Bos-

ton, there were problems over accommodating the soldiers, and only after these

problems had been surmounted, the reinforcements on disembarked on October 1,

1768, and marched into Boston.

There were many tensions between the Briti sh troops and the loc al colonists,

but t he ﬁrst time they came to a head with fatal results was on February 22,

1770, when a mob of people started causing a nuisance outside the house of Eben-

ezer Richardson, a local man who supported the British a nd was involved in

informing on anti-British activists. When the crowd started throwing stones, and

one of these hit the wife of Richardson, the Loyalist c onfronted the crowd with

an unloaded shotgun. When they stormed his house, he loaded the gun and opened

ﬁre at the people breaking down his front door. Several people were injured, and

an 11-year-old local boy, Christopher Seider, died later fr om his wounds. With a

radical doctor performing the autopsy, Richardson found himself charged with

murder, but the trial did not take place until after the Boston Massacre itself.

The tensions started again in the late afternoon of March 5, 1770. A group of

Bostonians, including some radicals, were heading home with Private Hugh

White, on sentry duty outside the Custom House (now the Old State House).

During this time, Edward Garrick (or Ge rrish), an apprentice to a wigmaker,

152 Boston Massacre (1770)

Paul Revere's sensational illustration of the

Boston Massacre, a skirmish on March 5,

1770, in which British soldiers fired on and

killed five townspeople. Revere's historic

print, released within a month, publicized

the event and was hugely influential in

stoking anti-British sentiment in the years

before the American Revolution. An inter-

esting example of Revere's emphasis on

impact over accuracy is the depiction of

one of the victims, Crispus Attucks, who

was of mixed African-American and

Native American heritage, as a white man.

(National Archives and Records

Administration)

spotted Captain-Lieutenant John Goldﬁnch and called out, “There goes the fellow

that won’t pay my master for dressing his hair.” Goldﬁnch had actually paid the

bill from Garrick’s master, but this did not stop Garrick from continuing with his

abuse. Garrick then taunted Private White, who left his sentry box and put Garrick

with his (White’s) musket.

It did not take long for a crowd to form, and they all started taunting White.

Captain Thomas Preston, the O fﬁcer of the D ay, w as unsure exactly what to do.

Initially, he had hoped that the situation would die down of its own accord. How-

ever, White had been forced by the crowd up the stairs to the Custom House and

had his back to a locked door. It was now clear that events were escalating, so

Preston sent for a noncommissioned ofﬁcer, Co rporal William Wemms, and sev-

eral soldiers from the 29th Regiment of Foot, which included John Carroll, James

Hartigan, Matthew Kilroy, William McCaulay, Hugh Montgomery, and William

Warren. The men—with bayonets ﬁxed—went out, followed by Preston and James

Basset. They were able to rescue White a t the stairs and drove back some of the

crowd. By this time, there were about 300 to 400 people in the crowd, forming a

semicircle around the soldiers. The soldiers all had their guns raised with Captain

Preston in front of them as people in the crowd shouted “ﬁre” inciting the soldiers

to open ﬁre.

During this, Private Hugh Montgomery was hit with a club and hit heavily.

When he had recovered his balance, he ﬁred his gun and then shouted “Damm

you, ﬁre,” a phrase he later admitted to one of his lawyers. After a pause, the sol-

diers started ﬁring into the large crowd. Some remarked that the ﬁring was a little

haphazard, and certainly the soldiers did not let off a volley in unison. Three peo-

ple were killed instantly. These were an African American sailor (possibly with

Native American ancestry) called Crispus Attucks; a rope maker called Samuel

Gray; and a mariner called James Caldwell. Samuel Maverick, aged 17, was hit

by a ricocheting bullet, and he died several hours later, early on the morning of

March 6; and Patrick Carr, aged 30 from Ireland, who made leather breeches, died

two weeks later from wounds incurred in the shooting. He made a deathbed testi-

mony to his doctor in which he said that he felt that the soldiers probably acted out

of fear for themselves.

The funerals for the ﬁrst of those killed took place on March 8, with the cofﬁns

containing the bodies of Attucks, Gray, Caldwell, and Maverick being taken on a

procession around the Liberty Tree and then to the cemetery—following the route

of that of Seider—with possibly 10,000 people turning up. Shocked by the mock

sincerity of some of the people leading the funeral, the Reverend Mather Byles

turned to a friend and remarked, “They c all me a brainless Tory, but tell me, my

young friend, which is better—to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles

away, or by three thousand tyrants not one mile away.”

Boston Massacre (1770) 153