Episode 10: The Stamp

In the mid-1760s, British fears that a new war with France was only a matter of time leads King George III and his ministers to draw up plans for a permanent army in North America, and a Stamp Tax on the colonies to pay for it, sparking massive protests in British America and beyond.  

Featuring: Jon Kukla, Patrick Griffin, Brad Jones, Abby Chandler, Alexandra Montgomery, Wendy Bellion, and Cassandra Britt Farrell.

Voice Actors: Adam Smith, Beau Robbins and Mills Kelly.

Narrated by Dr. Jim Ambuske.

Music by Artlist.io

Find the official transcript here.

Help other listeners find the show by leaving a 5-Star Rating and Review on Apple, Spotify, Podchaser, or our website.

Follow the series on Facebook or Instagram.

Worlds Turned Upside Down is a production of R2 Studios at the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University.

Episode Transcript

Jim Ambuske (00:04):
A crowd gathered in Boston's south end under a great
elm tree on the morning ofAugust 14, 1765, they called it
the Liberty Tree, and from itsbranches they had come to hang a
man charged with enforcing ahated law, Andrew Oliver was 59

(00:27):
years old on that Wednesdaymorning when he was condemned to
die. A portrait of Oliver by theBritish American artist John
Singleton Copley reveals a manwith a prominent forehead, a
sharp nose and confident,commanding eyes, pursed lips
give the slightest hint of asmile, though some might have

(00:48):
called it a smirk. Oliver hadbeen born in Boston to a
prominent and wealthy merchantfamily. In the 1720s he had
joined the family business, andtogether with his brother Peter,
began importing wine andtextiles on the city's Long
Wharf. Public office was alogical next step. Over the

(01:10):
years, Oliver served as townauditor, tax collector, overseer
of the poor, three terms in theHouse of Representatives, and
held a seat on the governor'scouncil. 10 years before his
execution, the governor namedhim secretary of the province,
but it was the office thatOliver claimed he never asked

(01:30):
for nor wanted, that drew theire of King George the Third
subjects in Boston and a groupof men calling themselves the
loyal nine in June 1765, BritishAmerican newspapers began
reporting that His Majesty hadbeen pleased to appoint Oliver
as stamp master for the colonyof Massachusetts Bay. Only a few

(01:52):
months earlier, Parliament hadpassed an act for granting and
applying certain stamp dutiesand other duties in the British
colonies and plantations inAmerica. Britons throughout the
empire simply called it theStamp Act. From Nova Scotia to
Jamaica, the king had named menin each colony to safeguard and

(02:13):
distribute paper imported fromBritain, stamped with a special
mark that stamp signified thatBritish Americans who purchased
the paper, whether to licenseattorneys, conduct court
business, print newspapers issuecustoms clearances or even make
playing cards, had paid thelegally required tax, and it

(02:34):
signaled their submission toparliament's supreme authority,
Andrew Oliver was chosen to bethe King's Man in Boston, tasked
with carrying out Parliament'swill for the loyal nine, a group
of Boston artisans andtradesmen, and for the vast
majority of white BritishAmericans who believed that they

(02:54):
lived in an Empire of Liberty,the Stamp Act was an abhorrence
to them. The act of parliamentset to take effect on November
1. 1765 was an affront to theirBritish privileges, an attack on
their English liberties, andattacks to which none of them
had given their consent. And asthe king's loyal subjects, they

(03:16):
believed they had a duty to defyit, whether the men calling
themselves the loyal nine, werethemselves present under the
Liberty Tree that Augustmorning, or whether they thought
it best not to be seen amongstthe rabble, remains uncertain.
What is clear is that theyconvinced a shoemaker named
Ebenezer Macintosh to stir upthe growing crowd and hang

(03:38):
tyranny by the neck until it wasdead. Fortunately for Andrew
Oliver, his flesh was notdestined for the gallows, only
his image in effigy from theLiberty Tree. The Loyal Nine
hung Oliver's false body to hischest. They pinned the image of
a boot with a devil crawling outof it, a subtle swipe at Lord

(04:01):
Butte, the former British PrimeMinister who sums Saul as one of
the architects of these allegedcrimes, while Governor Francis
Bernard and his council debatedwhat to do Thomas Hutchinson,
who served as both the colony'sLieutenant Governor and its
chief justice, ordered thesheriff to cut down the effigy
of his brother in law, but thecrowd surrounding the Liberty

(04:24):
Tree intimidated the sheriffinto retreat in the early
evening hours as governorBernard and his council met in
the townhouse, what we now callthe Old State House, they heard
a commotion growing outside Inthe streets, the mob, as Bernard
called it, had marched to theseat of British authority in the

(04:45):
colony carrying Oliver's effigy.They shouted three huzzahs to
make sure the men inside knewjust who ruled Boston that
night, before setting theirsights on a new building that
Oliver had only recentlyconstructed on Kilby Street in.
Ever the merchant, Oliver hadhoped to divide his new building
into shops and rent them toEnterprising Women and men. The

(05:08):
mob ended that dream in fiveminutes. They pulled down the
building and then headed forOliver's home in search of the
real man whose fictive body theycarried. Much to the crowd's
disappointment, Oliver had fled,leaving his house in the care of
a few trusted friends, but themob still had its fun. They

(05:28):
beheaded Oliver's effigy,carried its remains to nearby
fort Hill, and using some of thetimber from his demolished shop,
built a fire and burned it. Andyet the mob remained unsated.
They returned to Oliver's home.Beat on the windows and the
doors before forcing their wayin and helping themselves to

(05:49):
some of the liquor in the wouldbe Stamp Master's cellar. They
destroyed some of his furniture,including a looking glass said
to be the largest in NorthAmerica. The crowd was heard to
say that if they found Oliver,they would kill him. Finally, at
around midnight, quiet returnedto the streets, but not before

(06:10):
the crowd greeted LieutenantGovernor Hutchinson and the
sheriff with a volley of stonesand bricks when they tried to
restore order the next day, onthe afternoon of August 15, the
Loyal Nine finally found andconfronted Oliver and urged him
to resign his post. Ironically,Oliver had no office to

(06:31):
surrender his commission asstamp master had not yet arrived
from Britain. He had been givenno official orders, but that
mattered for very little,fearing for his family and his
property, Oliver saw no choicebut to give in to their demands.
Despite his loyalty to the king,a loyalty he shared with the men

(06:51):
who opposed him, Oliver agreednot to distribute the detested
stamps that night, as governorBernard wrote with alarm to the
Board of Trade from within theprotective walls of Castle
William and Boston Harbor, hecould see another bonfire raging
in the distance, and as AndrewOliver picked through the pieces

(07:13):
of his ransacked home and cameupon the shattered remains of
his Looking Glass, surely hemust have wondered what was
happening to British America.

(07:34):
I'm Jim Ambuske, and this isWorlds Turned Upside Down, a
podcast about the history of theAmerican Revolution, Episode 10,
The Stamp. in July 1764, threemonths after parliament passed
its new Sugar Act to protect theBritish Caribbean's lucrative
sugar trade from colonialsmuggling and French

(07:55):
competition, and began the workof repairing Britain's perilous
finances After the Seven YearsWar, an essay appeared in Boston
that at once praisedParliament's benevolence and
feared for the Empire's future.James Otis Jr. had risen to
modest fame in recent years forhis defense of Boston merchants
against writs of assistance,legal orders that allowed

(08:17):
authorities to search propertywithout a warrant. He was a
gifted orator and lawyer, onewhose mind would later be robbed
by insanity. But in the summerof 1764, he was among a number
of British Americans who worriedthat Parliament's defense of the
sugar trade was but a portent ofthings to come. In his pamphlet,

(08:38):
which he called the rights ofthe British Colonies, Asserted
and Proved. Otis argued thatBritish Americans were devoutly
loyal people.

James Otis, Jr. (08:46):
Their loyalty has been abundantly proved,
especially in the late war.Their affection and reverence
for their mother country isunquestionable. They yield the
most cheerful and readyobedience to her laws,
particularly to the power ofthat august body, the Parliament
of Great Britain, the supremelegislative of the kingdom and

(09:07):
in dominions, these I declare,are my own sentiments of duty
and loyalty.

Jim Ambuske (09:12):
Parliament's supremacy had been hard won in
1688 English Whigs. Men whoopposed arbitrary power believed
that the Catholic King James theSecond longed to rule as an
absolutist monarch, to counterthe threat of a Papist dynasty.
After the birth of the king'sson, some Englishmen entreated
the king's Protestant son in lawto invade England from the

(09:35):
Netherlands. Prince William ofOrange arrived with an army in
November 1688, to France, Jamesthe Second fled Parliament
invited William and Mary, hiswife and the king's daughter, to
take the throne on the conditionthat they govern their realms
and dominions according toparliamentary law. This glorious
revolution cemented Parliament'sright to rule alongside the

(09:58):
crown, while ensuring. Survivalof England's Protestant empire.
But that supremacy was notabsolute, as Otis argued in his
pamphlet, it was based on acontract between the rulers and
the ruled that itself was builton a foundation of natural law
and inherent rights, includingthe right to be taxed with the

(10:20):
consent to the governed BritishAmericans, however, had no
direct representation ofParliament, and in Otis view,

James Otis, Jr. (10:27):
I can see no reason to doubt but that the
imposition of taxes, whether ontrade or on land or houses or
ships, on real or personal,fixed or floating property in
the colonies is absolutelyirreconcilable with the rights
of the colonists as Britishsubjects and as men. I say men,

(10:48):
for in a state of nature, no mancan take my property from me
without my consent. If he does,he deprives me of my liberty and
makes me a slave.

Jim Ambuske (11:01):
British Americans believed Parliament had the
right to regulate their tradebut not impose taxes to raise
revenues. And if the reportscoming from Britain that summer
were true, that Parliament, ledby Prime Minister George
Grenville, intended to lay moredirect taxes on British America,
including stamp duties, then theSugar Act was just the first

(11:23):
light illuminating a much darkerpath. So why did Parliament
believe the Stamp Act of 1765was a vital measure to defend
British America, and why didBritains throughout the Atlantic
world resist it as a threat totheir revolutionary, glorious
Empire of Liberty to beginanswering these questions, we'll

(11:44):
head first to London, whereGeorge the third's fears of a
future war with France compelledhim to draw up plans for a
standing army in America. We'llthen head down the road to
Whitehall, where the king'sministers began considering ways
to pay for the soldiers whowould defend Britain's American
empire, before considering whyBritain's on both sides of the
Atlantic challenged Parliament'sright to tax the colonies at all

(12:08):
In the closing months of theSeven Years' War, George the
Third and his soon to be formerPrime Minister, the erla Bute
were under no illusions of apermanent peace with France.

Jon Kukla (12:22):
The feeling on the part of the king and Bute is
that there's going to be anotherwar. It's just a matter of when
they're trying to buy the bestsituation they can and prepare
for the fact that this peacetreaty negotiated in 1762 and
signed in 63 isn't going tolast.

Jim Ambuske (12:42):
That's John Kukla, a historian of early America.

Jon Kukla (12:46):
One of the things that comes out of this is that
George the Third in 1762 decidesthat he himself is going to make
plans for the future defense ofNorth America. He starts in
September of 1762 and byChristmas, he has come up with a
plan that would involve having10,542 officers and men

(13:12):
organized in 21 battalions at anestimated annual cost. There's
some variation in theseestimates, but basically 225,000
pounds annually. The rest of hisplan is that the British
government will pay for thisduring 1763 but starting in 1764

(13:33):
somehow or other, the colonieswill be taxed by Parliament to
pay for it.

Jim Ambuske (13:40):
The king's plan was but one element of an emerging
British blueprint to moreeffectively manage its empire
for the common Imperial good.That strategy included direct
oversight of settlement incolonies like Nova Scotia and
East Florida, New laws andregulations to improve the
Empire's trade and its financesand the establishment of a

(14:00):
proclamation line in the backcountry to divide British from
indigenous America. The King'sintended standing army would
help keep the peace betweenBritish settlers and native
peoples, and to sway formersubjects of the French king from
rebelling against their newroyal master. As the 24 year old
King told Lord Bute,

King George III (14:20):
if we don't take precaution, I will venture
to affirm, whenever a new warbreaks out, we shall run great
risk of losing the greatadvantages we are at this hour
to be blessed with by thisgreat, noble and perfect,
definitive treaty.

Jon Kukla (14:37):
Basically from that point on, from Christmas of
1762, before the treaty is evensigned, young George the Third
has committed himself to a planfor defending North America
against the anticipation thatFrance is going to resume the
war. At some point, he'scommitted himself to a plan that
involves imposing taxes on NorthAmerica. In some form or other.

(15:01):
criticism

Jim Ambuske (15:02):
Criticism over Bute's handling of the peace
negotiations with France andSpain, an unpopular tax on
domestic cider and anti Scottishrhetoric drove him from office
in April 1763 in his place, theking appointed George Grenville
as the new prime minister.

Jon Kukla (15:19):
Grenville is an absolute establishment
politician. I think you couldargue that he's probably not got
a first rate mind. George theThird complained that he had the
mind of a clerk. He's incrediblywell attuned to how Parliament
works. He's a very, veryskillful parliamentarian. In

(15:40):
fact, if he hadn't been broughtinto the Bute ministry by George
the Third, his aspiration reallywas to become speaker of the
house. He was also incrediblyhardworking. They used to make
jokes about the fact that hewould take budget documents to
the opera and things like that.One of the sub ministers in the

(16:02):
administration in the 1760s saythat he aroused the Americans
because he read the Americanreports that nobody else had.

Jim Ambuske (16:11):
Grenville was in his early 50s when he became
prime minister, and he believedlikely to love Halifax, that
Parliament ought to exercisegreater control over the
colonies.

Jon Kukla (16:22):
I think it's very clear that Grenville is in some
ways a protege of Halifax, andthere's this conflict or this
tension in terms of how toapproach the management of the
colonies.

Jim Ambuske (16:34):
Some British politicians argued that trade
alone would sustain the Empire,but others like Grenville and
Halifax believed that colonists'own self interest would tear the
Empire apart.

Jon Kukla (16:46):
Grenville and Halifax all embrace this kind of
authoritarian outlook. We needto get tough with the American
colonies, and we need to imposeour authority. The irony is
that, starting in the 1740s whenthey formulate these ideas,
their fear is that the coloniesare going to grow and eventually
they'll become independent whenGeorge Grenville comes to the

(17:09):
Prime Ministership, eitherGrenville or any of the other
leaders have second thoughtsabout what the king has planned.
That's just a given. Thequestion that they have is,
where are we going to get themoney? So they kick around
various ideas, and ultimately,Grenville comes up with the
great idea of imposing a stamptax on the colonies.

Jim Ambuske (17:31):
Grenville first began thinking about a Stamp Tax
in the summer of 1763, in manyways, it wasn't a novel idea.
Stamp duties had been a regularpart of life in Great Britain
since the late 17th century.They were an effective way of
raising revenue for theTreasury. Anyone reading the
London Gazette or the CaldonianMercury, for example, would have

(17:53):
seen a small but ornate red inkstamp with an image of a crown
in the words half penny the taxlevied on newspapers

Jon Kukla (18:01):
By 1760 the Brits were completely accustomed to
stamp duties. It's not somethingthat you thought about.

Jim Ambuske (18:10):
And they were just one of a number of reform
measures Grenville contemplatedas he mapped out a plan to
improve the Empire's financesand defend it.

Jon Kukla (18:18):
Now there's other things that they do, they adjust
various other taxes on linens,and they reintroduce the tax on
sugar, and they adjust thosesorts of things. But basically,
grenville's idea is that inorder to fund the king's plan
for sending troops to defendNorth America in the face of the
likelihood of French hostilityand also their perceived

(18:42):
likelihood that the French aregoing to stir up the Native
American tribes against theEnglish. So in order to fund
that plan, Grenville ultimatelydecides that he's going to first
announce and then legislate aStamp Tax.

Jim Ambuske (18:58):
Grenville began that work on March 9, 1764, in a
series of resolutions, heoffered to the House of Commons,
the Prime Minister laid out hisplans for the Sugar Act and new
duties on Madeira, lumber andother goods. In the 15th
resolution, he proposed stampduties for the colonies, as he

(19:18):
told the House he would delayintroducing formal legislation
until the next session ofParliament, so that he might
consult with leading officials,colonial agents and other
knowledgeable men about the mosteffective and least burdensome
ways to levy stamp duties onBritish Americans. He even
suggested that the coloniesmight avoid parliamentary action

(19:38):
if the provincial assemblies allagreed to levy taxes themselves
to support the army in NorthAmerica. But the Prime Minister
wanted to make one thing veryclear. Edward Montague, the
agent who lobbied parliament onVirginia's behalf, was watching
from the gallery when he heardGrenville express his hope that

(19:59):
the.

George Grenville (20:00):
Power and sovereignty of Parliament over
every part of the BritishDominions for the purpose of
raising or collecting any taxwould never be disputed.

Jim Ambuske (20:13):
For Grenville and other like minded men, it wasn't
just about what Parliament coulddo to deal with the Empire's war
debts, support an army in thecolonies, or take charge of
settlement in places like NovaScotia. But what it had a
fundamental right to do,

Jon Kukla (20:30):
he links it to the sovereignty of the British
Parliament. He basically says,the question is whether
parliament is going to ruleNorth America, or whether the
colonial legislatures are goingto rule North America, and we
need to insist uponparliamentary taxation as an
expression of the sovereignty ofthe nation and our control of

(20:53):
North America.

Patrick Griffin (20:54):
And nearly most leaders at this time would
regard themselves as good wigs.And what that simply means is
that they believed this thing,the Glorious Revolution at the
end of the 17th century was agood thing. That was a good
thing because, if you will,circumscribe the powers of the
king to a certain extent, andmade sure that Parliament was
going to be supreme. My name isPatrick Griffin. I'm the

(21:16):
Madden-Hennebry professor atthe University of Notre Dame.
What the Glorious Revolution didwas make Parliament supreme, and
they applaud this, and theyunderstand and appreciate it.
Now, not everybody agrees withwhat this means, but it's just
understood that Parliament'sgoing to be supreme. Now what
you find is after the SevenYears War, because it was such a

(21:37):
momentous period of time,because it was a period of
unprecedented euphoria andanxiety, people start to say,
Okay, what does sovereigntymean? How are we going to hold
the whole together? And I thinkwhat you find immediately after
1763 is an extraordinary debatein Britain about what
parliamentary supremacy, what itactually means, and could it be

(22:00):
extended across an ocean? Itbecomes a real, live question.

Jim Ambuske (22:07):
The vast majority of white British subjects on
both sides of the Atlanticapproach this contentious debate
with a common set of values.

Brad Jones (22:15):
In the middle of the 18th century what I call
Protestant British Whigs, orjust generally speaking, the
British society they lived undera constitutional monarchy, a
representative monarchy, asystem of government, which they
celebrated as providing themwith a degree of freedom
unmatched they thought, at leastin the Western world. My name is
Brad Jones. I'm a professor ofhistory at California State

(22:37):
University Fresno. The kinghimself existed at post glorious
revolution within thisgovernment. He was not an
absolutist. George the Third he,in many ways, held very little
power, or was able to expressvery little power, and that vast
majority of power and authoritycame from parliament. So they
celebrated this and they carriedthat tradition to the colonies

(22:58):
and elsewhere in the empire interms of colonial representative
governments in the Americancolonies across the Atlantic. So
that was something that Britishsubjects celebrated as one of
the great tenets of beingBritish.

Jim Ambuske (23:09):
But even if Britain's on both sides of the
Atlantic, could all agree inprinciple on what it meant to be
British, what that meant inpractice, as Parliament
attempted to tackle the veryreal problems of empire after
the Seven Years' War was a muchmore difficult question. This
was especially true for subjectsliving in Britain's older
American colonies.

Patrick Griffin (23:31):
Americans, of course, their colonies were not
established under parliament.Their colonies predated the
Glorious Revolution, and so someof the arrangements they have
are ones that were based uponthe crown. And so agreements
that had been forged with theCrown had established these
colonies. And so as they look atit from a legal perspective,

(23:51):
like, yeah, we understandparliament. They're not fools.
We understand the GloriousRevolution. We consider
ourselves heirs to the GloriousRevolution as well. You know, we
too are Protestant, commercial,maritime and free. That was more
or less what the GloriousRevolution put in place. But at
the same time, we have differentrelationships to the center.

Jim Ambuske (24:14):
In the 17th century, the Crown had granted
corporate charters to createcolonies like Virginia and
Massachusetts Bay, thosecharters conferred on settlers
and their descendants the samerights as their fellow subjects
in England, and in the case ofconquered colonies like Jamaica,
the Crown issued royalproclamations to confirm those
rights for British Americans,Parliament might well be

(24:36):
supreme, but they were connectedto The British empire through
the crown, as James Otis Jrargued in the months surrounding
the passage of the Sugar Act:

Unknown (24:46):
Every British subject born on the continent of America
or in any other of the BritishDominions is by the law of God
and nature, by common law and byact of parliament, exclusive of
all charters from the crown intide. Appeal to all the natural,
essential, inherent andinseparable rights of our fellow
subjects in Great Britain.

Jim Ambuske (25:07):
For Otis, those rights included the right to
taxation with representation,something British Americans
didn't have in Parliament yet.Grenville argued that the
colonies did haverepresentation. They were
virtually represented inParliament by virtue of living
in the king's Americandominions. In that sense, they

(25:28):
were no different than the vastmajority of British subjects who
owned no property and could notvote, something very common in
the 18th century, and fewBritish politicians doubted
Parliament's supreme authority.In fact, when grinville first
introduced the idea of stampduties in March 1764, he
shrewdly asked the House ofCommons if any member wished to

(25:50):
speak publicly againstParliament's assumed right to
tax the colonies.Unsurprisingly, no one did, but
just how far they shouldexercise that right remained in
question. The differencesbetween William Pitt, the de
facto Prime Minister in the late1750s who had borrowed enormous
sums of money to win the war,and Grenville, who had to

(26:14):
contend with the financialaftermath of Pitt's decisions
show us how.

Patrick Griffin (26:19):
William Pitt he's just like, No, no,
Parliament is absolutelysupreme. Nobody debates that
whatsoever. But we have to becareful how we're going to apply
it, because, as he famously putit, the people in America are
not the bastard children ofEngland. They have rights too,
and we have to recognize that.So we have to err a little bit
on that side. And then you havepeople like Grenville. He's just

(26:39):
going to basically say, Oh,they've rights, rights. Forget
about it. You know, Parliamentis supreme. Parliament supreme.
Here's parliament is supreme.Their Case Closed. We can do
whatever we want to do for thecolonies. That's it. Stamp Act
is a good idea. We got to keepboots on the ground in America.
This is the simplest way ofpaying for it. We sacrifice so
much for these colonies. It'simportant that they pay up

(27:00):
something, and it's a pittancecompared to what we're paying in
the Metropole to pay down thedebt.

Jim Ambuske (27:08):
The British American reaction to the mere
possibility of stamp duties, ofdirect taxes in the colonies was
anything but subtle.

Jon Kukla (27:18):
The Americans get wind of this, and they'd go, oh
my god, this is a dangerousprecedent. We can't let him do
this, because if he canestablish a Stamp Tax, then he
can tax us for anything.

Jim Ambuske (27:29):
Edward Montague wrote to Williamsburg:

Edward Montague (27:31):
Every mention of the parliament's intention to
lay an inland duty upon us givesus fresh apprehension of the
fatal consequences that mayarise to posterity from such a
precedent,

Jon Kukla (27:42):
Virginia's immediate reaction in spring of 1764 when
they get word through theircolonial agent that Grenville
has announced the possibility ofimposing stamp duties,
Virginia's top legislatorsCouncil and the Top people from
the House of Burgesses meettogether, and their immediate

(28:04):
reaction in 1764 is, this ishorrible. This is a dangerous
this is a fatal precedent. Thisis awful. Do everything you can
to fight against it.

Jim Ambuske (28:14):
In London, colonial agents scrambled to meet with
Grenville in May 1764, theyasked the Prime Minister if he
was serious about his suggestionthat the provinces tax
themselves and how much theywould need to raise in order to
avoid parliamentary action.Grenville was serious, he said.
But before he gave the agents afigure, he wanted them and by

(28:37):
implication, their respectiveassemblies to acknowledge
Parliament's right to tax them.

Jon Kukla (28:43):
Here's where he may have those larger debts in mind,
because his notion is that if wecan establish a clear precedent
for taxing North Americans underthe Stamp Act, once we've
established that precedent, wecan tax them as much as we want
for anything.

Jim Ambuske (29:03):
Grenville's conference with the colonial
agents ended without theiracknowledgement of Parliament's
absolute supremacy or anagreement on the precise figure
the colonies would need to raiseto head off a Stamp Tax only the
need for further discussion. ThePrime Minister's apparent
unwillingness to provide anestimate of the revenue needed
stifled colonial attempts to taxthemselves anyway. In August

(29:25):
1764, the Massachusettslegislature urged Governor
Francis Bernard to call aspecial session of the assembly
toward that very end, but thegovernor refused. Like most
royal governors, Bernardbelieved he had a duty to uphold
Parliament's will, although hecould see the logic in the
legislature's request. Even so,as he wrote to a friend in

(29:49):
London, Grenville needed to tellthe 26 British American colonies
how much they would each need tocontribute to the common
Imperial good. But in some ways.That was besides the immediate
point, there was no proposed Actof Parliament for the colonial
assemblies to pore over, onlythe suggestion of stamp duties

(30:09):
and grenville's assertion ofParliament's right to tax the
colonies. It wasn't even untilthat August that Lord Halifax,
the minister with oversight ofthe colonies, asked the
provincial governors for a listof documents that might be made
subject to stamp duties.

Jon Kukla (30:24):
Grenville may have thought that he was being clever
and secretive, but the Americanssaw the danger immediately. One
of the things that makes theStamp Act crisis so important in
the long run is that if we lookat the sequence of events in
March of 7064, in a budgetspeech, Grenville says we're

(30:47):
thinking about stamp duties fornext session. The Americans
begin to react to this.Everything blows up. It's not
until March of 1765 that heactually submits legislation. So
it's not until that spring of1765, after a year of

(31:10):
argumentation, it's not untilthat spring that anybody can
argue about the details of thelegislation in the way that, for
example, they argued aboutsugar. Should it be two pence,
or should it be three pence?Should it be this or this? None
of those kinds of detailedprovisions are at hand to be

(31:30):
debated. All they can debate isthe abstract principle of the
abstract constitutionalprinciple,

Jim Ambuske (31:38):
As autumn gave way to a winter of discontent,
British Americans condemned theprospect of stamp duties in
public and private, petitionedParliament and the king against
it without answer, and waitedfor news of what taxes the dawn
of spring might bring. Theylearned their fate in the weeks
following March, 22 1765, whenParliament passed the Stamp Act.

Jon Kukla (32:01):
And by that time, the Americans have been arguing
against this unconstitutionalprinciple for a year, and now,
all of a sudden, they see thething. It's 55 clauses. They're
taxing everything. The onlyinformation that the Grenville
administration wanted from thecolonial governors was, let's

(32:22):
make sure we get a complete listof all the documents that we
could tax. They don't ask them.How are people going to react?
Yeah, what can we tax? I can'timagine what it must have felt
like if you were an 18th centuryAmerican. You pick up a
newspaper and you see an entirepage devoted to all the taxes,

(32:43):
and we're going to do this onthis and another of the taxes.
You're going to have a tax onthe newspaper. There's also
going to be a tax on everyadvertisement in the newspaper.
The Stamp Act, as it wasadopted, required payment in
hard currency. The Americansdon't have hard currency. They

(33:05):
don't have coins in theirpockets to pay this stuff.

Jim Ambuske (33:09):
Here's Brad Jones.

Brad Jones (33:10):
The Stamp Act was virtually hated everywhere. It
was despised. It was a bad pieceof legislation. It was not just
the 13 Colonies, and it was noteven just the 26 colonies. I
would argue even mainlandBritons didn't like the Stamp
Act. It was a bad piece oflegislation for a couple of
reasons. One is certainly theway we understand it was bad was
that it was politically aproblem. It was an attempt to

(33:32):
directly attacks Americancolonists without their consent.
And that's a narrative picked upacross the British Atlantic
that's not unique to the 13Colonies. Halogenians understood
that. Kingstonians understoodthat. And I would argue any of
the other colonies outside ofthe 13 Americans, colonists
would have understood that. Butit was also understood in
mainland Britain. Glaswegiansunderstood it to be a dangerous

(33:52):
precedent to allow a governmentto tax its people without their
representation or without theirconsent. It was also
economically problematic. Thefear was that particularly when
colonists began to resist thetax, it was disrupting the
prosperous British trade,Atlantic trade. There's a real
fear amongst Glaswegian tobaccotraders that this could
jeopardize their valuable trades

Jon Kukla (34:13):
As a matter of the practical terms of the Stamp Act
as a matter of public relationsis a disaster, just thinking
about newspapers and Americanpaper makers. Under the Stamp
Act, as it was adopted in 1765they were expected to get the
paper imported from GreatBritain and use that that's not

(34:34):
going to be real popular withAmerican paper manufacturers.
It's certainly not popular withnewspaper editors. Now,
similarly, there's all kinds oflevels of stamps from a half
Penny all the way up to 10shillings. A 10 shilling stamp
would go on a college diploma.And then in between, there's all

(34:56):
kinds of legal documents that inorder to be regarded as.
Legitimate. The document has tohave a stamp on it. The Stamp
Act is going to alienate theattorneys. It's going to
alienate the printers. You'realienating the people who are
most likely to shape opinion.

Jim Ambuske (35:16):
In North America. Virginians led the initial
resistance movement, thoughsomewhat unexpectedly, on May 29
1765, a new member of the Houseof Burgesses named Patrick
Henry, who had a penchant fororatory and theatricality, rose
to speak in the house.

Jon Kukla (35:34):
The Assembly of Virginia happens to be in
session when a boat arrives inWilliamsburg carrying the text
of the Stamp Act, and the seniorleadership of the House
perceiving that there's just afew days left in the legislative
session. We're already on recordas opposing this. We don't have

(35:55):
to react to it. It may behorrible. They essentially don't
do anything. Henry is new to thehouse, perhaps not aware of what
previously has been done. AndHenry, possibly with the
assistance of a guy namedJohnson, drafts seven
resolutions against the StampAct and begins to introduce them

(36:15):
in the house of purchases. Hewould introduce one, and they
debate it and adopt it. And heintroduced the second one, and
they debated, and each of thesegot more and more radical, and
eventually five of his sevenresolutions get adopted. The
fifth was by like one vote.

Jim Ambuske (36:34):
Henry's fifth resolution declared that the
General Assembly of this Colonyhave the only and exclusive
Right and Power to lay Taxes andImpositions upon the inhabitants
of this Colony and that everyAttempt to vest such Power in
any person or persons whatsoeverother than the General Assembly
aforesaid has a manifestTendency to destroy British as

(36:56):
well as American Freedom. In 60words, the Virginia House of
Burgesses explicitly deniedParliament's right to tax the
king's subjects in the colony,Henry spoke forcefully in favor
of the resolutions on the floorof the house. Historians still
debate precisely what he said.We have only one surviving

(37:19):
eyewitness account, the diary ofan unknown person said to be a
Frenchman who was traveling inthe colonies at the time.
Various accounts of the speechcirculated in private in print
in the days and weeks thatfollowed, but they generally
agree on the basic shape ofHenry's words.

Jon Kukla (37:36):
Caesar had his Brutus, Charles had his Cromwell
and George the Third. And atthat point, somebody cries,
treason, and Henry says, andGeorge the Third may profit by
their example. And the next day,the house comes together. And by
this time, Henry has gone home,and the house comes together,

(37:56):
and they rescind the fifth one.So they actually only passed
four. And that's at that pointthat Governor Fauquier leans on
the local printer to keep himfrom publishing the resolutions
that were passed by the House ofBurgesses so he doesn't publish
them. And as a result of that,Henry and his friends circulate

(38:19):
all seven of their resolutionsto other printers. It gets first
printed in Rhode Island, and itgets picked up everywhere else.
The seventh resolution is sayingessentially that this is an
unconstitutional action and thatanybody in the colonies who
disagrees on that point is anenemy of the people. Henry's
resolutions get circulated andthe Virginia resolves against

(38:42):
the Stamp Act electrify thecolonies.

Jim Ambuske (38:45):
In the spring of 1765 the king's ministers
learned of the Virginiaassembly's actions and of a
growing colonial resistancemovement. To their considerable
dismay,

Jon Kukla (38:56):
They were horrified. They were absolutely horrified.
And in fact, Grenvillecorresponds with one of his
lieutenants is essentially, haveyou read what the Virginians
said? My God, they were justabsolutely horrified, because
this was a complete affront toparliament's authority

Jim Ambuske (39:14):
In Rhode Island, lawyer and politician Martin
Howard tried to persuade hisfellow British Americans that
Parliament was in the rightHoward was a member of the
Newport junto, a group of menwho had very specific Imperial
aims. Here's Abby Chandler,Associate Professor of History
at the University ofMassachusetts, Lowell.

Abby Chandler (39:35):
The Newport junto comes into existence in 1764
Martin Howard is the best knownof the group, and is certainly
the most outspoken, and they areadvocating for various causes.
Their original cause wasadvocating for Rhode Island to

(39:58):
become a Royal Colony. Insteadof a charter colony, Rhode
Island's internal politics areextremely tense at this period,
and there are huge battlesbetween different political
factions for the position ofgovernor and Howard and the

(40:18):
other members of the New Port.Junto thought that if Rhode
Island became a Royal Colony,their governor would be
appointed by the king, and thatthis might cut down on internal
tensions.

Jim Ambuske (40:29):
From Howard's point of view, Prime Minister
Grenville was right to arguethat the colonies enjoyed
virtual representation inParliament. In 1765 Howard
published a pamphlet to defendthe sugar and stamp acts
entitled A letter from agentleman in Halifax to his
friend in Rhode Island.

Abby Chandler (40:47):
One of the things he does in this pamphlet is to
define his idea of how politicalrights work for subjects in the
British Empire. He explains thatall British subjects have
personal rights and that theyhave political rights. He quotes

(41:08):
John Locke that all Britishsubjects are entitled to life,
liberty and estate, politicalrights, however, Howard believes
are tied to political entities,rather than the individual. So a
colony has certain politicalrights. And Howard argues that

(41:33):
if Parliament had intended theindividual colonies to have
direct representation ofParliament, then they would have
set it up that way. Part of whatMartin Howard is doing is
calling out his fellow British,North American colonists,
saying, You are demandingsomething that most people in

(41:54):
Britain don't even have. This isthe system. This is how it
works. Be happy with yourpersonal rights of life, liberty
in a state.

Jim Ambuske (42:02):
But Howard was in the extreme minority. Here's
John Kukla.

Jon Kukla (42:06):
Steven Johnson in Connecticut, wrote a pamphlet
that outlined the Americanposition very well. If the
British parliament have a rightto impose a Stamp Tax, then they
have the right to lay on us apoll tax, a land tax, a malt
tax, a cider tax, a window tax,a smoke tax, and why not tax us

(42:26):
for the light of the sun, theair we breathe and the ground we
are buried in.

Jim Ambuske (42:33):
Prime Minister Grenville stood firm on the
question of Parliament's supremeauthority, unfortunately for
this able parliamentarian, byJuly 1765, the king's patience
with the man had worn out.

Jon Kukla (42:46):
Grenville is thrown out of office. Doesn't have
anything to do with the StampAct. It has to do with the fact
that George the Third is just soannoyed with him that he wants
to get him out of He justdoesn't want to have to deal
with this man anymore, and so hefires Grenville, and then looks
around to try to find the nextguy who can run the government

(43:06):
for him. And he ends up withEarl of Rockingham as the next
prime minister.

Jim Ambuske (43:11):
Rockingham inherited a government trying to
implement a complicated new taxlaw in a matter of mere months.

Jon Kukla (43:18):
The Stamp Act is set up in the legislation which
passes in March of 1765 it's setup to go into effect in the
colonies on November 1 1765they're going to try, they're
going to try to to recruit andsend 26 stamp officers to the

(43:38):
colonies to impose thisincredibly unpopular tax on the
American people. In the courseof a few months, I've seen
correspondence from thebureaucrats in London in the
stamp office who are badgeringGrenville and his assistants.
Please, we need you to name thenext skies. This is the summer

(44:01):
three, four months before thisthing's supposed to take effect,
there's at least a couple ofvacant stamp officer positions.
Now, mind you, when you're astamp officer, you need to take
oaths, and you need to post 1000pound bond, and all that
paperwork has to be taken intoeffect before you can administer
the law. And then there's thefact that you've just got that

(44:25):
summer essentially for the stampbureaucrats to design the stamp,
get them printed.

Jim Ambuske (44:33):
The stamps designed for the colonies look similar to
British stamps, a small butornate red ink stamp with an
image of a crown, but with theword America at the top, the
amount of tax to be paid was atthe bottom. The Pennsylvania
Journal mocked the new stamp andthe law by printing a stamp in
the form of a skull andcrossbones.

Jon Kukla (44:53):
It's just patently absurd that you're gonna try to
impose this kind of a detail. Aregimen 3000 miles away. So when
they're going to send this stuffover, it's huge, about just
enormous amounts of stuff. Wethink of the stamp itself. It's

(45:13):
like maybe an inch square. Butthere were these huge shipments
of material that had to bebrought from London during the
summer of 1765 to the colonies,usually in Royal Navy vessels

Jim Ambuske (45:28):
With the Stamp Act scheduled to go into effect in
November, British Americansfaced the prospect of paying
higher prices on newspapers,wills, playing cards and land
grants in Nova Scotia, a colonylargely funded by Parliament, a
land boom, and the curious caseof an Irish born veteran of the
Seven Years War named AlexanderMcNutt helps us to understand

(45:52):
what stamp duties meant in realterms

Ala Montgomery (45:56):
In the 1760s especially right before peace is
declared, you start to See a lotof interest in Nova Scotia
coming from Philadelphia, of allplaces. And this is new prior to
this, most interest from theother colonies in Nova Scotian
land was coming from NewEngland, which is natural
enough. I'm Dr AlexandraMontgomery. I am the manager of

(46:16):
the Center for Digital historyat Mount Vernon. Starting in the
early 1760s you start seeinghuge numbers of Philadelphians,
wealthy Philadelphians, famousPhiladelphians, Benjamin
Franklin, we're talking aboutvarious mayors, start to become
really interested in thepossibility of Nova Scotian
land. This is largely led by agentleman named Alexander

(46:36):
McNutt. He is not aPhiladelphian. He grows up in
backcountry Virginia. He's aclassic Scots Irish guy, and he
has connections in Nova Scotia.And Alexander McNutt is a very
colorful figure, to put itmildly. He grows up in this
classic frontier environment inthe Shenandoah Valley, and he

(46:58):
ends up being hosted in NovaScotia during the war, and he
almost has a religiousexperience. I imagine him sort
of posted in Fort Cumberland,gazing out onto the land, and
just the scales fall from hiseyes, and he sees his true
vision, because he spends therest of his life on a messianic
voyage to spread the good wordabout Nova Scotia. He truly
believes that it is his goal inlife to make Nova Scotia into

(47:20):
this Protestant, preferablyPresbyterian, settler paradise.
And he takes this zeal with himin attempting to recruit all of
these leading Philadelphiabusinessmen. But with quite a
bit of success, he is able tocreate or get himself involved
in many, many companies. And heis personally involved in the
sale of at least a million acresof land in Nova Scotia in the

(47:40):
mid 1760s I like to contrastAlexander McNutt with the Earl
of Egmont. Alexander McNuttrepresents this sort of Empire
of Liberty, nation ofsmallholding farmers. McNutt
feels incredibly strongly thatland should be divided up. The
purpose of the government is toexpeditiously dispatch this land

(48:02):
to families who will own land inFreehold, who will farm the
land, who will practicereligious freedom. For
Protestants, the limits of hisreligious freedom are quite
clear. It should be fordistributing as much land as
possible to white smallholdingfamilies who will own that land.
This is a very familiar vision.It's a very American Vision in a
lot of ways, the Earl of Egmontrepresents a very different

(48:25):
vision. He is an aristocrat, asyou might have guessed by his
title, you know, it's not justfor show, and what he wants to
do is essentially create feudallandholdings in the colonies. He
sees the colonies as anopportunity to recreate a style
of landholding that, while stillmuch more robust in the United

(48:45):
Kingdom than it ever becomes inthe colonies, is maybe on its
way out. It's consciouslyretrograde idea about the
creation of these manners, tothe extent that Egmont is
invoking, literally William theConqueror, as he's talking about
how he wants to divide up hisland. There's this fantastic map
of this land holdings that hegets in Nova Scotia, in the area
that's around what's now door,where he's divided it up into

(49:07):
these neat little squares. Andhe's got all of these notes on
the side that are basicallylike, I'm going to give this
amount of land, because this isthe amount of land that William
the Conqueror gave to Hisfollowers to reward them, and in
return, they will owe meservice. I see him as the weird
vanguard of a bunch of peoplewho are also much more
interested in this land ascreating landlordism. Being

(49:28):
landlords, a lot of Nova Scotiacounselors who are able to get
plum land grants, much tomcnutts sugar in they're
imagining renters. They'reimagining tenants. There's a
very fundamentally differentvision about how the Empire
should work. It's an empire ofstrict hierarchy. It's an empire
in which people who are close topower have the most control over

(49:50):
the land. And it's these twovisions that are clashing.

Jim Ambuske (49:54):
But these two competing visions of empire in
Nova Scotia could not escape thefact that if Nova Scotians obey.

Ala Montgomery (49:59):
The Stamp Act it just makes things a lot more
expensive, specifically landtransactions. These kinds of
transactions are some of thetransactions that are
specifically targeted by theStamp Act for this additional
cost, this additional duty. Sofrom a very practical
perspective, when the Stamp Actpasses, costs are going to go
way up.

Jim Ambuske (50:19):
With November 1 looming, it became a race
against time for landspeculators to secure land
grants from the provincialgovernment in Halifax.

Ala Montgomery (50:28):
What ends up happening is in kind of a
compromise between the Britishand Nova Scotian councilors who
are signing the paperwork, isthis all gets rushed through
really quickly, and it getsrushed through on terms that are
not great, and it's not reallyclear if the crown is going to
agree, but it all gets pushedthrough as fast as possible,
right on October 31 right beforethe Stamp Act comes into effect.

(50:51):
So 2.5 million acres of NovaScotian land gets granted away
in a two week period beforeOctober 31 and the vast majority
is on the 29th 30th, 31stitself, just to try to push this
all through, get over with nothave to deal with either the
taint or the practical extracost of the Stamp Act.

Jim Ambuske (51:11):
The land speculators were right to worry.
Unlike most of the mainlandcolonies, Nova Scotia
administered the Stamp Act.

Jon Kukla (51:18):
It was in Halifax Nova Scotia, that we have some
newspapers that were printed inaccord with the Stamp Act, and
they ran out of paper.

Jim Ambuske (51:27):
Here's Brad Jones.

Brad Jones (51:29):
They are vocally critical that they share in this
kind of empire wide oppositionto the Stamp Tax. But the local
circumstances are such that it'svery hard to resist it. Halifax
is a British military outpost.There are several 1000 soldiers
stationed there. And

Ala Montgomery (51:45):
Also, more importantly, I think, even in
the presence of the military, isthe fact that Parliament is
paying all of the bills.Parliament is literally funding
the existence of Nova Scotia.

Brad Jones (51:55):
So as a result, that the local government is beholden
to Parliament in ways that the13 Colonies aren't.

Jim Ambuske (52:01):
the new colony of East Florida administered the
Stamp Act as well. So doCaribbean colonies like Jamaica.

Jon Kukla (52:07):
There is a sharp distinction between the mainland
colonies and the Caribbeancolonies, and the reason mostly
has to do with the fact that theCaribbean islands perceive
themselves as needing the forceof the British Navy and Army in
defending these small minoritiesof whites against large number
of enslaved people, there's thatfear that undercuts the efforts

(52:31):
on the part of people who wantto resist.

Brad Jones (52:34):
Jamaica's about 15,000 white colonists amongst
about 200,000 enslaved Africans.So they also have fears that any
riots or popular assemblies oropposition provide opportunities
for enslaved Africans to revolt.So these very particular local
contacts make it difficult forthem to resist the tax, but
verbally or in print, they arecritical of the tax, and it

(52:59):
seems like other places,understand that there's evidence
suggests that colonists in theAmerican colonies, or even back
in Britain, understand thedifficulties that Halogenians or
Kingstonians have in resistingthe attacks. Some are critical,
some aren't of their behavior,but they live in very different
circumstances than certainly,New York.

Ala Montgomery (53:17):
My favorite little story about the Stamp Act
coming to effect that involvesNova Scotia is in New York in
1765, in December, the new NovaScotia papers arrived to the
port of New York. And thereporting on this is so
overblown, so incrediblyscandalized. And it includes my
favorite quote possibly everfrom any publication, which is
this one writer in the New YorkGazette. He's talking about the

(53:39):
appearance of the stampedHalifax paper, and he refers to
it as quote, the most noble,ignoble tragedy that could ever
be, tragedies since the creationof man such an over the top
quote, I think it really speaksto the height of the passions
that people are feeling aboutthe Stamp Act.

Jim Ambuske (53:58):
Local circumstances may have prevented haligonians
or kingstonians from openlyresisting the Stamp Act. But in
the majority of the mainlandcolonies, passionate British
Americans chose violence. In thesummer of 1765 newspapers began
reporting the names of the menwhom the king had appointed to
distribute stamps in thecolonies, if impassioned

(54:20):
political arguments wherepetitions to London couldn't put
a stop to the Stamp Act, thatperhaps mob action and rioting
would.

Jon Kukla (54:29):
What the Americans decide to do is they say, we've
tried to argue against this forall the period you went ahead
and adopted it anyway. Okay, nowyou enforce it. We're going to
do two things. We're going toforce the stamp officers to
resign, and we're going toprevent any of the stamp
materials from being broughtashore. That's what they do. So

(54:51):
starting in August of 7065 whenthe Bostonians intimidate Andrew
Oliver into resigning and upuntil. Until early November,
when the Virginians, in earlyNovember of 1765 forced the
resignation of their stampofficer. Between that time,
stamp officers all up and downthe East Coast are being run out

(55:13):
of office with either threats ofphysical violence or sometimes
with physical violence at thefew places where they're
actually able to bring thestamps ashore, like in New York,
they have to put them in acastle at the foot of Manhattan
and hide them away in order tokeep the mob from getting them
and burning them.

Jim Ambuske (55:33):
Here's Abby Chandler.

Abby Chandler (55:34):
The actual actions taken in Rhode Island
bear a very close resemblance tothe actions taken around that
same time in Boston, the men whoare the Stamp Tax masters,
Andrew Oliver in Massachusetts,Augustus Johnston in Rhode
Island, are under attack. We'regoing to hang people in effigy

(55:58):
do bad things to it. We're goingto attack their houses. That's
consistent between the Stamp Actriots in Boston and the Stamp
Act riots in Rhode Island. Thething that makes the Stamp Act
riots in Rhode Island differentis in most of the British
colonies, the battle over theStamp Act is between the royally
appointed governors like Bernardin Massachusetts and the locally

(56:23):
elected legislature, the royallyappointed governors are pro
Stamp Act, legislatures areanti. But the thing with Rhode
Island is it's a charter colony.The governor is locally elected,
and Samuel Ward is anti StampAct, and the Rhode Island
legislature is anti Stamp Act,and Stamp Act should not have

(56:45):
been an issue in Rhode Islandbecause of that. The thing that
makes Rhode Island different isyou have that pesky group, the
New Port Junto, so you haveprivate citizens advocating for
the Stamp Act in Rhode Island,which makes the riots an even
more intimate affair, becausethis isn't colonists attacking

(57:10):
people appointed by the king.This is colonists attacking
other colonists.

Jim Ambuske (57:16):
On August 26 the threat of violence forced
Newport Gentoo members, MartinHoward, Thomas Moffat and stamp
master Augustus Johnston to findrefuge aboard the HMS Cygnet in
Newport Harbor. Rioters hungeffigies of the three men from
gallows set up in front of thecourthouse with a label affixed
to Howard's image, calling himthat fawning, insidious,

(57:39):
infamous miscreanton Parasitethe mob later sacked Howard and
Moffat's homes. Johnson's homewas spared only because he
pledged to resign his office notlong after, Howard and Moffat
sailed for Britain in October,New York rioters carried their
protests right to the Britishgovernment's symbolic doorstep

(58:00):
on the southern tip ofManhattan, where the governor's
residence and Fort George stoodon Bowling Green. Here's Wendy
Bellion, the Biggs chair inAmerican Art History at the
University of Delaware.

Wendy Bellion (58:13):
The area of Bowling Green becomes very
interesting at the time of theStamp Act, British colonists
start to take action. Theycreate a protest that involves a
parade down to Bowling Green andincludes effigies of the
lieutenant governor, who wascalled Cadwallader Colden

(58:33):
together with the devil. Theyappear at Bowling Green. They
rattle at the gates of thegovernor's house, they manage to
get a hold of his carriage, andthey bring the effigies and the
carriage together to the centerof Bowling Green, the space that
is so closely associated withthe Crown presence in lower
Manhattan, and they lighteverything on fire.

Jim Ambuske (58:58):
George Mercer arrived home from London to an
equally rude awakening. Mercerhad been in the imperial capital
lobbying the British governmenton behalf of the Ohio Company.
Much to his family's dismay,Mercer applied to grinville for
the position of Virginia's stampdistributor, a decision he came

(59:18):
to quickly regret. CassandraBritt Ferrell, senior map
archivist at the Library ofVirginia, explains why

Cassandra Farrell (59:27):
He was well aware of the opposition to the
Stamp Act. But he thought thatbecause they were British
citizens, that the Virginiacolonists would come around and
abide by the policies of theStamp Act. He thought that they
would eventually accept it. ButI don't think he was aware of
the real antagonistic oppositionto it until he arrived in

(59:50):
Williamsburg in October 1765,

Jim Ambuske (59:54):
Nearly two months before Mercer arrived home, he
was already present in theNorthern Virginia town. Town of
Dumfries.

Cassandra Farrell (01:00:01):
People who were in Dumfries on September 2,
parade effigies of the PrimeMinister George Granville and
the Crown appointed stampdistributor George Mercer, a
parade effigies of both menthroughout town. George Mercer's
effigy is placed on a horse, ofcourse, he's not facing the

(01:00:22):
front of the horse. He's facingthe back of the horse. There's a
copy of the Stamp Act tiedaround his neck with a halter,
and the effigies are paradedthrough Dumfries and they are
caned, they're whipped, they'repillared, they're cropped,
they're aimed, and they areburned.

Jim Ambuske (01:00:46):
Three weeks later on September 24 Grenville and
Mercer paid a visit to theWestmoreland County Courthouse.

Cassandra Farrell (01:00:53):
Effigies of Grenville and Mercer are placed
in a cart, and that in itself issymbolically significant,
because you would never, everfind Mercer or Grenville being
carted around. These are men whocome from higher positions
within the colony, fullwealthier families, and they
would be riding on a horse, andthey would have enslaved people

(01:01:16):
with them, or servants. Sothere's no way that you would
ever find them and a cart, andGeorge Mercer has in his hand a
slip of paper that says, moneyis my God. In the other hand, he
apparently has a slip of paperthat inscribes slavery I love.
And then on the effigies pressesdisplayed the phrase, I am

(01:01:39):
George Mercer, collector ofstamps in Virginia and of
course, Granville in the samecar, they have a message on the
breast of his effigy that says,infamous projector of American
slavery.

Jim Ambuske (01:01:54):
Few white Virginians watching the parade
would have given much thought tothe apparent contradiction
between the political slaverythey feared and the actual
slavery they wielded over blackpeople who were no doubt also in
the crowd that day. When Mercerentered Williamsburg on October
30, he was confronted not by amob of artisans and tradesmen as

(01:02:17):
Andrew Oliver had been inBoston, but by a crowd of
gentlemen angry about the StampAct.

Cassandra Farrell (01:02:23):
The General Court is about to go into
session on November 1. So youhave a lot of people in town.
You have members of the generalcourt. You have attorneys who
are representing their clientsat the general court. You have
merchants who are meeting. It'sa great time to meet if you're a
Virginia merchant, becauseyou'll be meeting not only with

(01:02:45):
other merchants, but withattorneys justices. It'll be a
good time to meet with theLieutenant Governor Fauquier.
This is what he's walking into.Governor Fauquier gives the best
account. He describes asituation where Mercer walks up
and he's immediately confrontedby Virginians who are unhappy,
very unhappy, with the StampTax, and they are very

(01:03:08):
interested in finding out whenhe's going to resign from his
position as stamp distributor.So he's trying to walk up the
Capitol Street, and thelieutenant governor is at the
coffee house waiting for him toarrive. And of course, he's not
the only one the coffee house.He describes merchants and
members of the general court,they're waiting. They're

(01:03:30):
drinking coffee too. And hedescribes hearing a code word
when other people see Mercershow up. And this code word is
used in the coffee shop. And allof a sudden, these folks leave,
and then they end up confrontingMercer on the street, asking him
questions he's not answeringquestions to their satisfaction.
At one point, they actuallystart to rush him, and Fauquier

(01:03:54):
has stepped to the side of theporch and come to his dispense
verbally, dragging Mercer upinto the coffee shop porch just
to protect him. As it comescloser to five o'clock and night
begins to fall, Fauquier askedMercer to accompany him back to
the governor's palace, whereFauquier was residing, and it's
there that they had aconversation. Fauquier

(01:04:16):
encouraged him not to resign outof fear, necessarily, because he
knew that Mercer's family, whowas indeed concerned for his
safety, was strongly encouraginghim to resign, and Mercer had
told the crowd that he wouldgive them an answer about
whether or not he was going toresign before the Stamp Act went
into effect the next day, heDoes announce his resignation to

(01:04:40):
the public in Williamsburg.

Jim Ambuske (01:04:42):
Mercer's resignation closed the general court.

Cassandra Farrell (01:04:46):
The court couldn't operate without stamped
paper, and because Mercer wasnot going to distribute the
paper, it shut down the generalcourt. And so the General Court
adjourned until April 1766 Andother county courts did not
meet. In Westmoreland, theythought it was unconstitutional
and they weren't going to abideby it, and therefore they

(01:05:08):
weren't going to meet. But a lotof the county courts did not
meet, and so you have justicedelayed in Williamsburg and in
Virginia because the Stamp Taxcan't be distributed.

Jim Ambuske (01:05:22):
So while British Americans harassed would be
stamp distributors burned primeministers and colonial officials
in effigy and destroyed propertysome members of the colonial
elite gathered in New York Cityto discuss the crisis. In June,
the Massachusetts assemblycirculated a letter calling for
a congress of delegates topresent a united front against

(01:05:45):
the Stamp Act in the mid 18thcentury, the word Congress
simply meant a meeting whenelected delegates from nine
colonies met in New York thatOctober. The Stamp Act Congress
had no legal or constitutionalpowers, nor did it claim any the
governors of Virginia, NorthCarolina and Georgia refused to
convene their assemblies toelect delegates, leaving those

(01:06:08):
colonies unrepresented. NovaScotia and New Hampshire
declined to sendrepresentatives, and without
assemblies of their own, Quebecand East and West Florida had no
means to elect delegates anyway,but the delegate delegates who
did assemble in New Yorkproduced a series of resolutions
that captured the sentiments ofmost British Americans, even if

(01:06:31):
local circumstances shaped howtheir individual colonies
responded to the Stamp Act. In aseries of 14 carefully worded
resolutions, the delegatesaffirmed their allegiance to
George the Third, acknowledgedthe colony's subordination to
Parliament, but stated plainlythat without representation,
Parliament had no right to taxthem without their consent. But

(01:06:54):
if Parliament remainedunconvinced by constitutional
arguments about its ownsupremacy, then perhaps it would
listen to arguments about trade.As the delegates noted as the
profits of the trade of thesecolonies ultimately center in
Great Britain, the restrictionsimposed by several late Acts of
Parliament on the trade of thesecolonies will render them unable

(01:07:18):
to purchase the manufacturers ofGreat Britain. In other words,
if everyone could agree thattrade contributed to the common
Imperial good, thenparliamentary laws that ground
trade to a halt hurt all theking's subjects during the
crisis, British Americans didengineer some trade boycotts
with modest success yet looseenforcement and the willingness

(01:07:41):
of merchants and ship captainsto put to sea anyway without
stamped papers muted theireffect. Nevertheless:

Jon Kukla (01:07:48):
There's a wonderful sense in which yet another
stupidity about the Stamp Act isthat it helps the Americans
enforce the boycott. If youdon't use stamps, technically,
you can't make thesetransactions because the papers
that are supposed to go alongwith the goods that you're
exporting should have stamps on them.

Jim Ambuske (01:08:06):
Despite all the violence and all the principled
rhetoric, trade brought theStamp Act crisis to an end where
it began, in London, althoughthe king's ministers refused to
entertain the Stamp ActCongress's petition, the Marquis
of Rockingham, the new andpolitically weak Prime Minister,
began searching for a resolutionto the Imperial crisis, and

(01:08:29):
pressure from British merchantsoffered him a way out.

Jon Kukla (01:08:32):
Two things happen with Rockingham. One is he's
inclined to try to bring thiscrisis to an end. And the second
thing is that he and BenFranklin and a bunch of others
essentially arrange for a wholeseries of hearings. They're not
listening to the Americans, butthey are listening to British

(01:08:52):
artisans and manufacturers inplaces like Manchester and Leeds
and such, who have been thrownout of work by the fact that the
Americans are boycotting Britishgoods. These are people who are
making socks and China andceramics and linen. Between
those hearings and theRockingham administration's

(01:09:13):
policies, they bring about arepeal of the Stamp Act in 1766.

Jim Ambuske (01:09:19):
Parliament repealed the Stamp Act on March 18, 1766
just over two years since GeorgeGrenville first mentioned the
possibility of stamp duties inthe House of Commons.

Brad Jones (01:09:31):
Remarkably, when it's repealed in 1766 everyone
celebrates that. There areparades in Glasgow to celebrate
the repeal of the Stamp Act, thelargest celebration of the
repeal the Stamp Act occurs inLondon. The Stamp Act crisis is
not just the story of thepassage of the Stamp Act. It's
also the story of the repeal andthe Stamp Act, and that is

(01:09:53):
hugely important in the minds ofBritish subjects, that they saw
themselves as members of a free.And representative government
and society, and that theycelebrated the monarchy in the
British Constitution. They stillwere convinced 18th century
British subjects that humanswere innately corrupt and prone
to self interest. That meantthat people with power would try

(01:10:15):
to consume it, and in thatcontext, we would have tyranny.
They weren't naive in this. Theybelieved they had created a
system of government that wasbest able to protect against the
natural tendencies of man. Buthere's the beauty of the Stamp
Act crisis. They did somethingreally bad in the eyes of
British subjects everywhere,that was tyrannical, that was
oppressive, was arbitrary, butthen they repeal it, and the

(01:10:38):
king actually is paraded toParliament to sign the repeal
the Stamp Act like evidence thatsure government's going to do
bad things, that's the nature ofman. But if we speak up, if we
turn to newspapers and writeessays and editorials, if we
share those essays andeditorials or reports of riots
and protests across theAtlantic, that we can get our

(01:10:59):
government to recognize theirmistakes, and so the repeal is
really a vindication of thegreatness of this British
Protestant Whig identity.

Jim Ambuske (01:11:21):
British Americans everywhere rejoiced at the stamp
Act's repeal. They had defendedtheir rights and the rights of
the king's subjects everywhere.Boston learned of the repeal on
May 16, 1766, three days later,Bostonians illuminated public
buildings. Governor Bernardentertained guests, and a

(01:11:43):
wealthy merchant named JohnHancock supplied the common
rabble with 126 gallons ofMadeira wine. In New York, the
General Assembly voted tocommission an equestrian statue
of King George, the third whomthey credited with helping to
end the Stamp Act crisis, andone of William Pitt, who had

(01:12:06):
treated the colonies so wellduring the Seven Years' War and
who had urged the stamp Act'srepeal in parliament, in their
euphoria, in their toasts, intheir parades And in their
general merriment, BritishAmericans hardly noticed. A
second act of parliament passedon the same day as the hated

(01:12:29):
Act's repeal. It was called theDeclaratory Act, and it declared
that Parliament had the right tolegislate for the colonies in
all cases whatsoever.
Thanks for listening to Worldsturned upside down. Worlds is a

(01:12:51):
production of art two studios,part of the Roy Rosenzweig
center for history and new mediaat George Mason University. I'm
your host. Jim Ambuske. Head tor2studios.org for a complete
transcript of today's episodeand suggestions for further
reading. Worlds is research andwritten by me with additional
research, writing and scriptediting by Jeanette Patrick.

(01:13:15):
Jeanette Patrick and I are theexecutive producers. Grace
Mallon is our Britishcorrespondent. Our lead audio
editor is Curt Dahl of CDsquared, Amber Pelham and
Alexandra Miller are ourgraduate assistants. Our thanks
to John Kukla, Patrick Griffin,Brad Jones, Abby Chandler,
Alexander Montgomery, WendyBellion and Cassandra Britt

(01:13:36):
Ferrell for sharing theirexpertise with us in this
episode. Thanks also to ourvoice actors, Adam Smith Mills,
Kelly and Bo Robins. Subscribeto Worlds on your favorite
podcast app. Thanks, and we'llsee you next time you.