The Handy Boston Answer Book. Samuel Willard CromptonЧитать онлайн книгу.
Massachusetts had gained leverage of their own. Though Boston was the capital, the Great and General Court was largely controlled by men from the inland towns. They might sympathize with Boston’s economic woes, but they could not and would not rescue it.
If the American Revolution had not taken place, might Boston’s plight have been even worse?
Yes, indeed. It’s quite possible that the town would have languished for decades.
THE STAMP ACT
How and when did George III act where taxes were concerned?
The American colonists had long paid various kinds of customs duties, but they had never experienced direct taxes from Great Britain. Even the loudest of revolutionary orators, such as Sam Adams and Patrick Henry, admitted that customs duties were lawful because the colonists imported goods from the motherland. But to the notion that England could tax them directly, the Americans nearly always responded with a firm negative.
The first significant test of American resolve came in 1762, when Parliament issued a new version of the Sugar, or Molasses, Act. The colonists did not feel any need to turn out against the king’s officials in part because they were so few in number. But Bostonian James Otis, who was a native of Barnstable, argued long and hard against the Sugar Act and the Writs of Assistance, which were designed to make it easier for royal officials to search colonists’ homes. In 1765, Bostonians learned that Parliament passed and King George assented to the Stamp Act (England already had one of its own). Under this act, colonists had to purchase special paper that carried the king’s stamp for use in all official letters, correspondence, and so forth. Newspapers, and even playing cards had to bear the king’s stamp.
Why was Boston in the forefront of the opposition?
Boston had long been a place of dissent. The original Puritan settlers came to Boston to get away from the king and his established church. Economic factors contributed as well. New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston were all doing reasonably well in the 1760s, while Boston suffered from unemployment inflation, and a host of uncollected property taxes. The economic plight of the town led many people who might otherwise have been quiet to refuse the brand-new Stamp Act.
How rich was John Hancock?
He owned a mansion on Beacon Hill, and for many years his was the only mansion there. Hancock owned a bevy of ships that carried out trade all over the Atlantic world. It’s difficult to measure his wealth against modern-day wealthy Americans; suffice to say that his personal income was probably as large as the treasury of the town of Boston!
Precisely when the “Sons of Liberty” were formed, or who drew up the first list of members is difficult to say, but there is little doubt that Sam Adams, Paul Revere, James Otis, and James Warren became the leaders of this semi-official group. John Hancock, known for his wealth and social grace, later became an important member, but in the early years he was distrusted, as being too darned rich for a group that intended to resist taxes.
How effective were the Sons of Liberty?
One can only marvel at what they were able to accomplish. Up to the year 1765, Boston was a reasonably law-abiding town, and one which showed a good deal of respect toward British leadership. By the end of 1765, Boston was on the verge of a genuine political revolution, and at least nine-tenths of the reason for that change was the Sons of Liberty.
One can accuse the Sons of bullying, and there is much truth to the accusation. One can accuse them of inflaming passions at a time when calmness and moderation were called for, but this was one thing they would not do. In the entire history of eighteenth-century America, one looks in vain for a political group as well organized and successful as the Sons of Liberty.
Did British officials expect the furor that arose following the passage of the Stamp Act?
They did not have a clue. For one thing, there were very few of them. The official collector of the stamps was Peter Oliver, a native-born Bostonian. For another, the British were quite accustomed to paying taxes, and it both infuriated and amazed them that the Bostonians would not do so.
A 1903 postcard commemorating the burning of the Stamp Act declaration by Bostonians.
I often thought that the “Liberty Tree” was symbolic rather than actual. Am I mistaken?
Half and half. There was indeed a large elm tree on The Neck, the narrow isthmus that connected Boston to the mainland, at Roxbury. That is where the Sons of Liberty often gathered. Over time, however, the “Liberty Tree” became a symbol that was appropriated by other groups, and eventually it was enshrined in American poetry and literature.
During the mid-summer of 1765, resistance in Boston grew to such a point that no one wanted even to try to carry out King George’s new law. And in August some of the Sons of Liberty brought Peter Oliver to what they called the Liberty Tree on The Neck and made him swear, over and over again, that he would never attempt to collect Stamp Act taxes. They made him drink to the health of the Sons of Liberty, and it was obvious they would tar and feather him if he refused.
How inflamed did the situation become?
Ten days after forcing Peter Oliver to give up his office, the Sons of Liberty attacked the mansion of Lieutenant-Governor Thomas Hutchinson. It seems odd the way the Sons of Liberty persecuted one of their neighbors (Hutchinson was born and raised in town), but Hutchinson’s elegant demeanor and arrogant attitude epitomized, for many of them, the worst qualities of the British aristocrat. Hutchinson got out of the house in time, but the Bostonians torched it; along with many valuable possessions, Hutchinson lost the manuscript for what might have been an enlivening history of early Boston.
By the end of 1765, no supporter of George III or the Stamp Act dared show his face. The mob, which is what the Sons of Liberty were on their bad days, practically ran the town. Not until the spring of 1766 did Bostonians learn that George III and Parliament had rescinded the Stamp Act.
Was Boston really strong enough to resist the Stamp Act all on its own?
Not quite. Boston showed the most powerful resistance of all the American towns, but other coastal towns demonstrated outrage of their own. Americans up and down the coast even sent delegates to the Stamp Act Congress, held in Manhattan. So while Boston was in the forefront, plenty of other American colonists were ready to resist.
Learning of this, George III and the leaders of the House of Commons decided to revoke the Stamp Act. On the same day this was done, however, Parliament also passed the Declaratory Act, which asserted that the king and Parliament had the right to legislate for the American colonies “in all cases whatsoever.” Bostonians chose to ignore the quiet threat in those words: they simply rejoiced over the Stamp Act’s repeal.
THE DECLATORY ACTS
Given that the Stamp Act had failed, could England and America go back to previous relations?
They should have done so. Mutual self-interest was involved. Much of England’s trade derived from the colonies. But in 1767, Charles Townshend (sometimes called “Champagne Charlie”) persuaded George III to create a new set of taxes for the colonies. Known as the Townshend Acts, these regulations imposed taxes on paper, paint, glass, lead, and tea.
None of these taxes were terrible on their own: it was the combination of five that infuriated many colonists. The tax on painter’s colors and the one on glass caused the most hardship, but the tax on tea created the most dissatisfaction. The American colonists were, by 1767, primarily a nation of tea drinkers.
How much was the tax on tea?
It was three pence per pound of tea, and this was enough to discourage quite a few Bostonians from purchasing the bundles of leaves that produced the wholesome beverage. Bostonians were again in the forefront, but other towns and colonists followed in establishing a policy of non-importation