Show
The Stamp Act of 1765 was ratified by the British parliament under King George III. It imposed a tax on all papers and official documents in the American colonies, though not in England. King George III imposed a tax on official documents in American coloniesIncluded under the act were bonds, licenses, certificates, and other official documents as well as more mundane items such as plain parchment and playing cards. Parliament reasoned that the American colonies needed to offset the sums necessary for their maintenance. It intended to use the additional tax money to pay for war expenses incurred in Great Britain’s struggles with France and Spain. Many American colonists refused to pay Stamp Act taxThe American colonists were angered by the Stamp Act and quickly acted to oppose it. Because of the colonies’ sheer distance from London, the epicenter of British politics, a direct appeal to Parliament was almost impossible. Instead, the colonists made clear their opposition by simply refusing to pay the tax. Prominent individuals such as Benjamin Franklin and members of the independence-minded group known as the Sons of Liberty argued that the British parliament did not have the authority to impose an internal tax. Public protest flared and the ensuing violence attracted broad attention. Tax commissioners were threatened and quit their jobs out of fear; others simply did not succeed in collecting any money. As Franklin wrote in 1766, the “Stamp Act would have to be imposed by force.” Unable to do so, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act just one year later, on March 18, 1766. American separatist movement grew during protest of Stamp ActThe colonists may well have accepted the stamp tax had it been imposed by their own representatives and with their consent. However, the colonists’ emerging sense of independence — nurtured by the mother country and justified by their multiple interactions with other trading nations — heightened the colonists’ sense of indignation and feelings of injustice. Even had they submitted to it, there is little doubt that many would have been troubled by the negative impact of a tax on the free press. Scholars contend that the American separatist movement gained a great deal of influence as a result of its success in protesting the Stamp Act. Stamp Act aftermath influenced constitutional safeguards, First AmendmentThe act and the violence that erupted with its passage remained fresh in the young country’s memory. The crafters of the Constitution were careful to include safeguards against usurpations of freedom and the violence such acts could breed. Article 5 provides for a constitutional amending process, allowing for changes in the laws without resort to violent revolution. The First Amendment secures freedom of speech, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to petition government. It also protects the freedom of the press. This article was originally written in 2009. Stefanie Kunze has a PhD in Political Science and is a Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at Northern Arizona University. Dr. Kunze specializes in perpetrators of ethnocide, and more specifically Native American experiences with settler colonialism. Send Feedback on this articlePage 2
Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) stands as the first U.S. Supreme Court case to expound upon the concept of academic freedom though some earlier cases mention it. Most constitutional academic freedom issues today revolve around professors’ speech, students’ speech, faculty’s relations to government speech, and using affirmative action in student admissions. Although academic freedom is regularly invoked as a constitutional right under the First Amendment, the Court has never specifically enumerated it as one, and judicial opinions have not developed a consistent interpretation of constitutional academic freedom or pronounced a consistent framework to analyze such claims.
England’s Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) and its counterpart waged in America, the French and Indian War (1754–1763), doubled Britain’s national debt. In order to recoup some of the losses Britain incurred defending its American colonies, Parliament decided for the first time to tax the colonists directly. One such tax, the 1765 Stamp Act required all printed documents used or created in the colonies to bear an embossed revenue stamp. Stamp Act violations were to be tried in vice-admiralty courts because such courts operated without a jury. Colonial assemblies denounced the law, claiming the tax was illegal on the grounds that they had no representation in Parliament. Colonists were likewise furious at being denied the right to a trial by jury. Many viewed the tax as an infringement of the rights of Englishmen, which contemporary opinion held to be enshrined in Magna Carta. Protests throughout the colonies threatened tax collectors with violence. Parliament finally bowed to pressure and repealed the Stamp Act in March 1766, but the colonial reaction set the stage for the American independence movement.
The Stamp Act of 1765, which Parliament imposed on the American colonies, placed a tax on paper, legal documents, and other commodities; limited trial by jury; and extended the jurisdiction of the vice-admiralty courts. The act generated intense, widespread opposition in America with its critics labeling it “taxation without representation” and a step toward “despotism.” At the suggestion of the Massachusetts Assembly, delegates from nine of the thirteen American colonies met in New York in October 1765. Six delegates, including Williams Samuel Johnson (1727–1819) from Connecticut, agreed to draft a petition to the king based on this Declaration of Rights.
Enlarge William Samuel Johnson (1727–1819). “Declaration of Rights and Grievances,” October 19, 1765. Page 2. William Samuel Johnson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (025) Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html#obj025
In the fall of 1765, American colonists convened a Stamp Act Congress in New York and called for a boycott of British imports. The congress was attended by twenty-seven delegates from nine states, whose mandate was to petition the king and Parliament for repeal of the tax without deepening the crisis. The congress emphasized the point that the colonists possessed all the “inherent rights and privileges of Englishmen.” It adopted thirteen points, the third of which stated that “it is inseparably essential to the freedom of the people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes should be imposed on them but with their own consent, given personally or by their representatives.” Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html#obj026
John Dickinson (1732–1808), the influential Pennsylvania politician and author of Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer, was one of the leading figures at the Stamp Act Congress of 1765. Dickinson was a chief contributor to the Declaration of Rights and Grievances that the congress sent to King George III and Parliament to petition for the repeal of the Stamp Act. In this engraving of Dickinson, his right arm rests on Magna Carta. Coke’s Institutes, whose interpretation of Magna Carta inspired American legal and political thought in the eighteenth century, can be seen on the bookshelf behind him. Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html#obj028
This 1766 cartoon depicts a mock funeral procession along the Thames River in London for the American Stamp Act. The act, which encountered intense opposition in America, was believed by many Americans to violate central rights that were guaranteed to all Englishmen. Following widespread public protests, colonial leaders channeled popular opposition to the tax by way of petitions to the king and Parliament. Bowing to the pressure, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766. In this cartoon, a funeral procession to the tomb of the Stamp Act includes its principal proponent, Treasury Secretary George Grenville, carrying a child’s coffin, marked “Miss Ame-Stamp born 1765, died 1766.” Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html#obj029 Back to top
In 1765, the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which placed a tax on newspapers, almanacs, cards, legal documents, and other paper documents. Although this was not the first tax that Parliament had put on the American colonists, it was the first tax to affect everyone, not just merchants or other special groups of people. As a result, many people in the colonies were angry. They believed that it was unfair to have Parliament make the Americans pay taxes when they had no say in the decision. Most colonial governments were headed by governors appointed by Britain, rather than people elected by Americans. Many felt that they should not be taxed unless they had a representative in Parliament. Most members of Parliament were convinced that Britain ought to be able to collect taxes from the colonists. Thus, they did not bother with the colonists complaints. This made the American protesters even angrier. Groups like the Sons of Liberty started to organize demonstrations against unfair British policies. People like Patrick Henry in Virginia and Samuel Adams in Massachusetts spoke out against British taxes. The Americans who didn't like Britain's taxes started using this slogan: "no taxation without representation." In 1765, delegates from nine out of the thirteen colonies met in New York City at the Stamp Act Congress. On October 19, 1765, they signed a resolution which stated that it was their right to have "no taxes imposed on them ... [except] with their own consent, given personally or by their representatives." In reply to all the colonial demonstrations, the British Parliament got rid of the Stamp Act, but passed a law called the Declaratory Act, which stated that Parliament had "full power and authority to make laws and statutes ... in all cases whatsoever," including taxation. The argument over this issue was one of the major causes of the Revolutionary War. . |